Manganaro Masonry Co., Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Massachusetts Laborers' District Council of the Laborers' International Union of North America (Manganaro Masonry Co., Inc.) and Richard J. Goodhue. Case l-CB-3127 July 5, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On February 24, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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. The Board has considered the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom- mended Order. The dispute arose when Laborers' Union Local 721 appointed Goodhue to act as union steward for the laborers employed by Manganaro Masonry, a subcontractor on the project. Under the terms of the contract negotiated by the Respondent and several multiemployer associations, including the Associated General Contractors (AGC), the Local is entitled to appoint a steward for each project. Manganaro claimed that the clause was satisfied by the employ- ment of one steward per jobsite. Since a laborer in the employment of the general contractor had been appointed steward, Manganaro asserted that as a subcontractor it had no obligation to employ an additional steward. Local 721 disagreed and insisted that Goodhue continue to act as steward. Manganaro then referred the dispute to the AGC which contacted Paul McNally, a representative of the Respondent. McNally went to the jobsite and spoke with representatives of Manganaro and Local 721, and subsequently spoke again with the AGC representative. Manganaro warned Goodhue that he would be discharged if he continued to serve as steward. Goodhue replied that he had to follow the Union's instructions. When Local 721 refused to back down, Manganaro discharged Goodhue. Local 721 took the first step in the grievance procedure, then sent a demand for arbitration to Manganaro. Manganaro forwarded the demand to the AGC. The AGC wrote to the Respondent, stating its position that only the Respondent and not the 230 NLRB No. 95 Local could take that step. The Respondent never replied. A charge alleging that the discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) was dismissed, although the reason for the dismissal does not appear in the record of this case. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by failing to process the grievance. Citing, inter alia, the responsibility of Local 721 in creating the dispute and a subsequent arbitration decision involving that Local, the Respondent argued that the General Counsel had charged the wrong party and that any duty to process Goodhue's grievance lay with the Local rather than with the Respondent. While the Local might properly have been joined as a party respondent, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that their liability would have been joint and several, not in the alternative. The Respondent asserts that the effect of this decision is to make the Respondent automatically liable for actions taken by the Local. We disagree. It is not our decision, but rather the contract negotiated by the Respondent "for and on behalf of" the Local Union, which created Respondent's duty. The contract sets up a four-step grievance proce- dure. First, representatives of the Local and the contractor employer attempt to settle the dispute. Next, the dispute is referred to the multiemployer association and the District Council (Respondent). If no settlement is reached within 48 hours, a Joint Board arbitration procedure is held, with the employ- er association and the Union each selecting two members of the panel. It is only after the Joint Board fails to reach agreement that the dispute is referred to outside arbitration. It is not clear whether the Respondent was the only proper party to take part in the Joint Board procedure. In the arbitration case cited by the Respondent (Resp. Exh. 2), the local union was found to have the right under the contract to request outside arbitration. However, that case is not dispositive of this issue because there the respondent had taken the dispute through the Joint Board procedure. The instant case, on the other hand, was only at the level of the Joint Board procedure. Moreover, the employer association had notified the Respondent by letter dated June 30 that it believed that only the Respondent, and not the Local, could submit a dispute under the contractual Joint Board procedure. Not only did the Respondent fail to respond to this letter, but no explanation was ever offered for the failure to respond. Local 721 insisted upon appointing Goodhue as steward for Manganaro's employees and refused to back down even in the face of the threat of discharge. 640 MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL Indeed, the Local assured Goodhue that it would take care of him. In such a situation, it is only fair to hold the union to a higher duty than that which normally is owed to a member fully and vigorously to pursue his grievance. Because of its role in the grievance procedure and its knowledge of and involvement in the case, this higher duty properly can be attributed to the Respondent.' Upon notifica- tion of the employer association's position that only the Respondent had the contractual right to seek Joint Board arbitration, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to take some action. Accordingly, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that, in the circumstances of this case, the Respondent's inaction was violative of the duty of fair representation. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Massachusetts Laborers' District Council of the Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. Cf. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Interroyal Corp.), 223 NLRB 1184(1976). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard on November 1, 1976, in Boston, Massa- chusetts, based upon a charge filed by Richard J. Goodhue (herein Goodhue) on December 5, 1975,1 and a complaint issued by the Regional Director of Region I of the National Labor Relations Board on July 7, 1976. The complaint alleged that Massachusetts Laborers' District Council of the Laborers' International Union of North America (herein Respondent or District Council) violated Section 8(bX I )(A) by failing to advise Goodhue that his job was in jeopardy because of his continued performance in the role of union steward and by failing to process a grievance protesting Goodhue's discharge. Respondent's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. (herein Manganaro), Goodhue's employer, was a masonry contractor, engaged in the construction industry in Mal- den, Massachusetts, and annually purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I find and conclude that Manganaro, at all times material herein, is and has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further find and conclude that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The facts are not in dispute. In early June, Goodhue was hired as a laborer by Manganaro, the masonry subcontractor on the Massasoit Community College jobsite. He was one of about five laborers employed by Manganaro. The general contractor also employed about 15 laborers, one of whom was a union steward. About June 5, Goodhue was called down to the jobsite office by Louis Palavanchi, business manager for Local 721 of the Laborers' Union. In the presence of Armand Domenici, Manganaro's masonry superintendent, Palavan- chi told Goodhue that he wanted to appoint him steward for Manganaro's masons. Domenici objected, stating that Manganaro did not want to employ any union representa- tive. Palavanchi insisted that Goodhue would be the steward, gave him insignia so indicating and dues-deduc- tion authorization cards to distribute to other employees. Thereafter, Goodhue distributed the cards, allegedly on his lunchtime. On approximately June 9, Domenici told Goodhue that he didn't want Goodhue doing any union work on that job and that he would be discharged if he continued. Goodhue insisted that he would do what he had been instructed to do. Manganaro is an affiliate of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (herein AGC). According to the testimony of Joel B. Leighton, executive director of AGC, on June 10 he received a telephone call from Tony Manganaro, a principal of that company. Tony Mangana- ro told Leighton that there was a dispute on the jobsite- that the Union was attempting to appoint a steward to cover his men on the job when there was already a laborer steward on the jobsite, in the employ of the general contractor. Leighton and Tony Manganaro discussed the applicable contract, between, inter alia, Respondent Dis- trict Council and AGC, which provided: FINDINGS OF FACT Article V Article V I. COMMERCE AND LABOR ORGANIZATION Status: Preliminary Conclusions of Law Jurisdiction is not in issue; the complaint alleged, and Respondent admitted, that Manganaro Masonry Co., Inc. Business Manager - Field Representative Steward - Foreman Section 2. A steward shall be appointed or furnished on each project by the Union Representative of the Local All dates hereinafter are 1975 unless otherwise specified. 641 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union which has territorial jurisdiction in the area where the job is located . .2 They concluded that Palavanchi's appointment of Good- hue as the second steward on the jobsite was improper in light of the above-quoted language. Leighton indicated that he would discuss the matter with an appropriate represen- tative of the District Council or the International. Leighton called the District Council and spoke with Paul McNally, its representative and agent. They discussed the problem and McNally stated that he would investigate and straighten it out. Subsequently, after McNally had appar- ently gone to the jobsite and there, together with Palavan- chi, insisted on appointing a steward on Manganaro's payroll, Leighton again spoke with McNally. To Leighton, McNally argued for the second steward. Leighton argued that the contract gave them no such right. The matter was not resolved between them. On June 19, agents of Manganaro asked Goodhue whether he wanted to continue as the steward for Local 721. Goodhue stated that he had to, according to his business agent. Goodhue was thereupon terminated, expressly because he insisted on functioning as the laborer steward. 3 Goodhue called Palavanchi who stated that he and the District Council knew all about the situation. He told Goodhue that he would seek arbitration. On June 19, Palavanchi wrote Manganaro, demanding arbitration. A copy of his letter was sent to the AGC. On June 30, Leighton wrote the District Council in reference to the demand for arbitration. It set out Manganaro's contentions vis-a-vis the second steward issue and stated further: i. Under the agreement, the District Council is the party which must bring an action to arbitration, not a local union. * * * * In order that the employer may not be charged with a breach of the agreement, would you please let us know if you agree with our contention that it is the District Council and not the local union which may submit an arbitration under the agreement.4 On September 22, the District Council made a written request for arbitration of the Goodhue discharge upon the AGC. The request was denied as untimely. The District Council pursued the matter no further and it has never been arbitrated. 2 It further provided that the steward would retain his employment until completion of the work, would not be laid off unless he were the last laborer, and would work all overtime performed by the employer. :~ It was stipulated that an unfair labor practice charge filed by Goodhue against Manganaro, alleging a discriminatory discharge in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act, was dismissed on November 28, 1975. 4 The contract in art. XVIII. provided in regard to the procedure of adjustment of disputes and arbitration, inter alia. Section 3. Disputes which cannot be adjusted between the B. Discussion and Conclusions The issue presented here is whether Respondent breached the duty to fairly represent its members by failing to notify Goodhue that his job would be in jeopardy if he continued as the second steward on the jobsite, or by failing to process his grievance upon discharge. The record reflects that Palavanchi asked Goodhue to be steward, but there is no evidence that it required him to assume this role. Palavanchi's insistence, and subsequently that of McNally, was directed at the employer to accept Goodhue as steward, not (at least on this record) at Goodhue. The record further reflects that Goodhue was repeatedly told by the employer that his continued performance as steward jeopardized his employment. There was no indication of what benefit Goodhue might have derived from an additional warning from either the Local or Respondent. Only by waiving its position on the second steward issue could the Local or Respondent have prevented the discharge of Goodhue or someone in a like position. Thus, it does not appear that Goodhue was prejudiced in any way by Respondent's alleged failure to warn him of the risks presented to his job tenure by his steward's role. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed.5 Upon Goodhue's discharge, Palavanchi demanded arbi- tration. He made the demand upon Manganaro, it appears, in his capacity as the Local's business manager. Mangana- ro referred the demand to the AGC, which denied it, asserting that the District Council was the only party who could seek arbitration. Upon the AGC's June 30 refusal to arbitrate no action was taken. The District Council demanded arbitration in late September. It took no further action when its demand was rejected as untimely. Thus, any breach of Respondent's duty of fair representation must be found in its failure to request arbitration at an earlier date, or its failure to attempt to require arbitration by court action, if it is to be found at all. It is well settled that a union which enjoys the status of exclusive collective-bargaining representative has an obli- gation to represent employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination against any of them on the basis of arbitrary, irrelevant, or invidious distinctions. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1966); Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 181 (1962). A union breaches this duty when it arbitrarily ignores a meritorious grievance or processes it in a perfunctory fashion. Vaca v. Sipes, supra at 191 and 194; Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (1976); Teamsters and Chauffeurs Local Union No. 729 (Penntruck Co., Inc.), 189 NLRB 696, 702 (1971). Correspondingly, so long as it exercises its discretion in good faith and with honesty of purpose, a collective-bargaining representative is endowed with a wide range of reasonableness in the contractor-employer and the Local Union within forty-eight (48) hours . . . shall be referred to . the IA.G.C.] and . . . the [District Council 1. Section 4. If, within forty-eight (48) hours, no adjustment or settlement is resolved by the procedure of Section 3 above, either party may submit the issue to arbitration. 5 The cases cited by General Counsel, dealing with a union's obligations to inform employees of their dues obligations, are inapposite. 642 MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL performance of its duties for the unit it represents. Mere negligence, poor judgment, or ineptitude in grievance handling is insufficient to establish a breach of the duty of fair representation. Ford Motor Company v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953); King Soopers, Inc. 222 NLRB 1011 (1976); Maxam Dayton, Inc., 142 NLRB 396, 418 (1963). There comes a point, however, when a union's action or its failure to take action is so unreasonable as to be arbitrary and thus contrary to its fiduciary obligations. Griffin v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UA W, 469 F.2d 181 (C.A. 4, 1972); United Steelworkers of America, Local 8093, 225 NLRB 802 (1976); King Soopers, supra; General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers and Automo- tive Employees, Local 315 (Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd), 217 NLRB 616 (1975). The record herein contains no evidence that Respondent took or failed to take any action for irrelevant, invidious, or unfair considerations such as might constitute arbitrary conduct within the purview of the Board's decision in Miranda Fuel, supra. The question, I believe, is whether Respondent's conduct should be deemed so unreasonable or perfunctory as to be considered arbitrary. In this regard. I note that there were substantial questions of contract interpretation involved in the AGC's contentions that the Local had no right to either appoint a second steward or to take a dispute to arbitration. 6 Viewed in the most favorable light, it may be that Respondent concluded that the Local had been wrong and the AGC right. At worst, Respon- dent's conduct would appear to be the product of negligence or ineptitude. In General Truck Drivers, Chauf- feurs and Helpers Union Local 692 (Great Western Unifr- eight System), 209 NLRB 446 (1974), the complaint alleged that the respondent union had negligently failed and refused to timely process a meritorious grievance, resulting in the loss of the grievance and serious detriment to the employee. The Board, in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment, held at 448: . . . it is clear that negligent action or nonaction of a union by itself will not be considered to be arbitrary, irrelevant, invidious, or unfair so as to constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation violative of the Act. Something more is required. [Emphasis supplied.] That "something more" is, I find, present herein. Respon- dent, in conjunction with the Local, placed Goodhue in a position known by them to be precarious. As union steward, Goodhue would advance the Union's position on the jobsite. They then supported his right to occupy that position, right up to the time of his discharge. Having placed him in that precarious position, and having accepted the benefits of Goodhue's service in the role assigned him, Respondent cannot fairly withdraw from the fray upon the first indication that it might have a fight on its hands. In this regard, the case of Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, and Filling Station and Platform Workers Local No. 705 (Associated Transport, Inc.), 209 NLRB 292 (1974), is instructive. Therein, the union took an employee's dis- I This is not the proper forum for determination of those issues. Neither is it appropriate for me to determine whether Respondent's September request for arbitration was, in fact, untimely under the agreement. charge grievance to arbitration but, in the arbitral hearing, sided with the employer. The Board found that the union representative "in effect abdicated his duty to present the grievance in the light most favorable to [the employee ]." It held: In our view, once Respondent undertook to present [the employee's] grievance to the Joint Grievance Board, it became obligated to represent him fully and fairly. The obligation included the duty to act as advocate for the grievant .... Similarly, I find, once Respondent undertook to place Goodhue in a position which subjected him to the risk of discharge, for its own benefit, it became obligated to follow through fully in his defense when the risk became a reality. Respondent contends that the proper party respondent in this proceeding should have been the Local Union, rather than the District Council. Were they both charged, I would have found them to be jointly and severally liable. The District Council's connection with the facts herein is, I believe, sufficient to attach liability to it and to hold it fully responsible. In this connection I note that the collective- bargaining agreement was between the District Council and the AGC, that contract was executed by representa- tives of the District Council, the District Council (on behalf of various locals) was recognized as the employees' exclusive representative, the District Council was assigned a specific role in the grievance procedure, the District Council, in the person of McNally, defended Goodhue's right to be steward, and the District Council was essentially invited to assume its obligations by the AGC letter of June 30 and failed to act. Accordingly, I find that by failing and refusing to take Goodhue's grievance to arbitration, including its failure to take whatever steps might have been required to compel arbitration, Respondent District Council has violated Section 8(bX)(I)(A) of the Act. I1. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It is not the function of the Board to decide the merits of a grievance in determining whether the refusal to process that grievance was violative of the Act. It is sufficient to determine from the record that the grievance was not "clearly frivolous." The Buffalo Newspaper Guilat Local 26 (Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc.), 220 NLRB 79 (1975). Goodhue's grievance was clearly not frivolous. The contract provided for a steward to be appointed or furnished "on each project ... " It did not preclude additional stewards and could, at least, be considered ambiguous on the question. Moreover, it was at least arguable that even if the contract allowed only one steward, employer self-help through discharge was not the proper way to resolve the question. 643 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD However, the uncertainty as to whether Goodhue's grievance would have been found meritorious is a direct product of Respondent's unlawful action. Where, as here, resolution of that uncertainty is required for the determina- tion of monetary responsibility, it is proper to resolve the question in favor of the injured employee and not the wrongdoer. Accordingly, for the purposes of remedy, I shall presume that if fully and fairly processed, Goodhue's grievance would have been found meritorious and that he would have been reinstated with backpay. King Soopers, Inc., supra; Local Union No. 2088, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Federal Electric Corpora- tion), 218 NLRB 396 (1975). Respondent's backpay liability must be limited to any loss Goodhue suffered as a result of the refusal to arbitrate his grievance. That grievance may now be time-barred; however, Respondent may be able to prevail upon the employer to waive those time limits. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent make Goodhue whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge until the earlier of the following occurs: Respon- dent secures arbitration of his grievance by the employer and thereafter pursues it in good faith and with all due diligence, or Goodhue is reinstated by Manganaro or obtains other substantially equivalent employment. United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO (Inter-Royal Corp.), 223 NLRB 1184 (1976); Federal Electric Corp., supra. Backpay shall be with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. By failing and refusing to process the grievance of Richard J. Goodhue in regard to the termination of his employment by Manganaro, Respondent has restrained and coerced Goodhue in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice occurring in connection with the operations of Manganaro and the AGC has a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. It thus affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practices not specifically found herein.7 Upon 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: ORDER 8 The Respondent, Massachusetts Laborers' District Council of the Laborers' International Union of North America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing any employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by arbitrarily refusing to process grievances. (b) Restraining or coercing employees in any like or related manner. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Request Manganaro to reinstate Richard J. Goodhue to his former position or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position. If Manganaro refuses to reinstate him, ask it and the AGC to arbitrate the grievance over his termination and thereafter pursue that grievance in good faith with all due diligence. (b) Make Richard J. Goodhue whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge by Manganaro from June 19, 1975, until such time as he is reinstated by Manganaro or obtains other substantially equivalent employment or the Respondent secures arbitra- tion of his grievance by the employer and thereafter pursues it with all due diligence, whichever is sooner, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, all to be computed in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls and at all places where notices to its members and other employees in the bargaining unit customarily are posted (including jobsites) copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 9 Copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region I, after being signed by officials of the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Respondent shall also sign copies of the notice which the Regional Director shall make available for posting by Manganaro and the AGC if they are willing. (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith. 7 It is appropriate to direct that Respondent arbitrate this grievance as it has been processed. albeit perfunctorily, at the lesser stages of the grievance procedure. 8 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, and recommended Order herein shall, as 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. 9 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board 644 MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to fairly represent any employee in a bargaining unit represented by us or arbitrarily fail or refuse to file and process any employee's grievance. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in or refrain from engaging in concerted activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL request Manganaro Masonry Co., Inc., to reinstate Richard J. Goodhue to his former position or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position. If it refuses to reinstate him, we will ask Manganaro and the AGC to arbitrate a grievance over his June 19, 1975, termination and will pursue it in good faith with all due diligence. Since it was decided that we violated the Act by failing and refusing to arbitrate Richard J. Goodhue's grievance, WE WILL make him whole for any losses he suffered by reason of our failure to arbitrate that grievance. MASSACHUSErTS LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 645