American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

942 303 NLRB No. 139 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The agreement also contains an agency-shop clause requiring the payment of amounts equivalent to union dues and fees but not requiring union member- ship. Under Florida statutes, employees may not be required to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. 2 The checkoff authorization card signed by Baumann provides in pertinent part: Beginning in l(Month)l, l(Year)l, I hereby authorize AT&T Infor- mation Systems Inc. to deduct each month from my salary or wages, sick- ness or accident disability payments, or vacation payments the amount of regular monthly Union dues as certified to the Company by the Secretary- Treasurer of the Communications Workers of America. This authorization is voluntarily made and is neither conditioned on my present or future membership of [sic] the Union, nor is it to be considered as quid pro quo. Each amount so deducted shall be remitted by the Company to the Sec- retary-Treasurer of the Communications Workers of America or his duly authorized agent. If for any reason the Company fails to make a deduc- tion, I authorize the Company to make such deduction in a subsequent payroll period. This authorization shall continue in effect until canceled by written notice signed by me and individually sent by certified or reg- istered mail to the Company, postmarked during the fourteen(14) day pe- riod prior to each anniversary date of the current or any subsequent Col- lective Bargaining Agreement, or during the fourteen(14) day period prior to the termination date of the current or any subsequent Collective Bar- gaining Agreement. 3 473 U.S. 95 (1985). 4 302 NLRB 322 (1991). American Telephone and Telegraph Company and James E. Baumann Communications Workers of America Local 3108, AFL–CIO and James E. Baumann. Cases 12– CA–13901 and 12–CB–3349 July 31, 1991 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by James E. Baumann on April 2, 1990, and September 12, 1990, in Case 12–CB–3349, and a charge filed by Baumann on April 2, 1990 in Case 12–CA–13901, the Regional Director for Region 12 issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on September 20, 1990. The complaint alleges that Respondent American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) has vio- lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by deducting membership dues from the wages of the Charging Party pursuant to his checkoff authorization after he effectively resigned his union membership. The complaint further alleges that Respondent Communications Workers of America, Local 3108, AFL–CIO (Local 3108) has violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by receiving, accept- ing, and retaining membership dues withheld from the wages of the Charging Party after he effectively re- signed his union membership. The Respondents both filed answers admitting in part and denying in part the allegations of the complaint and requesting that the complaint be dismissed. On November 20, 1990, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof. On November 21, 1990, the Board issued an order trans- ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Each Re- spondent filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause and opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment The following facts are admitted or undisputed. Local 3108 and AT&T have been parties to successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from May 28, 1989, to May 30, 1992. The agreement provides that employees who be- come members of Local 3108 may authorize AT&T to make monthly periodic deductions from their pay- checks in amounts equal to periodic union dues and remit those dues to Local 3108, by executing a dues- checkoff authorization card.1 On February 8, 1988, AT&T employee James E. Baumann executed a checkoff authorization card.2 On January 4, 1990, Baumann notified Local 3108 and AT&T of his resignation of union membership and re- quested the cessation of his dues deduction. On Janu- ary 24, 1990, AT&T notified Baumann that it could not process his dues-checkoff revocation because it was not made during the period for revocation set forth in his checkoff authorization. Accordingly, AT&T has continued to deduct membership dues from Baumann’s wages and forward the dues to Local 3108, which has received accepted, and, retained them. The General Counsel contends that continued deduc- tions following resignation constitutes an unlawful re- striction on an employee’s right to resign union mem- bership under Pattern Makers League v. NLRB.3 The General Counsel alternatively argues that resignation operates to reduce an employee’s dues obligation to zero, since the employee is no longer a union member following resignation. Local 3108 and AT&T contend, inter alia, that the checkoff authorization voluntarily signed by Baumann is a contract which may only be revoked within the contractually permissible period. Because Baumann failed to revoke the authorization within that permissible period, and because the author- ization explicitly states that it is neither conditioned on present or future membership in the Union, Local 3108 and AT&T argue that they may lawfully continue to deduct and receive dues pursuant to the authorization even after Baumann’s resignation from union member- ship. In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations),4 the Board set forth a new test for determining the effect of an employee’s resignation from union membership on that employee’s dues- 943 AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. 5 Metropolitan Edison v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983). 6 In Lockheed, the Board left open the question of how its waiver rule would apply in the context of a lawful union-security provision. Notwithstanding the inclusion of an agency-shop clause in the collective-bargaining agreement (see fn. 1, supra), we note that the sole basis cited by the Respondent Union for continuing to extract membership dues after an attempt to resign was the checkoff authorization itself. See also Rubber Workers Local 915 (Dunlop Tire), 302 NLRB 428, 429 fns. 2 and 8 (1991). 7 See Steelworkers Local 4671 (National Oil Well), 302 NLRB 367 (1991). checkoff authorization. The Board in Lockheed found that an employee may voluntarily agree to continue paying union dues pursuant to a checkoff authorization even after resignation of union membership. In fash- ioning a test to determine whether an employee has in fact agreed to do so, the Board recognized the funda- mental policies under the Act guaranteeing employees the right to refrain from belonging to and assisting a union, as well as the principle set forth by the Su- preme Court that waiver of such statutory rights must be clear and unmistakable.5 In order to give full effect to these fundamental labor policies, the Board stated that it would construe language relating to a checkoff author- ization’s irrevocability—i.e., language specifying an irrevocable duration for either 1 year from the date of the authorization’s execution or on the ex- piration of the existing collective-bargaining agreement—as pertaining only to the method by which dues payments will be made so long as dues payments are properly owing. We shall not read it as, by itself, a promise to pay dues beyond the term in which an employee is liable for dues on some other basis. Explicit language within the checkoff authorization clearly setting forth an ob- ligation to pay dues even in the absence of union membership will be required to establish that the employee has bound himself or herself to pay the dues even after resignation of membership. [Id. at 328–329.]6 Applying the analysis of Lockheed to the facts in this case, we find that the Respondents have shown that the dues-checkoff authorization signed by the Charging Party obligated him to pay dues after his ef- fective resignation from membership in Local 3108. The authorization signed by Baumann provides that it is ‘‘voluntarily made and is neither conditioned on my present or future membership of [sic] the Union . . . .’’ We find that Baumann thus clearly authorized the continuation of his dues deduction even in the ab- sence of union membership. Because there is explicit language within the checkoff authorization clearly set- ting forth an obligation to pay dues even in the ab- sence of union membership, dues were still owing under Baumann’s checkoff authorization after his res- ignation.7 Inasmuch as under the checkoff authoriza- tion which he executed Baumann continued to have a dues obligation after his effective resignation from the Union, we conclude that Respondent AT&T did not violate the Act by deducting dues from his wages after his resignation, and that Respondent Local 3108 did not violate the Act by receiving, accepting, and retain- ing those dues. Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and we shall dismiss the complaint. ORDER The complaint is dismissed.