United Federation of Teachers, Local 2

UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,, LOCAL 2 355 United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO and Charles Loiacono and Teachers Representative Union. Cases 2-CA-11944 and 2-CA-11944-2 September 27, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY the Charging Individual on December 5 and by the Charging Union on December 9, 1969. The issue is whether Respondent, in threatening to discharge the Charging Individual, who is a field representative, if he organized or attempted to organize district representatives, had thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel and Respondent presented oral argument and have filed briefs, which have been duly considered. On the entire record, and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT On June 10, 1971, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint in Cases 2-CA-11944 and 11944-2 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 1 Member Jenkins does not adopt the Trial Examiner's gratuitous comments with respect to arbitration TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. NORMAN SOMERS, Trial Examiner: This case was tried before me in New York City on January 25, 1971, on a consolidated complaint (hereafter the complaint) issued by the General Counsel on June 8, 1970, on a charge filed by I Office Employees International Union, Local No 11 v N.L R B, 353 U S 313 1. COMMERCE JURISDICTION; THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, United Teachers Federation , Local 2, etc. (hereafter sometimes UFT) is an unincorporated associa- tion located in New York City, where it is engaged in representing the teachers in the city's school system concerned with their wages and conditions of employment in the system. Though a labor organization on behalf of the teachers, UFT is itself an employer under Section 2(2) of the Act in respect to its own staff employees.' During the past representative year, UFT has remitted to American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, in Washington, D.C., which is the national federation, dues and initiation fees in excess of $500,000. UFT is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Charging Union, Teachers Representatives Union (hereafter sometimes TRU) represents staff employees of UFT in dealing with UFT concerning the terms and conditions of their employment with UFT. As is not disputed, TRU is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Synoptic Statement and Issue The "cast of characters," to use UFT counsel's term, consists of Albert Shanker, president of UFT and Charles Loiacono, then president of TRU. UFT has had a number of successive contracts with TRU, the one during events here involved being the fourth and having a starting date of July 1, 1968. The bargaining unit (art. II) consists of all "full-time non-supervisory, non-officer, non-elected staff employees of UFT." Among them are the field representa- tives. When Loiacono, a field representative, was elected president of TRU, he informed Shanker he had invited UFT's district representatives, who are not organized, to a meeting to "explore the possibility" of organizing them. Shanker warned Loiacono that if he tried to organize the district representatives, he would be discharged from his employment with UFT for transgressing the restriction in article VIII of the contract against "engag[ing] in UFT political activity." 3 The post of district representative is an elected one. Loiacono remonstrated that for field represent- 2 Cf. Retail Clerks International Assn., AFL-CIO, 153 NLRB 204, 206 3 Art VIII of the contract reads- (Continued) 193 NLRB No. 52 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD atives to organize district representatives is not to engage in UFT political activity, since field representatives would not thereby be electioneering or holding or running for office. Shanker responded that for staff employees to organize those in elected posts was political activity because it would thrust them into the "infighting" of UFT politics and thus undermine the purpose of article VIII, which is to insure a continuity of staff within the organization that is divorced from political involvements and not dependent on the outcome of an election for retention of their jobs The General Counsel stresses that the point of reference here is the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, which he claims were not barred by the restrictions expressed in article VIII of the contract. B The Facts 1. The field representatives and their functions UFT has for many years employed field representatives. At the time here involved (which is during the existence of the contract of July 1, 1968), it had about 15 of them. Their duties are to organize (i.e., recruit and sign up) members in UFT consisting of teachers and others connected in the school system, to argue grievances on appeal at the "second" step (with the district superintendents) and the "third" step (with the City's superintendent), "handle new ratings" (sic), make speeches in espousal of UFT's position to such members of the public as community and political groups; write articles on behalf of UFT for newspapers and engage in daily correspondence on behalf of UFT; and when not out in the field, answer members' telephone inquiries about the collective-bargaining contract of the UFT with the city's school system. 2. The creation of the district representatives and their role in the UFT elected hierarchy In June 1968 (not long before the contract with TRU here involved), the administrative committee of UFT (composed of the 11 elected officers of UFT headed by the president) passed a resolution setting up the elected post of district representative. (This was apparently an administrative step, since, as it not disputed, that post is not in the UFT constitution.) There are 31 school districts in the city, comprised of about 30 schools in each district. Each chapter chairman, or shop steward, is elected by the members of his school or "chapter," and the chapter chairmen of each district elect their district representative.4 Loiacono in his testimony asserted that though the chapter chairmen and the district representatives are elected, their function, like that of field representatives, is to service the members. He indeed bracketed field representa- tives with the chapter chairmen and district representatives as constituting the three in the UFT echelon whose function is that of servicing members. In that respect, he RESTRICTIONS ON UFT POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Employees in the bargaining unit will not engage in UFT political activity, including but not limited to electioneering or running for or holding office 4 A few chapters are not geographic but "functional " One is composed of the 3,000 secretaries in the city These few functional chapters too elect a chairman There is no indication of which districts are embraced by these differentiated the chapter chairmen and district representa- tives, though elected, and the field representatives, though nonelected, from the three levels of the UFT hierarchy who undisputedly are the policymakers for UFT as a whole. The three at the top level, whose policymaking functions are not in dispute, are. a. The administrative committee (or Ad Comm) The Ad Comm, as stated, is composed of the 11 elected officers of UFT, of which the UFT president is chairman. It initiates UFT policy ("recommends" it, is Shanker's term), which is passed upon at the next two successive levels, i.e., (b) and (c) below. The officers comprising the Ad Comm are elected by the membership at large, except the four vice presidents, who are elected divisionally (i.e., elementary school, junior high school , and the two senior high schools, one academic, the other vocational).5 b. The executive board That is a 30-member body. (Loiacono had given the figure at 51, Shanker at 30, without rebuttal, or apparent concern over whether it makes any difference.) They are elected, some at large, some divisionally (the last being along the same lines as the vice presidencies, see supra, fn. 5) They meet twice monthly, where, as stated, they pass upon what the Ad Comm has initiated or "recommended." They receive no pay from UFT. c. The delegate assembly The delegate assembly has the last word on UFT policy. The delegates are elected proportionately among the members in each school. (The ratio is one delegate for every 60 members in the school plus any fraction of 60, and every school has at least one delegate even if its membership be less than 60.) The assembly meets at least once a month during the regular school year. Like the executive board, the delegates are unpaid. 3. The duties of those at the fourth and fifth level of the elected hierarchies (i.e., chapter chairmen and district representatives, respectively), and their comparison with those of field representatives A chapter chairman is the shop steward of his school or chapter, and he is elected by the members of his chapter. He recruits membership in UFT among the teachers in his school, runs membership meetings at the school level, handles grievances at the first step (i.e., at the school level), and attends meetings of the chapter chairmen with the officers of UFT, where they interchange information, concerning, respectively, the feelings of the members on the one hand and how the elected leadership is doing, on the other. Chapter chairmen are unpaid. chapters Nor does it matter S Those at full time are the president and three other officers (viz, the vice president for elementary schools and the legislative representative and associate legislative representative) The remainder (i.e , the secretary and assistant secretary, the treasurer and assistant treasurer , and the other three vice presidents) are on part time All are paid by UFT ( at rates equivalent to what they would normally be receiving in the school system) UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 2 357 A district representative, after being elected, continues to teach, and his classes are arranged to enable him to leave at 11 a.m. He devotes the rest of the day, until 6 or 7 p.m., to his duties with UFT, and for this he receives from UFT $3,000 a year above his salary from the school system. Loiacono testified that district representatives do what field representatives have done in the past, and as example cited their handling grievances at the second step (for which they were indeed trained by the field representatives). Shanker admitted there was considerable overlapping in respect to what field and district representatives do. However, Shanker stressed that district representatives and their constituents (i.e., the chapter chairmen who elected them and who, as stated, are themselves elected), are "policymakers" within their respective bailiwicks because they are the political "chiefs" of their areas. This role, Shanker testified, has loomed larger in importance as a result of the decentralization which the city school system has been undergoing in the last few years-a matter to be later treated. Also, district representatives, as elected officials, serve no more than the term for which they are elected. And no less. If a district representative does not perform his assignments, then (as in the case of the elected officers at the "first" level, who are compensated (supra, fn. 5)), UFT can at most cut off his pay but cannot dislodge him from his post. He stays on for the remainder of his elected term unless recalled by his constituents. On the other hand, field representatives, as employees in the fullest sense, can be discharged by UFT. However, under the contract with TRU, they, like the others in the bargaining unit, are given tenure, which elected functionaries are not (and, as Shanker stressed in his testimony, should not, in a democratic organization, where the membership must be able periodically to oust the elected officers in favor of persons more to their liking). Thus, these staff employees, whose tenure does not depend on the outcome of any election, are, under the contract with TRU, immune from discharge except for "just cause" (art. VI) and as to this, they enjoy the due process protections of a grievance- arbitration procedure (art. XIV). 4. The confrontation between Shanker and Loiacono a. Background and events preceding Loiacono's becoming president of TRU Loiacono, a licensed teacher and a member of UFT, was appointed field representative in 1966, a full-time fob, as earlier stated. In December 1967, during the session of the state legislature in Albany, Loiacono was detailed to a special assignment as assistant legislative representative (an appointive post not to be confused with the previously mentioned elected offices of legislative and associate legislative representative, that are constituent parts of Ad Comm itself. See supra, In. 5). After nearly 2 years in that assignment, Loiacono, on about October 6, 1969, was told by Shanker he was being dropped from his legislative assignment and returned to his job of field representative. Loiacono then told Shanker he would run for president of TRU, and when elected he would organize the district representatives. The onset to this last was told us by Loiacono. He described his performance during his legislative assignment fulsomely and by no means self-deprecatingly. He told of how, under this assignment, he acted as lobbyist for UFT during the two successive annual sessions of the state legislature, made public addresses in various cities in the state, and chaired a speakers' committee, where he trained the speakers and arranged the meetings for their speeches. He also told of his banner achievement in drafting important legislation with which UFT had entrusted him. In the fall of 1968, UFT had conducted a teachers' strike that lasted 35 days. After it was settled, UFT, as Loiacono testified, realized that it had found itself with its public relations down because it had not come forward with a decentralization plan for the city's school system, in which the state legislature was interested. Loiacono told how the Ad Comm had beaten the bushes for a suitable person to draft a "viable" decentralization plan and finally found it in him. It was a thorny assignment, but after arduous labor, in which he reconciled opposing approaches, he smoothed out a bill which, he testified, delighted the Ad Comm and which it submitted to the legislature as the UFT bill. (It did not pass, but neither did the other decentralization bills-either Mayor Lindsay's or that of the Board of Regents.) He also worked on amendments to the Taylor Act (restricting strikes by public employees). He was at Shanker's side in discussions with the governor and key members of the state legislature. Loiacono testified he had understood, indeed Shanker had told him, he was being groomed to succeed Mrs. Alice Marsh as legislative representative when she, as was then expected, would retire. When informed that he was being dropped from that assignment, he reminded Shanker that he had been prevailed upon to accept that assignment with that inducement. (Shanker said he was now merely deferring to the wishes of Mrs. Marsh, who wanted another assistant.) Loiacono testified he thereupon told Shanker this left him ,.in a very strange position," where unless he resigned from membership in UFT, which he "was not about to do," his only other "options" meant "crossing swords" with Shanker. The first was to run as legislative representative, which was not to take place until the following spring. The second was to "yield to the pressure of my colleagues" to run as president of TRU (where the election was to take place the following week). Loiacono explained to Shanker he had until then resisted the pressure to accept the presidency of TRU because he knew that if he should run for the office of legislative representative, while he was also president of TRU, there would be a "conflict of interest" and also an embarrassment in becoming a candidate for office "on the Shanker ticket." Loiacono testified he then told Shanker: But if I am no longer assistant legislative representative that conflict will no longer exist and if I run for president of the Teachers' Representatives Union and win, one of the first things we will do will be to organize the district representatives. Loiacono, as he testified, further told Shanker: It's something we have been speaking about for a long time, the motion had been passed by the T.R.U. to organize the district representatives and . . . since you 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have voiced opposition to that, that means we will cross swords, and I can't understand why you have put me in this position where regardless of what options I choose, you and I will cross swords. Loiacono testified that Shanker at that time said this last need not happen and proposed to Loiacono that he organize the teachers in Newark, New Jersey. (Field representatives are on occasion loaned out to the national federation.) Loiacono testified he agreed to it. However, nothing further in the record appears concerning it, so it may be assumed nothing came of it. Shanker testified that it was at that time that he told Loiacono that if he organized the district representatives he would discharge him for acting in breach of article VIII, and he did so after Loiacono had said to him: I'm going to run for president of T.R.U. I'm going to run against Alice Marsh for legislative representative, and I'm going to organize the district representatives. Shanker testified that it was at this last "I 'm going to" that he warned Loiacono that he would thereby be violating article VIII of the contract. The two versions concerning how Loiacono responded when he was dropped from his assignment are hardly dissimilar, but to the extent that it calls for resolution, the probabilities would indicate, and I find, that Loiacono responded in the emotional terms ascribed to him by Shanker. However, crediting Loiacono, I find that Shanker did not then make the threat and instead made the proposal to Loiacono about organizing in Newark, presumably to placate him and possibly have him reconsider his swordcrossing options. b. Loiacono's overtures to the district representatives, and Shanker's warning he would be discharged if he sought to organize them Loiacono was elected president of TRU on October 15, 1969. He testified he immediately wrote all the district representatives inviting them to a meeting to be held on October 20 with the field representatives "at which we were to explore the possibility of organizing for district representatives." The meeting was to be held at the UFT's executive board room, where TRU customarily held its meetings . Loiacono testified, however, that in view of Shanker's feelings about organizing district representatives, he realized that an arrangement for a meeting for that purpose at UFT quarters "might have been an indiscre- tion," and so at the end of a discussion with Shanker (on another TRU subject) the following happened: I said, "By the way, Al, I have called a meeting of the distnct representatives and we're planning to organize them"; and I was about to say , "Would it be all right if we use the executive board room" but, I never got it out of my mouth. He said "If you do, I'll fire you and anyone else who comes to the meeting." I responded, "Fire me? Why?" He said, "Because the district representatives can't have it both ways, and besides, you'll be violating your non-political clause." I said, "Come on, Al, what does the non-political clause have to do with organizing distnct representa- tives? The non-political clause says none of the field representatives can run for office, nor can they solicit candidates nor can they electioneer. What does that have to do with my thinking as president of the staff union?" At that point he said, "I'll tell you what, Charley, I feel more strongly about this, than I do about Ocean Hill, Brownsville, and if you get yourself out on a limb, I'll have no mercy. I will isolate anyone who comes to the meeting or any distnct representative who comes to the meeting." Shanker testified he did not "specifically" remember Loiacono's mentioning a proposed meeting with the distnct representatives but he did recall that Loiacono, on being told he was dropped from his legislative assignment, responded in the manner corresponding to Shanker's credited description. On the other hand, I have credited Loiacono's testimony that at that earlier stage, Shanker avoided a confrontation on the issue of organizing district representatives by proposing he organize in Newark, which never materialized. I find that the warning from Shanker came after Loiacono told him of his intended meeting with the district representatives , and was substantially as Loiacono described it, except that Shanker, as he testified, told Loiacono that by organizing the distnct representa- tives, he "would essentially be involving himself in the politics of the organization by trying to unionize people who are elected officials at a particular level of the organization." Though the legality of a threat does not ordinarily turn on its actual effects, the General Counsel himself developed through Loiacono what happened thereafter. This was received because the parties themselves thought all the "nuances" of the case had significance, and, as stated, I felt I was "entering a foreign jurisdiction" anyway. Immediately after the interchange, which was at 5 p.m., Loiacono, as he testified, called a special meeting among those staff employees who had not yet left for home and told them of Shanker's threat. He testified they were incensed and were with him to a man in suggesting he hold that meeting even if a hotel room had to be rented for it. He testified that the next morning he met with all the other staff people, and they too were "adamant" and with him to a man. Except the men on the publication staff. They did not share the enchantment with organizing the district representatives, and asked for a meeting of the staff employees to be given an opportunity to "voice [their] dissent," which Loiacono granted. As to the outcome, Loiacono testified: At the meeting we discussed the efficacy of organizing district representatives and to my dismay and the dismay of many of the members, T.R.U. voted down that motion and voted not to organize district representatives. Loiacono, as of the time of the hearing, was no longer field representative and had apparently left of his own accord. One gathers, tangentially from Shanker's testimony in another context, that Loiacono, as of the time of the hearing before us, was now heading a "political party" of his own in opposition to Shanker's for the forthcoming UFT election. Presumably, that has UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 2 359 already taken place. As to what came of it all, that I cannot say. C. Discussion and Analysis 1. Opposing positions The General Counsel follows a straight line leading him to the untroubled conclusion that Shanker's threat to Loiacono was an invasion of rights of employees under Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Acts On the premise that district representatives, though elected by members of Respondent, are employees within the meaning of the Act and thus have the right under Section 7 themselves to organize, he states that field representatives under the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 have the right to organize the district representatives, thereby rendering illegal Shanker's threat to Loiacono. The General Counsel states Respondent "practically admits" that the district representatives have themselves the right to organize. This statement needs qualifying. It stems from Shanker's response, during his testimony, to whether he regarded district representatives as having the right to organize. He replied that the question was never put to him, and not being a lawyer, he would have to consult counsel, but that even if district representatives had that right, field representatives, under their agreement in article VIII that they would not "engage in UFT political activity," could not organize them, since it would involve them in political "infighting." Respondent, indeed, frames the issue of the legal effect of Shanker's warning on the basis of article VIII. The brief states: This question is not whether or not district representa- tives have the right to organize. As Mr. Shanker testified, that question was never put to him. The sole question for the trial examiner to resolve is whether or not an attempt by TRU to organize political employees of the UFT constituted a violation of Article VIII of their collective-bargaining agreement. If it does, then the warning to Mr. Loiacono was proper under the terms of the Agreement. The General Counsel finds article VIII to be no deterrent to the conclusion that the threat was a violation. He states Respondent "confuses the political activity of the district representatives with the union activity of the field representatives, the latter being a right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act." He continues: Even though district representatives may be political employees, they are nevertheless employees who may organize; and it does not follow that an agreement not to engage in political activity removes the protection of 6 Sec 7 states. Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 7 The General Counsel in anticipation of an argument that district representatives are "managerial employees"-which Respondent has not specifically made-cites Retail Store Employees Union, Local 880, 153 NLRB 225, on the proposition that the duties of district representatives, in this setup involving a public educational system, are, in a sense, like business agents and organizers in labor organizations dealing with industry. He additionally cites Retail Store Employees Union Local 428, 163 NLRB the Act from field representatives who engage in union activity. The political activity engaged in by district representatives does not rub off on field representatives merely by the latter's attempt to organize the former. It does not follow that when a union contracts not to engage in political activity that it does so when it attempts to organize a political group of employees. So long as they are susceptible of organization and fall within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, the organization effort by an established group of employ- ees is a protected activity regardless of a contractual obligation not to engage in political activity, and any attempt to thwart the organizational activity is violative of the Act. 2. The peculiarities of the case eluding a conventional approach The above is stated as a self-evident proposition without documentation, or need for it, once we accept the premise that district representatives, though elected for a term under a political process, have the right themselves to organize. The elusive aspect here is that however the clinical aspects of liability may check out in the convention- al sense, this is a most unconventional situation, which eludes diagnosis or even our area of therapy-at least with the species of mammal handed to us. The circumstances here transcend the question of what the rights of the district representatives are and what the rights of field representatives are in the light of it. This is because the situation taken as a whole is basically a power struggle between two personalities, in which the Charging Individual was implementing his feud with Respondent's president in reprisal for his replacement as assistant legislative representative and his elimination as a prospec- tive candidate for high office "on the Shanker ticket." A definitive answer to whether district representatives themselves have the right to organize need not here be made, and in any event would involve more than what the General Counsel has assumed as his premise without more. They are indeed a unique creation, for which specific precedent is not cited and for which I have not found a helpful prototype.7 The elected post of district representative was created at about the time the city's school system was being decentralized. Under decentralization, most of the power of the central body has "spun off" to the respective community boards in each of the 31 school districts in the city. These boards appoint their own superintendent and employ their own supervisors (from qualifying instead of competitive lists). Shanker explained that the UFT is being 431, fn. 4, in treating the fact, later discussed , that a third to a half of the district representatives are members of the UFT's executive board (They are elected for that office separately from their posts as district representatives ) He states that those who are on the UFT executive board are probably managerial employees, who would thus not be included in a bargaining unit, as in the Local 428 case . He indicates, however, that this is a separate matter to be decided when and if there should be a representation case concerned with that issue. He adds that in any event being a managerial employee and thus not eligible for inclusion in a bargaining unit is, under the Board 's recent holding in North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, 185 NLRB No 83, not the test of whether such a person is an employee under Sec. 2(3) within the protection of Sec. 7. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD restructured in order "to deal with the new centers of power on the managerial side," and the district representatives are in a sense counterparts of the community superintendents. The district representatives now carry the main burden of the handling of grievances at the second step (i.e., at the district level). They also meet regularly with the shop stewards in their district, deal with the community school boards, and with the community superintendent, make recommendations on who should be supported for office. In regard to the latter, they actually conclude these recommendations in respect to persons who fall within their district. He characterized the district representative and the chapter chairmen in his district as being in this sense a "kind of executive board or policymaking function group for that district." This last is not actually incorporated into the constitution (which is not in the record). However, though a district representative's post may not as such be a policymakmg one, the intermeshing of their work with policymakmg is exemplified by the extent to which such a large proportion of them (a third to a half) have also been elected to UFT executive board and thus occupy both positions. This bears upon the situation in which the Charging Individual had thrust himself in his political reprisal efforts against the UFT president. Shanker explained article VIII as the accommodation between two needed considerations in a democratic organization, which on occasion are in collision with each other. At one end is the need to give the members the opportunity for a periodic reevaluation of those they have voted into power, by either deciding to continue them in their stewardship or oust them in favor of those whom they might now prefer instead . In that situation, it is the electorate that is boss, and the elected persons do not retain power or continue in their stipend beyond their elected terms-as indeed they should not. At the other end is the need for the continuity of the organization's servicing functions . Those are performed by a permanent staff, hired on the basis of meeting profession- al qualifications, and who, after a year's probation in which they have demonstrated their qualifications for the job, have a tenure under which, as previously stated, they are immune from discharge except for "just cause" (art. VI), and as to this have the due process protection of a grievance-arbitration procedure (art. XIV). Shanker ex- plained that the concept of tenure for these persons, and specifically field representatives , was developed even before the earliest of the collective-bargaining contracts with the labor organization (presently the TRU), which represents them. They are, as Shanker described them, a sort of "civil service" within the organization-a concept hardly unfa- miliar to these persons , who are licensed teachers in a public educational system . To insure objectivity in the performance of the organization's servicing functions, and to put them in a position to perform without fear of reprisals either by those in power when reelected or by those who have been newly elected, it is necessary that they not embroil themselves in the partisan politics of the organization. Shanker testified that in exchange for the tenure thus accorded them under the contract, these persons also submitted to the restrictions under article VIII. To be sure, the examples specifically cited in article VIII are those to which Loiacono alluded in his confrontation with Shanker-"electioneering, or holding or running for office." But article VIII states that the political activity thus forbidden includes but is not "limited" to the examples specified. Political activity can exist when two factions are in dispute over policy and one group openly allies itself with either of the competing protagonists . In this instance, the district representatives as elected functionaries, whose responsibilities are to their constituents, are indeed the political heads of their districts. As Shanker explained it, it is these persons that the contestants for high office seek to enlist for their support in a forthcoming campaign. It is in that connection that he cited the previously mentioned reference to Loiacono, who, as stated, has since given up his job as field representative, and at the time of the hearing, was the head of a "political party" in opposition to Shanker's in the then pending election . Each of them now comes to these district representatives, as political heads of their respective districts, in an effort to enlist their support and use their influence over those members in their school district. Organizing in a labor relations context, to be sure, is a grouping of employees to cope with the employer concerning the terms and conditions of the job, and in that sense is to be differentiated from political activity. While this is true in the generality of situations , organizing a political group, at least in the context in which Loiacono himself avowed he was undertaking it, could itself become a subject for polemics not at the bargaining table but at the stump. So, whatever might be said in other situations about whether district representatives, though elected by a constituency of the membership for a term , are nevertheless employees under the Act, and thereby entitled themselves to organize, or whether by that token field representatives, as conceded employees , can organize them, we would be dealing in sheerest abstractions to decide the issues in a context in which the basic elements needed for determining them have been obscured by the kind of conflict from which the subject stemmed. There is not a word in this record concerning any terms or conditions Loiacono had in mind, or anyone else did, when he spoke about organizing district representatives-either for them or for his fellow field representatives. All we know are his own words-that Shanker had frustrated him in his aspiration to be "on the Shanker ticket," and that he was accepting the presidency of TRU to give the shaft to Shanker politically. This is hardly a basis on which we should undertake to resolve the kind of issues presented to us, where the only reality is the death dealing combat over political favor. We should at least have a more substantial basis on which to resolve the elements on which the General Counsel builds his case for the violation here claimed-more particularly in an area concerned with a public educational system , where we find ourselves grouping for analogies in industrial life that are somewhat elusive in the present situation. And this brings us to the following: D. Conclusion The context of the case as a whole prevents a definitive resolution of the basic elements on which the violation here UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 2 361 alleged is asserted, for they are totally overshadowed by the elements of the political feud out of which the case arose. This is not to say that the determination of whether a right has been violated depends on the altruism or selfishness of a person exercising it. It is simply a question of balance. On the fundamental issues, we are presented with an abstract mathematical theorem without the grip of reality providing a definitive answer . Thus the question of whether district representatives in the circumstances here presented have the right to organize , despite the political involvements of their posts , and the question of whether even if that were so, the field representatives may organize them in the face of the restrictions to which they submitted under Article VIII could well await another day, genuinely presenting these issues. Concerning this last, the grievance-arbitration clause (art. XIV) renders arbitrable "[a]ny dispute or grievance relating to this agreement or its interpretation ." This, at least, provides a forum , if anyone feels genuinely aggrieved, for passing upon the intent of the parties in respect to the scope or limits of the restrictions placed on article VIII. To be sure, the Board , since Cloverleaf Division of Adams Dairy, 147 NLRB 1410, has indicated that it will not, as a matter of policy, defer to arbitration, unless an award has been rendered or is pending, and which, if decided, will put the issue at rest. Whatever might be said for this last in the ordinary situation, the arbitrator' s special insights in the "industry" here involved 8 could well be the more appropriate answer in these particular circumstances. But whether this last is so or not, the conclusion in this case is that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to exalt what was basically a political feud to the stature of a genuine labor relations problem. The situation is sui generis and the disposition is a pragmatic one confined to its own individual circum- stances. RECOMMENDED ORDER Accordingly, on the basis of all the foregoing, I hereby recommend that the complaint be dismissed. 8 Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Navigation, 363 U.S 574, Steelworkers v Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp, 363 U.S 593