Teamsters, Local 525

572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliat- ed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca (American Colloid Company)and John Daley, James F. Owens , William E. Barnes, and Lester Johnson . Case 14-CB-2467 (1-4) Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order and reletter the existing subparagraph 1(c) as 1(d): "(c) Refusing to represent members or otherwise discriminating against them because they have filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis- trative Law Judge's notice. March 20, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On September 21, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions, and Respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and the brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3 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 Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers, Local Union No. 525, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Add the following as subparagraph 1(c) of the ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 In reaching our conclusion herein, we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's gratuitous statement in fn. 2 of his Decision that Business Agent McDuffy's statements suggest "a sort of 'sweetheart' collective- APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause American Colloid Company to discriminate against John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to represent members or otherwise discriminate against them because they have filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL notify the aforenamed individuals and American Colloid Company, in writing, that we withdraw our objection to the employment of the aforementioned individuals and request their reinstatement with restoration of full seniority and other rights and privileges of each as they existed on May 4, 1972, the date of the discrimi- nation against them. WE WILL make John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard, and each of them, whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against him with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. bargaining agreement," or for that matter the other similar characterizations that appear in the Decision. 1 3 The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bxlXA) of the Act in threatening to and withdrawing aid and support from employee-members who had filed charges with the Board. We agree, however, with the General Counsel's exception to the Adminis- trative Law Judge's Decision requesting that a specific and adequate remedy for the Respondent's violation of Sec . 8(b)(1)(A) be added. Accordingly, we have included the above modifications in our Order. 202 NLRB No. 89 TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 525 573 CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL 525, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (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, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges duly filed on May 4, 1972, by John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, and Lester Johnson, individually, herein referred to by name or as the Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated June 23, 1972, against Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, herein referred to as the Respondent or Local 525. The complaint herein alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on July 20, 1972, before me. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence materi- al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument was waived. A brief was received from General Counsel on August 17, 1972. No brief was received from Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF AMERICAN COLLOID COMPANY American Colloid Company is, and had been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware. At all times material herein, American Colloid Company has maintained its principal office and place of business at 5100 Suffield Court in the City of Skokie, State of Illinois, and maintains other facilities in the State of Illinois. American Colloid Company is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the processing and distribution of foundry sand and related products. The American Colloid Company facility located at Granite City, Illinois, is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the year ending December 31, 1971, which period is represent- ative of its operations during all times material herein, American Colloid Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations, processed and distributed at its Granite City, Illinois, facility, products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said facility directly to points located outside the State of Illinois. Accordingly, I find that American Colloid Company is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE RESPONDENT Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the American Colloid Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts At all times during the years 1970 and 1971, Local 525 and American Colloid Company were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which by its terms was to expire on March 1, 1972, covering an appropriate unit consisting of the Charging Parties here. This contract admittedly contained a legal union-security clause but no checkoff clause. Marshall McDuffy, Local 525 union business agent charged with the duty of servicing the aforementioned contract, described the origin of the contract as follows: THE WITNESS: We originally organized this Compa- ny and it had three employees. It was a plant set up for three employees. They processed sand. They ship it in from Arabia and different places, and were a little bit leery of the area as far as labor was concerned. We I This term specifically includes the attorney appeanng for the General Counsel at the hearing 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were interested in any management, any company coming into our area to work that we could get. We assured these people that we were fair and that we felt that they could find good working employees , and that we would do everything, and tell our members to do a honest day's work for a honest day's pay. This was our first contract, and we bent over backwards with this-the rate is a very low rate . I think the employees, I don't know how they could raise their families on what they are making. We attempted to work with these people every way that we could, and we put off and put off and put off, didn't want to knock these people off the job , because they were all good people, and during the course of this sand, there seemed to be a little different change in the plants that they supply, and they can only supply x amount, because that plant in the area could only use so much, they had no place, and that's one of the reasons that the market is low. They try to work into another commodity processing deal so that they could get more employees, and the employees working there, Lester (Johnson), and at that time Dave Greenhouse and some others, very good employees, done them a good job, and we were successful in getting more people on. So, in all, not only the Union, but the employees who worked there done everything that they possibly could to make it a good place to work and also try to get as much money as we possibly could get, and that's the reason that we hesitated all this time , because everybody was suspend- ed, and I'm sure that there is no one who would like to see a plant with no employees overnight, even though they are capable of sending it in from other plants, but this doesn't do our people here any good. That's my reason, or our reason. We discussed it many times, and I think that the employees have to agree that when their backs are to the wall that we helped them anyway that we possibly could as far as giving them a little more time and so on on the money . Originally the people paid up, and then after they go 2 years, and they make efforts in between this, and every time that we even talked to the Company down at the shop we took the steward or one of the employees, their grievances were processed throught the steward, and to his satisfaction, and the employees' satisfaction , so in an all-around thing we were just merely trying to keep these people on, and maybe we were wrong in doing it . Maybe the proper way to do it is to send that bump letter immediately instead of discussing it and giving them any leniency.2 It is undisputed, and indeed admitted, that during 1970 and 1971 all of the employees in the appropriate unit became delinquent in the payment of union dues. One reason for this, according to the testimony of the employees, was that the Union was providing little , if any, 2 This description volunteered by McDuffy would seem to suggest a sort of "sweetheart" collective-bargaining agreement. S McDuffy acknowledged receiving the message from Daley. McDuffy attempted to explain his failure on this occasion on the grounds: (1) that he knew Daley could not collect the dues because he was not "bonded" and (2) Daley had left no telephone number so that McDuffy could not return his call. However, McDuffy was able to reach Daley by phone, according to his service to the employees. McDuffy became difficult for the men to reach by telephone. Until April 1971, Respondent did little, if anything, about the admitted dues delinquencies. Sometime in April 1971, the Union did sent its steward, John Daley, and apparently the Company, a list of delinquent members together with the amount of the delinquency of each. About this same time, McDuffy suggested to Steward Daley that if on payday Daley would collect $16 from each member he, McDuffy, would come to the plant and pick up the dues payments so that the delinquencies could be paid. Pursuant to this suggestion, Daley did collect $16 (2 months' dues) from each of the members in the appropriate unit. Daley then telephoned union headquarters and asked for McDuffy. McDuffy was not there so Daley left a message that he had collected the dues and that McDuffy should come pick the money up. When McDuffy failed to appear, Daley repeated the call. McDuffy was not there. The telephone operator informed Daley that McDuffy had been given his message of a few days before. Thereafter, when McDuffy still failed to appear or return the call, Daley returned the payments to the employees some 4 or 5 days later. McDuffy never did appear. Thus ended the 1971 attempt to pay the delinquent dues.3 However about July4 1971 employee-member William E. Barnes received a visit at home from Plant Superintendent McMasters, who showed Barnes a list of the delinquent members which showed Barnes' own delinquency to amount to $68. McMasters then told Barnes, "If you want to keep your job, go out and get [the delinquency] paid. Just keep quiet and don't say nothing to nobody else. When they [the Union] kick them out, then I can hire who I want to." 5 Thereafter, recognizing his own self-interest, Barnes did promptly pay up his $68 delinquency to the Union and even mailed in dues payments for a couple of months. However, when nothing happened and the men in the unit continued to get no service from the Union, Barnes reverted to form and became delinquent in dues again. On January 10, 1972, according to McDuffy's testimony and notes, McDuffy telephoned Steward Daley and set up a meeting with all the unit employees for February 28 to discuss with them the changes and improvements they would want in the renewal contract for the agreement then scheduled to expire the next day, March 1, 1972. That meeting was held as scheduled on February 28 between McDuffy and the unit employees at union headquarters in Alton, Illinois. McDuffy met with the Company on March 1, when it was apparently agreed that whatever changes were agreed upon in the new contract would be retroactive to March 1, 1972.6 The next day, March 2, at another meeting at union headquarters in Alton, McDuffy reported to the employees on the progress of the negotiations and especially that it own testimony, on a subsequent occasion. 4 Barnes testified that he thought this occurred in July, but it might well be part of the April episode. 5 This also smacks of collaboration. 8 The record fails to disclose if McDuffy had a union committee with him at the negotiations. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 525 575 had been agreed that the new contract would be retroactive to March 1. At this meeting, as at the meeting of February 28, McDuffy reminded the members that they were all delinquent in their dues, that they should pay up this delinquency "right away" and that, after the contract was signed, he would make "arrangements" by which these delinquencies could be paid. On March 14, McDuffy next met with the unit employees at the plant. There still was no contract. But McDuffy again reiterated that the men were delinquent in dues, that they should pay up "immediately" and that, after the contract was signed, he would make "arrange- ments" for such payment. By March 22, when next McDuffy met with the men, they were becoming restive over the lack of a contract. About this time, McDuffy suggested that he would get a dues-deduction clause in the contract as that would make it easier for the men to pay their dues because when they did not get the money, they would not miss it so much. About this same time, the men suggested that, when the contract was signed, they would have some "retroactive backpay" coming which they could use to pay the delinquencies. Once again McDuffy reiterated the necessity for the men to pay their dues right away but once again stated that he would make "arrangements" for that when the contract was signed. Finally, on March 23, at another meeting at the plant with McDuffy, the men voted to strike because of their dissatisfaction over the lack of progress in the negotiations. McDuffy remarked that apparently the men preferred to walk than to work. The men inquired if they would receive strike benefits. McDuffy did not know but would find out. Again McDuffy reminded them of the necessity of paying up their dues and that arrangements would be made therefor. It was suggested by the men that their delinquen- cies could be paid out of their strike benefits. On Monday, March 26, the men all went out on strike with picket signs supplied them by McDuffy. At or about this time, McDuffy informed them that they would not be eligible for strike benefits because they were suspended for being delinquent in dues. McDuffy again reiterated the necessity for payment. On April 9, still no contract in prospect, the men voted to return to work. One man was recalled the next day and four on April 11. Steward Daley was recalled on April 21. At the April 9 meeting, McDuffy again reminded the men that they were behind in the dues "and just as soon as they got this new contract straightened out where we were going back to work, he [McDuffy] would make arrange- ments with us to get caught up on dues." Steward Daley told McDuffy that, "if he [McDuffy] would fill out a form giving somebody a specific time to catch up on their dues and bring it down and have each and every man sign it, and if they didn't do it they would be terminated and there wouldn't be no question asked about it." McDuffy answered that he would take care of that just as soon as he could get this new contract straightened out. However, the evidence shows that McDuffy did nothing further in regard to this suggestion. On April 21, the Company and McDuffy finally signed a renewal agreement. The contract is not in evidence so we cannot judge McDuffy's ability as an negotiator, but it was stipulated that this renewal agreement contained both the same legal union-security clause and a regular dues- checkoff clause. Very soon thereafter, a rumor reached the men that the Company was not going to pay them their retroactive backpay due. One of the men telephoned McDuffy and informed him of this rumor. McDuffy states that he would find out and report back to the men. The men heard nothing from McDuffy.7 Neither McDuffy nor the Union ever supplied the necessary dues-deduction authorization forms for use by the unit personnel. Nor after April 1971 was any employee in the unit ever notified by McDuffy or the Union of the amounts of employees' dues delinquencies. Nor was any notification of the date by which such deficiencies had to be paid ever made by McDuffy or Local 525. ' On May 4, 1972, the Company handed each of the unit employees the following letter dated the previous day: Mr. [Name] Granite City, Illinois Dear Mr. [Name] Attached you will find a copy of a letter from Local #525 of the Teamsters , Chauffeurs & Helpers Union of the I .B.T.W. exercising their right under the terms of the working agreement between the Union and American Colloid Company We have no choice but to comply with this request and regret to inform you that your employment is,hereby terminated with the Company effective May 4, 1972. Your final check is attached. Very truly yours, s/M.D. Brooks M.D. Brooks Director of Personnel Attached to the above letter , in addition to the final paycheck, was a copy of a letter on the letterhead of Local 525 -dated May 4, 1972, addressed to American Colloid Company reading as follows: American Colloid Company Dear Sir: Under the terms and provisions of the union security clause of the collective bargaining agreement presently in effect between your company and this labor organization, it is required that all employees falling within the scope of the collective bargaining unit maintain their union membership in good standing to the extent of the payment of the periodic dues of our union. I regret to inform you that [Name] has become delinquent in the payment of our periodic dues and has r However McDuffy testified that he checked the rumor and let the men know-although he could not recall how, when, or to whom. 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for that reason failed to maintain his union member- ship in good standing. Under those circumstances , and in accordance with the terms of the contract , we ask that you discharge Mr. [Name ] forthwith. effective way of limiting potential liability in cases such as this where there is conflicting evidence. This Local Union has maintained and still maintains that is (it) has committed no unfair labor practices against any of these employees . [Emphasis supplied.] Very truly yours Teamster, Local No. 525 William Doty SECRETARY- TREASURER AND BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE On May 4, after the terminations , the Charging Parties filed charges with the St . Louis Regional Office of the Board. Steward Daley telephoned McDuffy and told him of the fact that they had been terminated . McDuffy stated that he would try to see what could be done, but that he did not have any knowledge that the men had been terminated. A few days thereafter, Daley telephoned McDuffy and asked McDuffy if he had found out anything. McDuffy answered that he had received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board stating that the men had filed charges against him and that he "wasn 't going to do a damn thing" for the men and , as far as he was concerned, "we could all get screwed" and hung up the telephone after adding that if the men had not filed charges he "would get our jobs back for us, but since we did he wasn't going to." Employee Barnes also succeeded in getting in touch with McDuffy on the phone a day or two after the charges had been filed. In the conversation , McDuffy said, "I wasn't aware you guys was getting fired like that . . . well, I heard you guys went to the Labor Relations Board on me ... . Well, if you hadn't have went over there onto me like that I might have could have helped you and got your jobs back . . . . I don't know whether I could or not, but I probably could have, but-other than that-since you went over there, I wash my hands with it." Thus were John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce , Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard discharged . None have since been reinstated. However, under date of June 26, 1972, over the signatures of William Doty and Marshall McDuffy, Local 525 sent the Colloid Company the following letter: Gentlemen: This is to notify you that this Local Union has no objection to reinstatement of John Daley , James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson , Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe , Richard Milton and Gerald Broussard , and we request their reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi- leges. A copy of this letter is being mailed this date to each of those eight (8) named employees. Nothing in this letter shall constitute an admission, expressed or implied that this Local Union has engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in charges filed in Cases No. 13-CB-2467 (1-4), and this notice and request is being given only because there is no other B. Conclusions The facts proved here are such as to cause the staunchest advocate of organized labor to cringe. The complaint herein alleges that Respondent Local 525 failed and refused to fulfill its fiduciary "duty to deal fairly" with the employees, its members. If the quoted phase were not used in the sense of words of art, this statement would constitute the understatement of the year. In common parlance it would be more accurate to say that Local 525 "doublecrossed" the employees it was purport- ing to represent. Admittedly, the Charging Parties and the other unit employees affected were delinquent in the payment of their dues-and had been all during the years 1970, 1971, and that part of 1972 material here, with the possible exception of employee Barnes for a short period of time. On those few occasions during the aforementioned years when McDuffy, who was charged with the servicing of the Colloid contract, was in touch with the Colloid employees he was supposedly representing, he reminded them that they were delinquent in their dues payment and requested them to pay up. In fact in April 1971, for the first and only time during this whole period, Local 525 notified each employee of the amount of his delinquency. The employees prepared to pay up their delinquencies . In fact it was agreed that Steward Daley would collect 2 months' dues from each employee and that thereafter Business Agent McDuffy would then collect those dues payments from Daley until the men were current . Daley did his part and collected $16 from each man and notified McDuffy to come get the money. McDuffy failed to perform his part of the bargain as he never appeared as promised to collect the money from Daley. McDuffy purported to explain this failure on his part on the ground that Daley was not "bonded" and, besides, Daley had not left his telephone number. The employees had performed-Local 525 had not. About a year later on April 9, 1972, Daley agreed that, if Local 525 would notify each employee of his delinquency along with a date by which that delinquency had to be paid, then each man would sign the statement and if, thereafter, the employee failed to pay within the time limit, nobody would complain if he were discharged . No such notification was ever provided by Local 525. Again Local 525 and McDuffy failed. However at that time, March and April 1972, Local 525 and McDuffy had need that the Charging Parties and the other employees involved remain employees of Colloid in order that Local 525 remain the collective-bargaining agent for those employees so as to enjoy the right to negotiate the renewal agreement for the contract which by its terms was to expire on March 1, 1972. So at this time, while McDuffy was still urging the employees to pay up their dues "right away," he was also telling them he would make "arrange- ments" for such payment to be made as soon as the TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 525 contract was signed. Allegedly to make such payments easier for the employees, McDuffy successfully negotiated a dues-checkoff clause in the renewal agreement. But, once that renewal agreement with Colloid had been signed, Local 525 had its contract and, more importantly, no further need for the then employees. Once again McDuffy failed to perform as promised. Not only did he fail to "make arrangements" for the payment of dues after the signing of the contract, but he even failed to provide checkoff authorization forms for employees to sign in order to take advantage of the easier method of payment through the checkoff clause.8 McDuffy's explanation for this strange behavior on the part of Local 525 was that when, according to McDuffy, he "immediately" phoned Steward Daley after reaching agreement on the checkoff clause with Colloid, Daley refused the checkoff authorization forms because the employees had decided to pay off their delinquencies on their own first and thereafter sign up for the checkoff. That was McDuffy's story. In the first place this so-called explanation does not make sense because, even as McDuffy himself had previously explained to the employ- ees, the checkoff made it easier for the men to pay up the delinquency because one misses money one never sees less than after having seen it. And secondly, and even more important, Daley credibly denied ever having such a phone conversation with McDuffy-who on a previous occasion had claimed not even to have Daley's phone number available.9 McDuffy's own description of the original contract with Colloid as providing such a "very low rate" of pay that he did not know how the employees "could raise their families on what they were making" raises an interesting, but peripheral, question as to just who Local 525 had actually been representing throughout this whole collaboration. The Charging Parties' last payday was April 28, 1972. Rumors reached the employees that Colloid was not going to pay their accumulated backpay which, for any increase in pay negotiated, was supposed to be retroactive to March 1. McDuffy was advised as to this rumor. He promised to check and let the men know. He never did. McDuffy knew that the men had been counting on this retroactive backpay to help pay their deficiencies. As found above, on May 4, the Charging Parties received their termination notices dated May 3 from Colloid with the union request therefor dated May 2 attached. According to McDuffy's original testimony, the girls in the unior}, office "automatically" sent out these "bump letters" whenever a member became delinquent in his dues payments. In the light of the experience of these employees delinquent all through the years 1970, 1971, and 1972 without a single bump letter, it is obvious that this testimony was untrue. So, according to McDuffy, these It is informative to note that the evidence here shows that McDuffy did succeed in providing these deduction authorization forms for those employees who replaced the Charging Parties after their terminations. 9 At the hearing, McDuffy was a very well-dressed union business agent but not a very candid or honest witness . Daley, on the other hand, was an apparently honest witness whose testimony I believe. Also, Daley's testimony was in large part corroborated in numerous instances whereas McDuffy's was not, especially as much of his testimony consisted of attempted alibis for his own acknowledged failures to perform. 10 Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation, 136 NLRB 888, 896; Rocket Guided 577 bump letters became "automatic" only after the girls had received orders from Local 525 Secretary-Treasurer Wil- liam Doty. And finally, McDuffy acknowledged that on May 2, the date of the bump letters, he had been conferring with Doty on the Colloid members just before Doty gave the orders to the girls which made the sending of the bump letters "automatic." In effect, therefore, McDuffy, who was at the time supposed to be making "arrangements" for the payment of these deficiencies by the employees, was instead responsible for the sending out of the bump letters which cost the Charging Parties their jobs. Thus, at no time after April 1971, did Local 525 or its agent, McDuffy, ever inform these Charging Parties or the other unit employees of the amounts of their deficiencies in dues payments, notify any of them as to when such deficiencies must be paid or give any of them warning that they would become subject to discharge for failure to pay such deficiencies. Furthermore, McDuffy, having lulled the employees into the feeling of security that he was making "arrangements" for the payment of such deficiencies, never did so. Nor, in fact, did he or Local 525 ever supply the legally required dues-deduction authorization forms so that the unit employees could take advantage of the newly negotiated dues-deduction clause for making such pay- ments. But in lieu thereof Local 525 with McDuffy's aid and assistance sent out the "bump letters" without any warning thereof and thereby caused these employees to lose their employment with Colloid. By reason of these failures and doublecrosses by Local 525, I find that Local 525 thereby failed and refused to fulfill its fiduciary duty to deal fairly with these unit employees including the Charging Parties in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.1o It is now well established Horn Book law that a union member, just like all other individuals, has the right to file charges with the Board and to enjoy access to the processes of the Board. So, when a union attempts by restraint or coercion to prevent or hamper that member's access to the Board or to prevent him from filing charges, even against that union, with the Board, it violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.11 Likewise where a union retaliates or takes reprisals against a union member for having filed such charges against his union, it also violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Hence there is, and can be, no doubt but that Local 525 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when its agent, McDuffy, over the telephone withdrew all union aid and support for the dischargees here because they had filed charges with the Board against Local 525 and McDuffy. I so find.12 Missile Lodge 946, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 189 NLRB No. 77, and cases there cited. 11 Compare Communications Workers of America, Lodge 6306. 198 NLRB No. 157 12 I make this finding despite McDuffy's denial of that portion of those admitted telephone conversations because this reprisal was the real consummation of his obvious doublecross of the individuals involved here. Here, as elsewhere, I was unable to credit McDuffy for the same reasons as heretofore noted. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operation of American Colloid Company described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that by the aforementioned conduct Respondent Local 525 has violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and affirmatively take such action as will dissipate the effects of its unfair labor practices. I shall order Respondent Union to notify American Colloid Company, in writing, with a copy to the individu- als hereinafter mentioned, that it withdraws its objections to Colloid's employment of John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard and request it to offer each of them reinstatement to his former, or substantially equivalent, job with the restoration of his seniority and other rights and privileges as they existed on the date of the discharge of each. I shall order Respondent to make John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard and each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to each a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of his reinstatement by American Colloid to his former or substantially equivalent job or to the date that Respondent Local 525 secures him employment substantially equal to that which he formerly had with American Colloid Company with some other employer, less his net earnings during this period the loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest on the backpay due in accordance with Board policy set out in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In providing the above alternative remedies of reinstate- ment or employment for the discriminatees here, I recognize that under date of June 26, 1972, Local 525 notified American Colloid Company and the individuals involved by letter, supra, that it had "no objection to reinstatement" of the discriminatees. The letter also contained a disclaimer of any liability. However, in addition, Local 525 added "and this notice and request is being given only because there is no other effective way of limiting potential liability in cases such as this where there is conflicting evidence." As between parties such as Local 525 and American Colloid Company, who have been in 13 77 Fed. Supp. 563. 14 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 such proven, close collaboration for such a long period of time, this last quotation can be no more or less than an example of the famous "a nod or a wink or a code" mentioned in the famous United Mine Workers contempt case.13 I therefore do not consider the letter to be effective for its ostensible purpose. Local 525 chose to illegally secure the discharge of these discriminatees from employ- ment for its own purposes and thus, in order to restore the status quo or close thereto as possible, still owes these discriminatees employment or backpay until that employ- ment is secured. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. American Colloid Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing American Colloid Company to discharge John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard for reasons other than their failure to tend to periodic dues and initiation fees and by failing and refusing to fulfill its fiduciary duty to deal fairly with the aforementioned employees, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. By restraining and coercing the above-named em- ployees because they filed charges against Respondent Union with the National Labor Relations Board, Respon- dent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following recommended: 14 ORDER Respondent Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 525, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Alton, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause American Colloid Company to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act. (b) Failing or refusing to fulfill its fidicuary duty to deal fairly with the employees and/or its members. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights maybe affected by an agreement requiring membership in 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. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 525 579 a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole John Daley, James F. Owens, William E. Barnes, Lester Johnson, Everett Pierce, Charles Barbe, and Gerald Broussard for any loss of pay each of them may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify American Colloid Company and each of the aforementioned discriminatees, in writing, that it with- draws its objections to the employment of any of the above-named, and requests American Colloid Company to offer each of them reinstatement and the restoration of his full seniority and other rights and privileges as they existed on March 4, 1972. (c) Notify the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Post at its business office and at all other places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by the Union's representative and business agent, Marshall McDuffy, shall be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (e) Forward signed copies of the Appendix to the Regional Director for Region 14, for posting by the American Colloid Company at its place of business near Granite City, Illinois, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted, if the Employer is willing to do so. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the receipt hereof, that it will take the action here ordered that the Board issue an order directing Respondent Union to take the action here ordered. 11 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 Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."