Truck Drivers, Local 705

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Plat- The Board has considered the entire record in this form Workers' Union Local No. 705, affiliated with case, including-the parties' briefs, and hereby makes the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the following findings and conclusions. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca (Randolph Paper Company) and Frank Byers. Case 13-CB-5790 January 4, 1977 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On October 29, 1975, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding 1 fording that Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the Employer, Randolph Paper Company, to discriminate against employee Frank Byers in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Board ordered the Respondent to notify the Employ- er that it had no objection to Byers' continued employment and to make Byers whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.2 Thereafter, on May 26, 1976, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent Union entered into a stipulation in which they agreed to certain facts relevant to the issues in this proceeding. They also agreed to waive a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the issuance of an Ad- ministrative Law Judge's decision, and the presenta- tion of any evidence other than that contained in the stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto. By order dated August 12, 1976, the Board approved the stipulation and transferred the proceeding to the Board. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respon- dent filed briefs with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of 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. 1 221 NLRB 199 2 On February 10, 1976, Respondent, by stipulation , agreed that it would not object to this order. 3 The Board found in its Decision of October 29, 1975, that Byers never joined Respondent and paid no dues to it at any time during his employment with Randolph Paper Company, notwithstanding the contractual require- ment that all Randolph drivers had to become members of Respondent 30 days after their hire as a condition of continued employment . Instead, Byers retained his 17-year membership in the Chicago Independent Union and Randolph made health and welfare payments and remitted dues on Byers' behalf to that union 4 Prior to the issuance of the Board's original Decision and Order herein, it appears that Respondent at no time interposed any objection to Byers' failure to pay dues to it or the arrangement whereby Randolph remitted dues and benefit payments on his behalf to another union . Under these 227 NLRB No. 111 The Issue The sole issue presented to the Board herein is whether Respondent may offset against its backpay obligation all or any part of dues payments allegedly owed to Respondent by Charging Party from the date of Charging Party's initial employment with the Employer to the date of any order issued by the Board. The parties agree that Respondent's net liability is $3,213.82 plus interest to the date of payment. Respondent contends, however, that it is entitled to offset against this sum union dues purportedly owed it by Byers from his date of hire in the amount of $939.3 For the reasons set forth below, we find no merit in Respondent's contention. The Board has consistently held that the matter of collection of dues is an internal union affair except where an employee's discharge is sought on 'the grounds of failure to tender dues pursuant to a lawful union-security clause, a circumstance not here ob- taining. Respondent, by its asserted claim to setoff, seeks to inject just such an internal union matter into the instant proceedings and thus to litigate a private cause of action allegedly accruing to it as a claimed general creditor.4 The Act, however, neither confers nor purports to confer private rights, but exists to enforce the public interest in preventing and deter- ring unfair labor practices.5 Thus, the backpay remedy is not a private right, but is a public one granted to vindicate the law against one who has broken it; the object of the remedy is to discourage discrimination against employees contrary to the statute and thereby to vindicate the policies of the Act .6 Consequently, Respondent is not permitted to reduce the amount of backpay by the amount of its private claim for dues. Further, Respondent here seeks not only to set off dues allegedly owing on and after the date of discrimination, but in addition requests the Board to set off, against its backpay obligation, dues allegedly circumstances, to permit Respondent's claim of setoff for nonpayment of dues might preclude consideration of a possibly meritorious defense to an action in contract. 5 National Licorice Company v. N LR B., 309 U.S. 350, 362-366 (1940). See also Agwilines, Inc. v. N.LRB., 87 F.2d 146, 150-151 (C.A. 5,1936); and N L.RB v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 366 F.2d 809,811 (C.A. 5,1966). 6 Clayton-Willard Sales, 126 NLRB 1325 (1960). Thus employees may not waive or settle backpay claims without approval of the Board, nor are such awards subject to attachment or garnishment. See W. C. Nabors d/b/a W. C. Nabors Co. v. N.LRB., 323 F.2d 686, 691 (C.A. 5, 1963) (waiver), cert. denied 376 U.S. 911 ( 1964). Waterman Steamship Corporation v. N.LRB., 119 F.2d 760, 762 (C.A. 5, 1941) (settlement); N L KB v. Sunshine Mining Co., 125 F.2d 757 (C.A. 9, 1942) (attachment); N.LR.B. v. Al Schertzer d/b/a A & P Import Company, 360 F.2d 152 (C.A. 2, 1966) (garnishment) TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 owing from the date of Byers' hire to the date of the discriminatory layoff. It is clear that Respondent's claim relative to the prediscrimination period bears no relationship to the unfair labor practice which the Board's backpay order is designed to remedy inas- much as it is purely a contractual claim which neither arises out of nor is otherwise related to Respondent's backpay obligation. As to dues allegedly owing since the date of discrimination, it fosters neither the public interest in deterring unfair labor practices, nor the public interest in fashioning a remedy designed to "make whole" an employee for loss of pay suffered, to set off dues for a period of time during which Respondent has discriminated against an employee contrary to the Act. - In sum, we conclude that Respondent's claim to setoff based on nonpayment of dues involves a 695 private debt which is irrelevant to these backpay proceedings. Accordingly, we shall require the Re- spondent to pay the full amount of backpay as stipulated by the parties. ORDER Respondent, Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers' Union Local No. 705, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall pay to Frank Byers as net backpay the sum of $3,213.82, together with 6-per- cent interest thereon in accordance with Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), until the date of payment of all backpay. 1