Central Valley Typographical Union Local 46

CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL 46 57 Central Valley Typographical Union Local No. 46, AFL-CIO; and International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Sacramento Union Corporation) and Frank Pazoureck. Case 20-CB-3018 Upon the entire record, from my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and having considered the post- hearing briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT June 26, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 2, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Jer- rold H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an 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 its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached'Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed in its entirety. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERROLD H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge: The hearing in this case, held on February 28, 1974, is based upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Frank Pa- zoureck, herein called Pazoureck, against the above-named labor organizations herein collectively called Respondent Unions, and a complaint issued on November 28, 1973, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, by the Regional Director of the Board, Region 20, alleging that the Respondent Unions have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Respondent Unions filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. i The charge was filed against Central Valley Typographical Union Local No. 46, AFL-CIO, herein called Local Union or Respondent Local 46, on October 10, 1973, and an amended charge naming International Typographi- cal Union, AFL-CIO, herein called International Union or Respondent International Union, was filed on November 23, 1973. 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED The Sacramento Union Corporation, doing business as the Sacramento Union, is a California corporation whose business is located in Sacramento, California, where it pub- lishes newspapers. It subscribes to various interstate news services and during the year 1973 received gross revenues in excess of $200,000 'and purchased and received goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 from sources located outside California. The Respondents admit that the Sacramento Union Cor- poration is an employer engaged in commerce and in opera- tions affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted that Central Valley Typographical Union Local No. 46, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Local Union, and International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, , the Re- spondent International Union, are labor organizations within; the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE QUESTION PRESENTED The ultimate question, as framed by the pleadings, is whether the Respondent Unions violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by causing the Sacramento Union Corporation, herein called the Newspaper, to discriminate against Frank Pazoureck by "reducing his priority standing ... and in violation of [their] fiduciary Outy." Respondent Local 46 is alleged to have committed the violation on May 1, 1973, when its president directed Pazoureck's name to be eliminated from the priority (or seniority) list in the Newspaper's composing room, and the Respondent Inter- national Union is alleged similarly to have violated the Act by its subsequent decision of October 23, 1973, which sus- tained the local president's action in appeal proceedings instituted by Pazoureck. IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The composing room employees of the Newspaper are represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the Re- spondent Local 46. At the time material herein, the terms and conditions of employment of composing room employ- ees were defined by the collective-bargaining agreement between the Local Union and the Newspaper. The agree- ment provides, inter alia, that the Local Union furnish the Newspaper with "the number of competent employees" it needs for the operation of the composing room. It further provides that the control over hiring, direction of work, and discharge is vested in the general foremen, who are required to be members of the Local Union. The foremen when hiring must recognize the priority of "regular situation hold- 212 NLRB No. 20 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ers," who have priority status; employment is regularly available to "regular situation holders" 5 days a week. In practice the selection of specific employees for work in the composing room lies with the Local Union through its chap- el chairman and his assistants, who compile and maintain a priority list of regular situation holders and substitutes. Since at least 1967, the Charging Party, Frank Pazoureck, has been a member of the Local Union and has worked for the Newspaper as a markup man in the composing room with priority status as a "regular situation holder." In Janu- ary 1973,2 Pazoureck commenced operating his own busi- ness, a sole proprietorship, under the name of Pho-Tech Company. Briefly stated, Pho-Tech through Pazoureck served as a consultant to firms in the printing industry, converting hot type printing establishments to the cold type process. It advertised itself as "Pho-Tech Company printing systems-inter-face and design specialist hot to cold type plant conversions-from concept to completion." At the same time he owned and operated Pho-Tech, Pazoureck continued to hold his priority status at the Newspaper. The general laws of the International Union, which are incorpo- rated by reference into the collective-bargaining agreement between the Local Union and the Newspaper, in pertinent part, provide in substance that no journeyman shall hold priority status with an employer if said journeyman is him- self an employer performing work within the jurisdiction of the International Union. On May 1, it is undisputed, the Local Union caused Pazoureck's name to be placed at the bottom of the priority list in the Newspaper's composing rtoom, thereby causing him to lose employment and employment opportunities. Also, it is undisputed, the reason for the Local Union's conduct was that, by operating his own business (Pho-Tech) while simultaneously holding priority status with another employer (the Newspaper), Pazoureck was violating the In- ternational Union's general laws, described previously, which laws are a part of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Newspaper and the Local Union. In other words, Pazoureck's priority status was eliminated because of a union rule which severely reduces the priority of mem- bers who own and operate a business of their own within the International Union's jurisdiction.' There can be no doubt, in these circumstances, that previous Board decisions pre- clude a determination that the conduct of the Respondent Unions in enforcing the rule against Pazoureck was, by itself, a violation of the Act. New York Typographical Union No. 6 (Cafero), supra, enfd. 336 F.2d 115 (C.A. 2, 1964); see also Houston Typographical Union No. 87, ITU (Houston Chronicle Publishing, et al.), 145 NLRB 1657, and Interna- tional Typographical Union, Columbus Typographical Union No. 5 (Dispatch Printing Co.), 177 NLRB 855. And the evi- dence does not demonstrate discriminatory motivation by the Local Union or the International Union in causing Pa- 2 Unless otherwise specified , all dates hereafter refer to 1973 3 The General Counsel does not contend that the nature of Pho -Tech's operation was outside the International Union's jurisdiction In any event, the whole record establishes that Pho-Tech was operating within the interna- tional Union 's jurisdiction or that at the very least the Respondent Unions' view of Pazoureck's business operation was a reasonable one New York Typographical Union No 6 (Cafero), 144 NLRB 1555 , 1558, and iron Workers. Local Union 229 (Bethlehem Steel), 183 NLRB 271 zoureck to lose his priority. As a matter of fact, in his post-hearing brief the General Counsel concedes the lawful authority of the Respondent Unions to remove Pazoureck's priority and does not contend that in so acting the Respond- ent Unions were discriminatorily motivated. The sole argu- ment advanced by the General Counsel in support of the allegations of the complaint is that, in causing Pazoureck's loss of priority, the Respondent Unions breached "[their] fiduciary duty to deal fairly with Pazoureck in the enforce- ment of [their] decision that Pazoureck either divest himself of Pho-Tech or relinquish his priority," citing N.L.R.B. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, Local 568, A FL-CIO [Philadelphia Sheraton Corp.], 320 F.2d 254, 258 (C.A. 3, 1963), enforcing on this point 136 NLRB 888. 1 shall set out and evaluate the evidence pertinent to the issue of whether, as contended by the General Counsel, the Respondent Unions breached their so-called fiduciary duty in causing Pazoureck to lose his priority. Pazoureck's removal from the priority board was accom- plished within the framework of the Respondent Unions' rules and procedures, some of which are expressly adopted by the collective-bargaining agreement between the News- paper and the Local Union. Accordingly, an explanation of those rules and practices is necessary to an understanding of the events in this case. Under the constitution and bylaws of the Respondent International, membership falls into various classifications, such as that of a regular member, a "not-at-the-trade" mem- ber, and "proprietor" member. A proprietor member is someone engaged in his own business in the printing indus- try, and that classification permits him, insofar as union practices are concerned, to work at the trade in that business without losing the benefits of union membership. Since the amount of dues paid by a member depends upon the classi- fication, it is the responsibility in the first instance of the secretary-treasurer of the Local Union to classify each member. If a member feels he has been wrongly classified, he is entitled to utilize the appellate procedure within both the Local and International Union The general laws of the International Union, which are expressly adopted as part of the collective-bargaining agree- ment between the Newspaper and Respondent Local 46, contain provisions dealing with a proprietor member who actively works in his own business. Article V, section 3 of the general laws, which deals with the subject of priority, in pertinent part forbids a person who owns and operates his own business in the printing industry from holding a full- time situation (priority) with another employer. Pazoureck's first customer as Pho-Tech was the Newspa- per where, as described above, he also held a regular situa- tion. The Newspaper entered into an oral contract with Pho-Tech for the establishment of an operational procedure which composing room employees could follow in connec- tion with the design of new type faces, as part of a broader updating of electronic equipment, including the acquisition of an optical character recognition machine. The contract work was begun in the middle of January 1973 and was scheduled to be completed by June 5, 1973, when the optical character recognition equipment was to be put into produc- tion. During the period when Pazoureck performed work as Pho-Tech for the Newspaper, he continued to hold a regular CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL 46 situation as a mark-up man. The majority of his work as Pho-Tech was done at his home or elsewhere, but occasion- ally he worked on the Newspaper's premises at times when he was not performing his journeyman's job as a markup man. On January 24, Pazoureck was personally informed by the Local Union's secretary-treasurer that he was of the opinion that Pazoureck occupied the status of proprietor member. Pazoureck told the secretary-treasurer to put his decision in writing so he could appeal it to the Local Union's membership. Thereafter, on February 10, in a letter to Pazoureck, the secretary-treasurer informed him that he had decided to classify him as a proprietor member. The letter cited, among other things, the applicable section of the International Union's general laws and Pazoureck's owner- ship of Pho-Tech, and in detail explained the basis for the decision. The letter then concluded: ... it is my decision that if your current circumstances prevail for the rest of the dues month of February, 1973, that it will be incumbent on me as secretary of No. 46 to place you in a proprietor dues classification for said month, which in turn automatically indicates that you shall no longer hold priority until your circum- stances return to that of a journeyman at the trade, and further means it will be necessary for you to divest yourself of your business by the end of the dues month of February, 1973, or, being placed in a proprietor classification, you will have sacrificed your priority. Pazoureck, as was his right under the International Union's bylaws, appealed to the Local Union's executive committee which sustained the secretary-treasurer's ruling, and then appealed to the membership of the Local Union which sus- tained Pazoureck's position. Whereupon, the Local Union's secretary-treasurer appealed the ruling of the Local Union to ,the executive committee of the International Union which issued a written decision on April 26 sustaining the appeal. Briefly stated, the International Union's executive committee held: The local secretary has properly classified [Pazoureck] as a proprietor for dues paying purposes. The appeal is sustained. This decision takes effect immediately and will remain in effect pending reversal on appeal by convention of the International Typographical Union .4 The president of the Local Union , David Pike, received the ruling of the International Union's executive committee a day before the regular Sunday evening membership meet- ing of the Local Union on April 29. He read the ruling at the meeting, which Pazoureck did not attend , and later that evening telephoned Pazoureck to inform him of the deci- sion.' 4 Pazoureck thereafter filed such an appeal which was denied. 59 Pike began his phone conversation with Pazoureck by reading the ruling of the International Union's executive committee and advised Pazoureck that, as stated in the ruling, effective immediately he was a proprietor member who had no right to hold a regular situation with the News- paper. If, however, Pazoureck furnished a written statement indicating that he would divest himself of Pho-Tech, Pike stated that he would not remove his priority at the Newspa- per. Pike cautioned that he did not know whether he could do this and indicated that a member might appeal his action of allowing Pazoureck to retain his priority. In response, Pazoureck stated he would divest himself of Pho-Tech and then engaged Pike in a conversation about the meaning of divestment. Pike assured him that divestment was not a complex matter and specifically advised Pazoureck he did not have to sell Pho-Tech's truck or office furniture but that all he had to do, to satisfy Pike, was (1) immediately furnish Pike with a written statement that he was in the process of divesting himself of Pho-Tech, and (2) immediately start to get rid of Pho-Tech's customers. Pazoureck, however, asked that Pike supply him with a written statement explaining the meaning of divestment. Pike absolutely refused to furnish such a statement.6 The conversation ended with Pike stating that, since he would be out of town all day Monday, April 30, for Pazoureck on Tuesday, May 1, to come to the Local Union and give Pike a written statement evidencing his intent to divest himself of Pho-Tech. Pazoureck replied it would be more convenient to bring the statement into the Local Union's office Monday, at which time he would also pick up a copy of the decision of the International Union's executive committee.? Immediately following the above-described conversation, Pazoureck phoned the Newspaper's director of production, William Hofer, and told him he had agreed to divest himself of Pho-Tech in order to keep his regular situation in the composing room, which meant it was necessary that the Newspaper's arrangement with Pho-Tech be terminated. Hofer was sympathetic toward Pazoureck's situation but pointed out that Pazoureck was putting the Newspaper in "a heck of a bind" because his services were essential to finish a portion of the project which Pho-Tech had almost completed. Pazoureck then agreed he would report for work the next day, Monday, April 30, his regular day off, as a 5 Inasmuch as he was neither appellant nor respondent, Pazoureck did not receive a copy of the decision. 6 Pike testified he refused to give Pazoureck a written statement defining divestment because "I wanted to help him retain priority. Now, what he was doing was turning around and wanting me to do these things. And the onus was not on me. All I needed was a statement to protect myself of the membership so it would not be in violation-or in worse violation with the Executive Council." 7 The description of Pike's conversation with Pazoureck on April 29 is based upon the credible testimony of Pike who, of the two, impressed me as being the more trustworthy and reliable. Pazoureck's testimony agrees with the above account except in the following respects- (1) Pazoureck testified that he arranged to meet Pike the following day (the same day Pike testified he would be out of town) at the Local Union for the purpose of discussing further the implications of a divestiture of business operations at Pho-Tech. (2) Pazoureck denied that Pike insisted upon or that he (Pazoureck) had committed himself to submitting a written statement as evidence of his intent to divest himself of Pho-Tech. Rather, Pazoureck testified what occurred'was that he conditioned furnishing such a statement to Pike upon Pike's furnish- ing him a statement defining divestment. In Pazoureck's words: "I will come down and give you a statement if you give me a statement." 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD journeyman under the Local Union's contract but, rather than perform his normal duties in the composing room, would continue working on the Pho-Tech project. Pazour- eck in fact did this, which was his sixth working day of the week and, as such, under the Local Union's contract with the Newspaper was an overtime day. At around noontime that Monday, Pazoureck left the Newspaper and went to the office of the Local Union and found no one there other than Agnes Lynch, the office manager.8 Pazoureck and Lynch agree that when Pazoureck learned that neither Secretary-Treasurer Paquier or Presi- dent Pike was at the office that he left word with Lynch to advise them that he had divested himself of his company and that he asked for and received a copy of the Interna- tional Union's executive committee decision classifying him as a proprietor member. Pazoureck also asked Lynch if Pike had left a letter for him explaining the meaning of divest- ment and told Lynch to advise Paquier and Pike that if they had any questions concerning his divestment that they call him either at work or at his home 9 The next day, May 1, upon Pike's return to the Local's office, Lynch informed him that the previous day Pazoureck had visited the office and taken a copy of the decision of the International's executive committee and had stated that he had divested himself of his company. Pike asked whether Pazoureck had left a written statement or a letter and Lynch stated that he had not. In the meantime, as indicated previously, Pazoureck on Monday, April 30, performed precisely the same work that Pho-Tech was retained to accomplish by the device of work- ing under the Local Union's collective-bargaining contract on an overtime basis. On that morning, Assistant Chapel Chairman10 Harold Cassen observed Pazoureck at the Newspaper. Cassen knew that Monday was Pazoureck's day off and observed that he was not performing his normal work in the composing room but instead was "running tests." Cassen, as he credibly testified, also observed that there was no indication that Pazoureck had been authorized by the chapel chairman or an assistant to work overtime on that day under the Local Union's collective-bargaining agreement." Cassen asked the assistant foreman in charge 8 The title is deceptive, for Ms Lynch, as the record establishes , is not a managerial or supervisory employee She is the Local Union's sole office clerical who maintains the Local's books and records and answers the phone 9 Lynch was unable to unequivocally deny that Pazoureck made these last two statements She testified she simply had no memory one way or the other and in effect conceded Pazoureck could have made these statements Howev- er, whether Pazoureck asked Lynch if Pike had left a letter explaining divest- ment and told her to advise Pike that he should contact him about any questions concerning his announced intent to divest , in my opinion, is not relevant to the ultimate disposition of this case The fact of the matter is that Pike, as previously found, had the day before unambiguously notified Pa- zoureck he would not furnish such a letter and , as described later, Lynch, according to the credible testimony of both Lynch and Pike, did not advise Pike that Pazoureck had left word that Pike should phone him if he had any questions 10 The chapel chairman and his assistants are representatives of the Local Union who occupy a position analogous to union stewards and have the duty, among others, to administer the Local Union's collective-bargaining agree- ment 11 The whole record, particularly the credible testimony of Cassen, estab- lishes that it was the practice for the Newspaper to notify the Local Union that a certain number of employees were needed for overtime work and that the Local Union, which maintained an overtime roster, selected specific of the day shift, Jim Richardson, in what capacity Pazour- eck was working. Richardson replied he had no idea. Cassen then unsuccessfully attempted to phone Chapel Chairman Joseph O'Brien at his home and then phoned the Local Union and spoke to Secretary-Treasurer Paquier and, as described above, explained Pazoureck's situation. Later that day, at the end of the work shift, Cassen, as he credibly testified, observed that Pazoureck had not posted his over- time,12 which further implied to Cassen that Pazoureck was working for the Newspaper as Pho-Tech rather than as a bargaining unit employee under the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement. That evening Cassen informed Chapel Chairman O'Brien that Pazoureck had not posted his overtime. The next day, Tuesday, May 1, Pazoureck although at work, as O'Brien credibly testified, did not per- form his normal markup work and did not work in the composing room.13 In sum, as described above, Assistant Chapel Chairman Cassen and Chapel Chairman O'Brien had good reason to believe that Pazoureck on April 30 and May I was perform- ing as an employer (Pho-Tech) for the Newspaper rather than as a rank-and-file employee under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. In this regard, the fact that Pazoureck on April 30 specifically told Assistant Chapel Chairman James Lange that he had divested himself of Pho-Tech and was doing Pho-Tech work under the Local Union's contract at the overtime rate is not, in my opinion, relevant to the issues of this case. 14 What is relevant is Pike's conduct when he made the decision to remove Pazoureck's priority status. I shall set out the evidence surrounding Pike's immediate decision to remove Pazoureck's priority. Pike, as described earlier, had returned to his office on May 1 and learned that Pazoureck, although he had visited the office the previous day, had not complied with Pike's request to leave a written statement evidencing his intent to divest himself of Pho-Tech. Pike spent all of May I at the Local Union's office without receiving any word from Pa- zoureck. To the contrary, Pike received certain information which indicated, contrary to Pazoureck's oral representa- tions, that Pazoureck was still operating as Pho-Tech. Secre- tary-Treasurer Paquier during the evening of Monday, April 30, had advised Pike that Assistant Chapel Chairman Cassen had complained that Pazoureck was working even employees to work overtime based upon equitable considerations 1 It is mandatory for employees who work overtime under the terms of the Local Union's collective-bargaining agreement to post their overtime hours on a schedule posted on the Local Union's bulletin board in the composing room 13 Pazoureck testified that he did markup work on May I On the other hand, Production Director Hofer testified that it was his understanding that at least until noontime on May 1, Pazoureck worked on the Pho-Tech project rather than markup work This was a reasonable understanding inasmuch as Pazoureck admitted that the only other person working with him on the Pho-Tech project, Joe Banks, was not qualified to finish the Pho-Tech work completed on May I 14 In any event, I find that Lange was not an agent of the Local Union for, although I have found that Pazoureck on April 30 conveyed the above message to Lange, I am convinced that at the time Lange was not serving in his capacity as an assistant chapel chairman On this point, of the two witnesses, Cassen impressed me as the more reliable Also, Lange's testimony on this matter is vague and evasive When asked if he was the assistant chapel chairman on April 30, he answered that "some doubt has been raised even in my mind now as to when my shift was Anyway, i was in the composing room . whether I was working or why, i don't remember " CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL 46 though he was not scheduled for work, that Cassen was unable to determine what work Pazoureck was performing and whether he was performing as Pho-Tech. Then, on May 1, Chapel Chairman O'Brien informed Pike that, although Pazoureck had worked for the Newspaper on Monday, his day off, that no overtime request had been made to the Local Union by the Newspaper and that the members did not know what work Pazoureck was performing and were complaining about the failure of Pike to enforce the deci- sion of the International Union's executive committee. Having failed to receive by 6 p.m. on May 1 a written statement from Pazoureck envincing his intent to divest himself of Pho-Tech, Pike drafted a letter to Chapel Chair- man O'Brien instructing him "to remove Pazoureck's priori- ty immediately" in accordance with the ruling of the International Union's executive committee. The letter which was hand delivered by Pike to the composing room at about 7 p.m. on May 1 and posted on the Local Union's bulletin board was immediately complied with. In pertinent part the letter reads: In a telephone conversation with Mr. Pazoureck on Sunday, April 29, 1973, I took the liberty of offering him the option of immediately divesting himself of any interest he holds in the company or forfeit his priority immediately. He elected to divest himself of his company and agreed to sign a statement to that effect and deliver said state- ment to my office by Monday, April 30, 1973. As of this writing, 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 1, 1973 I do not have a signed statement, a phone call or any evi- dence that Mr. Pazoureck has divested himself of his company. The evidence is to the contrary. I have no other alternative than to assume Mr. Pazour- eck continues to operate his company-which he is entitled to do. In accordance with the Executive Council's decision, effective immediately, Mr. Pazoureck is classified as a proprietor member. I am instructing you as Chapel Chairman to remove Mr. Pazoureck's priority immedi- ately! Mr. Pazoureck may continue employment at the Sacra- mento Union after this date on a non-priority basis or until such time as he shows evidence that he is no longer a proprietor (at which time he may establish priority). Thereafter, Pazoureck appealed the removal of his priori- ty first within the Local Union and then to the International Union. At one point during the appeals, the Local Union's executive committee sustained Pazoureck's position and his priority was reestablished, but thereafter the membership of the Local Union on about June 17 reaffirmed Pike's deci- sion and Pazoureck once and for all lost his priority status on or about June 17.15 61 The General Counsel in his posthearing brief, citing N.L. R.B.- v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, Local 568, AFL-CIO [Philadelphia Sheraton Corp.], supra, contends that Respondent Local 46 violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act because it failed "to comply with its dual obligations of providing Pazoureck with reasonable notice and an adequate opportunity to bring himself into confor- mance prior to removing his priority," and that this "consti- tutes a breach of Respondent's fiduciary duty to treat him fairly." The Respondents' position is that, "assuming ar- guendo, that a violation of a fiduciary duty on the part of a labor organization constitutes, without more, an unfair labor practice, there has been no such showing made in the present case." The so-called fiduciary duty of the Respondent Unions to treat Pazoureck fairly, relied upon by the General Coun- sel, has been defined by the Board as follows: a union seeking to enforce a union security provi- sion against an employee has a "fiduciary" duty to "deal fairly" with the employee affected. "At a mini- mum this duty requires that the union inform the em- ployee of his obligations in order that the employee may take whatever action is necessary to protect his job tenure." Rocket and Guided Missile Lodge 946, JAM (Aerojet-General Corp.), 186 NLRB 561, 562 (1970), cit- ing N. L. R. B. v. Hotel, Motel and Club Employees Union, Local 568, supra. [Emphasis supplied.] The Board has applied this standard of fairness to labor organizations only in situations involving the enforcement of union-security clauses against employees. Consistent with this limited application, the rationale expressed by the Board and the courts justifying the doctrine indicates that it is based upon the special nature of the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act permitting labor organizations and em- ployers to enter into union security agreements. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Hotel, Motel and Club Employees' Union Local 568, AFL-CIO, supra, and N.L.R.B. v. Local 182, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 401 F.2d 509 (C.A. 3, 1968). In any event, I have not decided whether, as a matter of law, the Respondent Unions had a "fiduciary duty of "fair dealing" in reducing Pazoureck's priority status for, even assuming such a duty, it is my opinion, for the reasons set out below, that the conduct here satisfied this duty. On April 29, Pazoureck was placed on notice by the presi- dent of the Local Union, Pike, of his obligation, pursuant to the decision of the International Union's executive com- mittee, to divest himself of Pho-Tech or lose his priority status at the Newspaper. Pike specifically informed Pazour- eck that to retain his priority all he had to do was immedi- ately furnish Pike with a signed statement indicating he was divesting himself of Pho-Tech and was getting rid of Pho- Tech's customers. Pike waited 2 days before he acted to 15 In this regard, I note that the International Union's bylaws require that the decision of the Local Union be abided by pending the outcome of an appeal to the International Union's executive committee (art. V, sec. 34) On October 23, the executive committee of the International Union denied Pazoureck's appeal. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the International Union's decision and acted only after Pazoureck had failed to furnish the requested written statement and had engaged in conduct which on its face created the impression that he was still operating Pho- Tech. There is insufficient evidence that the conditions which Pazoureck had to meet in order to avoid the loss of his priority were onerous. Pazoureck made no contention that it was impossible for him to cancel Pho-Tech's contract with the Newspaper, its only client. Rather, Pazoureck's refusal to furnish a written statement indicating his intent to divest himself of Pho-Tech was based upon his adamant and mis- taken insistence that he was entitled to a written definition of divestment from Pike. But Pike's refusal to define in writing what he meant by divest did not create a hardship for Pazoureck in drafting the general statement requested by Pike. Moreover, Pike had made it perfectly clear to Pa- zoureck that he did not expect him to sell Pho-Tech's truck or the office furniture at Pazoureck's home. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Pike's request for a written statement indicating an intent to divest by Pazour- eck was made in bad faith. The demand for such a state- ment which Pike could show to the membership as evidence that Pazoureck had agreed to terminate his business was not, under the circumstances, unreasonable. Pike was realis- tic in believing that a member of the Local Union would challenge Pike's authority to allow Pazoureck to retain his priority status. Moreover, Pazoureck's conduct on April 30 and May I created the impression that he had not, as an- nounced, divested himself of Pho-Tech. Also relevant in assessing Pike's conduct in this matter is that throughout the intraunion proceedings when Pazoureck was attempting to retain or regain his priority status, Pike treated him fairly and assisted him whenever Pike was in a position to do so. Thus, Pike took the position that the Local Union 's secre- tary-treasurer should make the initial classification of Pa- zoureck as a proprietor member in writing so that his appeal could be facilitated. When the secretary-treasurer and Pa- zoureck lost their tempers with the secretary-treasurer threatening to remove Pazoureck's priority immediately, Pike interceded and pointed out that Pazoureck was entitled to retain his priority and to appeal the matter to the Local Union's membership. When it became necessary to draft a response on behalf of the Local Union to the secretary- treasurer's appeal to the International's executive commit- tee, Pike sought out Pazoureck and asked him to draft the reply. And when the Local Union's executive committee refused to entertain Pazoureck's appeal from Pike's action removing his priority, it was Pike who was instrumental in compelling the executive committee to reverse itself and hear Pazoureck's appeal. Based upon the foregoing, I am of the opinion there is insufficient evidence to establish that either the Local Union or Pike on behalf of said Union or the International Union dealt with Pazoureck in bad faith or in an arbitrary or unfair manner. The Respondent Unions treated Pazour- eck fairly. As succinctly put in Respondents' posthearing brief: ... the record reflects an effort by Pike to carry out his responsibilities, both to the International in imple- menting the ruling of the Executive Council, and to Pazoureck in protecting his rights, in a fair and reason- able manner.... At the very most, the record shows no more than a misunderstanding between Pike and Pazoureck as to the steps which should be taken by Pazoureck on Monday or Tuesday, April 30 and May I in order to protect Pazoureck's priority. For the reasons set forth above, I find that the Respon- dent Unions did not, as alleged in the complaint, engage in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint be dis- missed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Sacramento Union Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Central Valley Typographical Union Local No. 46, AFL-CIO and International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Unions, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent Unions have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER i6 The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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