United MetalTronics Local 955

UNITED METALTRONICS LOCAL 955 United Metaltronics and Hospital Supply Employ- ees, Local 955 (Pbarmaseal Laboratories, Inc.) and Martha Culp, Janalie Erkel, Maria Cal- deron, Steven Buttery, Mike Frost, Marisol Llibre, David Harris, Joseph A. Bejarano, and Eva Morales. Cases 21-CB-6872, 21-CB-6878, 21-CB-6881, 21-CB-6885, 21-CB-6886, 21- CB-6893, 21-CB-5897, 21-CB-6946, and 21- CB-7014 January 14, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PENELLO, TRUESDALE, AND ZIMMERMAN On October 15, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Gerald D. Wacknov issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, United Metal- tronics and Hospital Supply Employees, Local 955, Irwindale, California, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's notice to conform to his recommended Order APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc., to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against Joseph Bejar- ano, Steven Buttery, Maria Calderon, Martha Culp, Marisal Llibre, Michael Frost, Eva Mo- 254 NLRB No. 73 rales, Refugio Ortiz, Hanall Erkel, Laura Powell, and Richard Hammill, or any other employee, for failure to render intiation fees or periodic dues, without providing adequate no- tification to such employees of their union ob- ligations. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL advise Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc., and each of the above-named employees, in writing, that we withdraw and rescind our request for the discharges of the said employ- ees, and that we have no objection to their re- instatement, without loss of seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them. WE WILL make the above-named employees whole, with interest, for any loss of pay suf- fered because of the discrimination against them. UNITED METALTRONICS AND HOSPI- TAI. SUPPIlY EMPLOYEES, LOCAI 955 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GERAI.D A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter was held before me in Los Angeles, California, on April 7, 8, and 9, 1980. The charges were filed between the dates of April 23 and August 20, 1979. Thereafter, on November 8, the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), issued the instant complaint alleging that United Metaltronics and Hospital Supply Employees, Local 955 (herein called Respondent or the Union) attempted to cause and did cause Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. (herein called the Employer), to discharge various em- ployees, the Charging Parties herein, in violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Respondent has denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The parties were afforded a full opportunity to he heard, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevent evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel, and counsel for Respondent. Upon the entire record and based upon my observa- tion of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs sub- mitted, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Employer is and has been at all times material herein, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of hos- pital supplies with a facility located in Irwindale, Califor- 601 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nia. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Employer annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat- ed outside the State of California. It is admitted, and I find, that the Employer is, and has been at all times ma- terial herein, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issue The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by failing to provide certain employees with reason- able notice and an adequate opportunity to pay union dues and initiation fees prior to causing their termination by the Employer. B. Facts 1. Background The Respondent was certified by the Board as the col- lective-bargaining representative of the Employer's em- ployees in 1965, and thereafter Respondent and Employ- er have been parties to successive collective-bargaining agreements. Between the dates of November 23, 1977, and August 21, 1978, approximately 300 or some 900 unit employees had refused to pay union dues and/or initiation fees as a result litigation pending before the Board concerning Re- spondent's failure to execute a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-security clause. During this period of time, an employee faction was attempting to exhort the employees to refrain from belonging to the Union and was also seeking to process a deauthorization petition. By letter dated August 21, 1979, the Acting Director of the Office of Appeals, NLRB, in essence sanctioned the aforementioned collective-bargaining agreement, which Respondent had executed on April 27, 1978, and stated in denying the appeal of the dissident group of employees, that: This is not to say that the Union would be privi- leged to request the discharge of employees who up until the present time have failed to pay dues pursu- ant to the union security clause of the present con- tract. Rather, under the particular circumstances of this case, including the employees' vote not to ratify the contract, the Union's refusal to execute the con- tract until April 27, 1978, [and] the Regional Direc- tor's conclusion that such refusal was violative of Section 8(b)(3), it does not appear that the employ- ees clearly understood any obligation to pay union dues. Accordingly, the Union would not be deemed privileged in seeking the discharge of those employ- ees up until the present time. Now, however, in view of our determination as set forth herein, and upon appropriate notification to employees of their obligation to pay union dues, absent Board certification of rescission of the Unions' authority to enter into a union security agreement, further refusals by employees to pay current dues would privilege the Union's request for their discharge. Thereupon, Respondent commenced to advise the em- ployees of their prospective union obligations. On about August 31, 1978, Respondent posted the following notice on its bulletin board which it maintained at the Employ- er's premises: SPECIAL NOTICE THE APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE INSURGENT GROUP HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ON AUGUST 21, 1978. THE LABOR BOARD HAS DIRECTED THAT UPON OUR NOTIFYING EMPLOYEES OF THEIR OBI.IGATION TO PAY UNION DUES, "FURTHER REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYEES TO PAY CURRENT DUES WOULD PRIVI- L.EGE THE UNION'S REQUEST FOR THEIR DIS- CHARGE". YOUR UNION REQUIRES DUES TO BE PAID FOR ANY MONTH WHERE YOU HAVE WORKED IN THAT MONTH. THE UNION SECURITY CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE COLI.ECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS NOW IN FUI.I FORCE AND EFFECT, DUES ARE OWING FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST AND FO.LLOWING MONTHS, ANY FAILURE TO PAY WILL. RESUI.T IN APPROPRIATE ACTION BEING TAKEN. DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU NOT TO PAY YOUR DUES, SINCE FAILURE TO PAY MAY EVENTUAI.LY COST YOU YOUR JOB. On or about September 1, 1978, Respondent posted a similar notice on the bulletin board, which also contained the additional admonition that employees who were 3 months in arrears in their dues were required to pay a new initiation fee. Further, on September 28, 1978, Re- spondent sent mailers to newly hired employees and to those current members who were in arrears on their dues, advising them of the initiation fee amount of $75 and dues obligations of $8 per month. There ensued an additional unfair labor practice charge by the dissident group against Respondent, alleg- ing that Respondent was acting improperly in certain re- spects in seeking to cause the employees to meet their aforementioned union obligations. This charge was dis- missed on November 13, 1978, and the appeal therefrom was denied by the Acting Director of the Office of Ap- peals, NLRB, on March 15, 1979. On March 6, 8, and 13, 1979, Respondent wrote to the Employer requesting the discharge of a total of some 125 employees who had failed to comply with the provisions 602 UNITED METALTRONICS LOCAL 955 of the union-security clause. Although the Employer posted Respondent's letters, which did not contain any information regarding the precise monetary obligation of each named employee, no discharges were immediately effectuated. Thereafter, Respondent and the Employer reached an agreement whereby Respondent agreed to withdraw the requests for immediate discharge and the Employer agreed to maintain the letters on its bulletin board, and to take steps in notifying each of the named employees of their union obligations. As a result, em- ployer representatives conducted meetings with groups of employees, and generally advised them of their dues obligations. However, the Employer had not been ad- vised by Respondent of the precise amount owed by each employee, and therefore could not convey this in- formation to the employees. Moreover, it appears that at these meetings, which were apparently not attended by all the employees listed, the employees were told that Respondent would be sending them notification by mail of their obligations. Further, some employees who were not named in the letters were also in attendance at some of the meetings. In March 1979, the dissident group distributed the fol- lowing leaflet: FIRST THE BAD NEWS-ON MARCH 15, 1979 THE NA- TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DENIED OUR APPEAL. THEY HAVE STATED THAT WE U'II.I. HAVE TO PAY UNION DUES OR LOCAI 955 CAN AND WILL HAVE US FIRED. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM THE LABOR BOARD THAT ALL EMPLOYEES AVE A 30 DAY GRACE PERIOD STARTING MARCH 15, 1979. IF THIS IS WRONG, WE ARE SURE THAT LOCAL 955 WILL INFORM EVERYBODY. ' On March 29, 1979, Respondent distributed the fol- lowing handbill to the employees: HERE WE GO AGAIN! We are all faced with an election to he scheduled shortly. Some of our co-workers are trying to in- validate the Union Security clause and have peti- tioned the N.L.R.B. for the election. It will be sche- culed now that the N.L.R.B. has decided the dues question in our favor. 2 WE CAN REPORT: (1) THE FREE LUNCH IS OVER! There is a dues re- sponsibility from September to date. Anyone with an arrearage of 90 days must also pay a new initiation fee. Notices are being forwarded to anyone in this position. I In September 1978, the dissident group had distributed leaflets to the unit employees. One such leaflet, entitled "HA HA, NO BACK DUES" in- cluded the statement, "NO DUtS IHA'I 10 BI PAll) LNIII 01 5 RI NOll- I:IEt) IN %'RITIN( BY I OCi 95'." Another leaflet advised he emplosees that although they owed dues in the amount of $8 per month, they did not need to join the union and could hereby avoid paying an initiation fee. 2 Apparently, the election was held and the employees voted that the union-security clause should not be deleted from the contract (2) I-THE COMPANY I.OVES US TO FIGHT AMONG OURSELVES! Since we are still scrapping Pharma- seal has started again. One of our members has been denied the right to a Steward during investi- gation. The Company has polled us individually instead of working through the Union and has improperly dealt directly with employees. We are taking steps to stop this now. We must be strong and Together to head off these problems. This election only weakens us all. Be pre- pared to fight. We should work within the Union, Not against ourselves. Also on March 29, 1979, Respondent sent a letter by regular mail to approximately 300 employees informing each of the precise amount of his or her obligation and the manner in which the obligation could be satisfied. The letter concluded with the following admonition: Failure to do one of the above [either payment by payroll deduction or in cash at the union office] and if your dues and initiation fees are not brought up to date within 14 days of the date of this letter, you will be discharged in accordance with the Contract. Thereupon, in April 1979, the dissident group distrib- uted the following leaflet: URGENT LOCAL 955 HAS DEMANDED A.L BACK DUES AND NEW INITIATION FEES BE PAID IN FULL BY APRIL 12-THIS IHURSDAY. IF NOT PAID BY THEN YOU WILI. BE FIRED. THE LABOR BOARD HAS RUI.ED THAT THE UNION MAY DO THIS. DO NOT ORGET TO PAY BECAUSE ROY BROWN IS IN TOWN TO COLLECT OR HAVE YOU FIRED. GO TO THE UNION OFFICE NOW! Respondent submitted a list to the Employer of some 58 employees who were not current as of the close of business April 12, 1979, and demanded their immediate termination for failure to comply with the requirements of the union- security clause. The Employer did dis- charge these employees on about April 19, 1979, and of this group only 11 are the subject matter of the instant complaint. However, upon being advised of the intention to issue the instant complaint, it appears that the Em- ployer offered these employees immediate reinstatement to their former jobs without loss of seniority, and most of them have returned to work for the Employer and are apparently members in good standing of Respondent. 2. The April 19, 1979, dischargees Joseph Bejarano received a work-related injury on Jan- uary 9, 1979, and apparently was on a medical leave of absence until the date of his termination April 19, 1979. Prior to his discharge, Bejarano was not sent the March 29, 1979, letter, nor did he receive any oral communica- tion from Respondent regarding his union obligations. 603 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent concedes in its brief that the inclusion of Be- jarano on the discharge list was improper. Steven Butter was on medical leave of absence from January 22 to March 5, 1979. He testified that he never received the March 29 letter or any verbal or written notice from Respondent that he would be discharged for failure to pay dues. Upon his return to work on March 5, 1979, Buttery asked Union Steward Dave Neer to find out how much he owed Respondent and took a blank check out of his pocket for this purpose. Neer said there were letters in the mail to employees advising them of their obligation, and Neer handed him an authorization card and a membership card which Buttery filled out, signed, and deposited in a box that was maintained by Respondent on the Employer's premises. Buttery admits seeing his name on the discharge list posted on the bulle- tin board upon his return to work. Thereupon, he went by the union office, located immediately outside the plant gate, on two occasions, but the office was closed. Upon being discharged, Buttery phoned the union office and spoke with Joseph Shoats, Respondent's Inter- national representative, explaining that the Employer had deducted money out of his wages on his last paycheck, and requesting that he be allowed to pay his dues obliga- tions. Shoats said it was too late to pay anything.3 Maria Calderon testified that she did not receive the March 29 letter from the Union. She was aware, howev- er, that other employees had received such letters and she had seen her name on the discharge list on the bulle- tin board. She was aware that the deadline for paying dues was April 12, 1979, and went to the union office on or about April 9, 1979. She spoke to Virginia (Ginger) Dean, financial secretary and treasurer of Respondent, and said she had come by to pay her union dues, al- though she had never received a letter. Dean said that Calderon had not been sent a letter because the Union did not have her address. Thereupon, Calderon filled out, signed, and submitted union authorization and mem- bership cards to Dean. Dean told her that she was lucky and did not have to pay anything at the time, that the money would be deducted from her check, and that she did not have to worry about being fired. On the day following her discharge, Calderon went to see International Representative Shoats, and explained her prior conversation with Dean. Shoats asked her to come back later that day but she did not do so. Rather, a job interview prevented her from returning at the sug- gested time. Moreover, Calderon picketed the union office that day with other employees, apparently in pro- test of the Union's actions in effectuating the discharge of employees. Dean testified that on or about April 9, 1979, she ad- vised Calderon that she would have to pay her back dues in cash, but could sign an authorization to have her initiation fees deducted from her paycheck. Calderon re- plied, according to Dean, that she did not have the money for the back dues, and Dean suggested that she attempt to obtain her check early from the Employer. 3 The parties stipulated that $15 had been deducted from Buttery's last paycheck, and was tendered by the Employer to the Union in May 1979, subsequent to his discharge. Dean further denied telling Calderon that she was not sent a letter because the Union did not have her address. Martha Culp testified that she did not recieve the March 29 letter, nor was she ever told by any union offi- cial that she would be fired if she did not pay her dues. Moreover, her name did not appear on the discharge list posted on the bulletin board. On April 19, 1979, she went to the union office and pleaded with International Representative Shoats and Irene Smith, president of Re- spondent, to please take the money and rescind the dis- charge. They refused and referred her to the Employer. Marisol Llibre worked weekends. She testified that she did not receive the March 29 letter from Respondent which, the record shows, was sent to the wrong address. However, she did notice her name on the bulletin board discharge list shortly before April 19, 1979. Following her discharge she went to the union office to pay her dues, but they were not accepted. Michael Frost testified that he did not receive the March 29 letter. Nor did any steward or officer of the Union advise him that he would be discharged if he did not fulfill his obligations. While he was generally aware of the contents of the March 29 letter as a result of infor- mation received from a coworker, Frost took no action because he felt he would be personally approached by the Union. While he did see his name on the company bulletin board discharge list, and understood that unless he paid his dues he would lose his job, he was neverthe- less awaiting some personal communication from the Union. Eva Morales testified that she did not receive the March 29 letter or any verbal request to pay dues. Al- though she did notice that her name appeared on the bul- letin board discharge list about a week before her dis- charge, she did not go to the union office upon seeing her name because she believed that she would have to pay dues from the day she was hired, June 3, 1978, and did not have sufficient funds. Refugio Ortiz testified that he did not recieve the March 29 letter. On or about March 29, 1979, he was not living at his former address, and he had not given the employer his change of address which would customar- ily have been forwarded to the Union. He was not called into any meeting by the Employer, nor did his name appear on the bulletin board discharge list. However, Ortiz testified that he knew generally that he was in ar- rears on his dues and that he was obligated to become current with the Union but did not know the precise amount of his obligations, stating that he "wasn't about to pay any money if I didn't know how much I owed." Janalee Erkel testified that on April 9, 1979, about 8 p.m., at the plant, she was handed the March 29 letter by Shop Steward Natalie Wright.4 She filled out the mem- bership and dues deduction cards which were included with the letter, and put them in the union box at the plant on April 10, 1979, after talking to Union Steward 4 The envelope containing the letter was postmarked March 30, 1979, and had been returned to Respondent from the postal department. The letter stated that she owed $123, consisting of dues from October 1978 through March 1979. and an initiation fee of $75. 604 UNITED METALTRONICS LOCAL 955 Neer who advised her to do so, stating that everything would be taken care of. Erkel phoned Respondent's office on the afternoon of April 12, 1979, and spoke to Virginia Dean, explaining that she had received the letter at work. Dean asked when it was postmarked and Erkel said March 30. Dean replied that she would have to pay the union dues and a $75 initiation fee before 5 p.m. that day or she would be terminated. Erkel did not go to the union hall because she did not have the money to pay.5 She would have re- ceived her paycheck that night after 10 p.m. Erkel further testified that in March 1979 she attended a meeting conducted by the Employer's personnel man- ager, Ron Bennett, who told the assembled employees that if their names were on the discharge list they would receive letters from the Union, and that if the employees had not received a letter or if their name was not posted, they did not need to worry about anything. Erkel's name was not on the list. Dean testified that Erkel told her on April 12, 1979, that Erkel did not feel she should have to join the Union, and that she did not believe in unions. Dean replied that she would have to come in and pay her dues and initi- ation fees by 5 p.m. that day or be terminated, and that she could pay her initiation fee by checkoff but would have to pay the back dues in cash. Erkel, according to Dean, responded that she really did not have the money to pay the dues, but said she would try to come up with the money. Laura Powell had been employed by the Employer for 3 years. She had been a member of the Union in good standing throughout her employment, having paid an ini- tiation fee and periodic dues as required. However, for a reason unknown to Powell, the Employer ceased deduct- ing monthly union dues from her paycheck in or about September, 1978. Thereupon, Powell filled out and sub- mitted another dues deduction card in order to maintain her membership status. However, this effort was appar- ently to no avail. Powell spoke to Dean about the matter, and advised her that she wanted the Employer to continue deducting her dues. Dean said she would take care of it, but apparently the matter was never rectified and Powell paid no dues to the Union at least since Sep- tember 1978. Although Powell's name did not appear in the March 1979 discharge letters, she nevertheless filled out another dues-checkoff authorization card on March 13, 1979, which was given to her by a union steward whom Powell could not identify by name. According to Powell, the card had lines drawn through the amounts relating to initiation fees, and the steward told Powell she did not have to pay any initiation fee, but merely the $8 per month dues. Thereupon, Powell signed the card and returned it to the steward. On the next day, March 14, 1979, Respondent sent Pharmaseal a letter indicating that Laura Powell had signed an authorization card for the deduction of union 5 On April 16, prior to her discharge. Erkel phoned the union office and spoke to Shoats, advising him that she then wanted to pay her obli- gations and explaining that she did not have the moneN to pay on the April 12 deadline date Shoats said there was nothing he could do about it,. dues, and thereafter dues were deducted by the Employ- er for the months of March and April 1979. These dues were forwarded to Respondent in May 1979, and were returned to the Employer by Respondent, as Powell had been terminated pursuant to the Union's request on April 19, 1979. Powell received the March 29 letter which notified her that she owed $131, which amount included the $75 initiation fee and 7 month's back dues, apparently from September 1978 to March 1979. After receiving this letter, Powell had a brief conversation with Virginia Dean who was standing outside the plant passing out handbills. Dean asked when she was going to pay her back dues and initiation fees. Powell replied that she did not believe she owed this, and informed Dean about the dues deduction card she had previously submitted which had been given to her by a person she believed to be a union steward, with the initiation fee requirement de- leted, explaining that her dues were already being de- ducted. Dean told Powell that Respondent desired an initiation fee and back dues as well. Powell declined to comply as she felt that the Union was wrong, under the circumstances, and that the Union had waived her initi- ation fee and back dues. Moreover. she had not been given credit for the dues which had been deducted from her paycheck in March 1979. It was stipulated that Respondent's constitution pro- vides that any member whose dues have been withheld by his Employer for payment to Respondent pursuant to a voluntary authorization provided for in the collective- bargaining agreement shall be a member in good stand- ing. Richard Hammill was hired on January 17, 1979. Upon being hired he filled out a membership and dues authori- zation card and deposited them in the union box at the plant. Dues were not thereafter deducted from his pay- check, however. He received the March 29 letter stating that he owed 131 from September 1978. He showed this to the shop steward, Ed Harris, who said he would take care of the matter and acknowledged that the letter obvi- ously was in error as Hammill had only been employed for 3 months. The next day Harris told Hammill not to worry, advising him that everything had been taken care of.6 On April 11, 1979, Hammill again filled out the mem- bership and deduction authorization cards that had been enclosed with the March 29 letter, indicating that he wanted his initiation fees and his dues deducted. He de- posited them in the union box at the plant, believing that this would fulfill his obligations to the Union. Upon being advised by his supervisor that he was to be discharged on the afternoon of April 19, 1979, he im- mediately went to see International Representative Shoats at the union office. Shoals acknowledged that Hammill had not been employed long enough to be 90 days in arrears on his dues, but said the matter was out or his hands. Thus, he refused to permit Hammill to pay February and March dues which Hammill tendered to him. Ki H;lrris, ho h not been a shop steward since April or M 1979 catcgorlcll (dc1nid e tri;lt alls uch c,,rsa tln . .cr ll.k lace 605 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Analysis and Conclusions In Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union, Local 572, IBT (Ralphs Grocery Company), 247 NLRB No. 108 (1980), the Board summarized the applicable law govern- ing the scope of a union's fiduciary duty to inform em- ployees of their obligations under a valid union-security clause, as follows: We find merit in the Generel Counsel's conten- tion that a "reasonably couched effort" to notify Roy of her membership obligations is not surficient under Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) to satisfy the Union's fiduciary duty to her. In N.L.R.B. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees' Union, Local 568, AFL- CIO (Philadelphia Sheraton Corp.),6 the Third Cir- cuit held that the "minimum" requirement of this duty is to "inform the employee of his obligations in order that the employee may take whatever action is necessary to protect his job tenure." In Teamsters Local Union No. 122 (August A. Busch & Co. of Mass.. Inc.), 7 the Board specifically denied the union's duty as including "a statement of the precise amount and months for which dues were owed, as well as an explanation of the methods used in com- puting the amount" plus "an adequate opportunity to make payment." In Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union I50 et al (Delta lines), we stressed that inquiries made by an individual as to his or her obligations do not relieve a union of its afirmative duty under the Act specifically to inform an individual of his obligations and afford him a reasonable opportunity to satisfy them before seek- ing his discharge under a union-security clause. 6 320 F.2d 254. 258 (1963), enfg. 136 NLRB 888 (1962). 7 203 NLRB 1041, 1042 (1973). enfd. 502 F.2d 1160 (Ist Cir. 1974). 6 242 NLRB 454, 455 (1979). It is clear that any notification to the employees prior to their receipt of the March 29 letter did not fulfill Re- spondent's aforementioned fiduciary obligation. Thus, neither the handbills distributed by Respondent, nor Re- spondent's letters requesting the discharge of some 125 named employees which letters were posted by the Em- ployer, nor the meetings conducted by the Employer for the purpose of generally advising the employees of their obligation,7 included "a statement of the precise amount and months for which dues were owed, as well as an ex- planation of the methods used in computing the amount." 8 It is, in effect, admitted that the March 29 letter to the employees contained the requisite specific information.9 However, employee Joseph Bejarano was never sent 7 From the evidence of such meetings adduced at the hearing it ap- pears that the employees were generally advised of their obligations to the Union and were further told that they would receive written notifica- tion of such obligations. 6 See Teamsters Local Union No /22 (August .4. Busch & Co. of Mass.. Inc.). supra. 9 Although, as discussed below, the letters to employees Laura Powell and Richard Hammill contained inaccurate amounts and were therefore deficient. such a letter, and employees Steven Buttery, Maria Cal- deron, Martha Culp, Marisol Llibre, Michael Frost, Eva Morales, and Refugio Ortiz credibly testified that they neither received such a letter nor, I find, were they given the necessary precise information regarding their dues obligations by any representative of Respondent.°O It is clear that regardless of Respondent's good faith at- tempt to advise the employees of their obligations by mail, such a mailing does not constitute the requisite notice where the employees credibly testify that they did not receive the letter. District 9 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Marvel- Schebzer, Division of Borg-Warner Corp.), 237 NLRB 1278 (1978). Under the instant circumstances, the requirement that the employees be given precise information concern- ing their obligation is of particular importance as a result of the confusing history of the applicability of the union- security clause and the lengthy hiatus which interrupted employees' dues obligations. Nor has it been demonstrat- ed, I conclude, that any of the aforementioned employ- ees exhibited bad faith by attempting to willfully and de- liberately evade their obligations of which they were otherwise "specifically" aware, thus excusing actual affir- mative notification by the Union. See Chauffeurs. Sales- drivers & Helpers Union, Local 512, et al. (Ralph's Grocery Company), supra, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 150, et al. (Delta Lines), supra. Cf Produce, Refrig- erated & Processed Foods & Industrial Workers, Local No. 630, et al., 209 NLRB 117 (1974). I thus find that by causing the Employer to discharge the aforementioned employees, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act, as alleged. " Janalee Erkel was handed the March 29 letter by a union steward at about 8 p.m. on April 9, and was ad- vised that she owed $123, consisting of dues from Octo- ber 1978 through March 1979, and an initiation fee. On April 10, she signed a dues-checkoff authorization card and deposited it in the union box. On April 12, the dead- line date, she advised the Union, according to Dean's tes- timony, that she did not have the funds to meet her obli- gation. The March 29 letter, which could be expected to have been received by the employees a day or so thereafter, was designed to give the employees apprximately 12 days to meet their dues and initiation fee obligations. Erkel had only 3 days to do so, and during these 3 days there was no intervening pay period. In fulfilling its fidu- ciary responsibility, Respondent is charged with provid- ing unit employees with an adequate opportunity to meet their union obligations following appropriate notice. Under the circumstances, a 3-day notice is not adequate, and it was eminently unreasonable, and therefore I find a breach of Respondent's fiduciary duty to refuse to permit 'o Moreover I find that, as occurred in the case of lanalee Erkel, infra, Calderon was not given sufficient time to tender to the Union any back dues she may have owed, having advised Dean on April 9, 1979. that she did not then have the money for back dues. " Whether Respondent may have deemed the mailing of such letters to have constituted sufficient notification to the employees, under the cir- cumstances herein. as a result of a conversation with a Board agent, does not excuse Respondent's conduct. See Capitol Temptrol Corporation, 243 NLRB 575, fit. 59 (1979). 606 UNITED METALTRONICS LOCAL 955 Erkel to discharge her union obligations on April 16, 1979, prior to her termination and only a week after re- ceiving the requisite notice of such obligations. See Teamsters Local Union No. 122 (August A. Busch & Co. of Mass., Inc.), supra, wherein a I-week notice was deemed by the Board to be insufficient. I therefore find that Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the discharge of Erkel on April 19, 1979. Richard Hammill had only been employed since Janu- ary 1979, and his obligations to the Union would have commenced sometime in February 1979. The March 29 letter was clearly in error in demanding 7 month's dues, and Hammill had demonstrated his good faith in desiring to meet his union obligations by submitting prior to both his discharge and the deadline date of April 12, 1979, a dues and initiation fee deduction card. Moreover, I credit Hammill's testimony and find that Shop Steward Harris told him not to worry about the obviously incorrect data appearing in the March 29 letter and that everything had been taken care of. As Hammill never received a correct accounting of his obligations which he attempted to sat- isfy in a reasonable manner, I find that Respondent breached its fiduciary duty to Hammill in causing his dis- charge. Similarly, Laura Powell repeatedly attempted to fulfill her union obligations, but to no avail. Obviously, had Dean taken care of the matter in November 1978, as she said she would,1 2 Powell would not have been in arrears in her dues, and therefore would have owed no initiation fee in March 1979. Moreover, I credit Powell's testimo- ny that a union steward advised her on March 13, 1979, that she did not have to pay a new initiation fee. I find that Powell made every reasonable effort to attempt to satisfy her union obligations and, if she was delinquent in her dues payments or if she indeed owed a new initiation fee, Respondent's fiduciary obligation required it to spe- cifically discuss the matter with her in an attempt to con- vince her of the correctness of its position and explain to her why the representation of the union steward, who told her that she owed no new initiation fee, may have been erroneous. On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that by causing Powell's discharge Respondent also vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing the discharge of employees Joseph Bejrano, Steven Buttery, Maria Calderon, Martha Culp, Marisal Llibre, Michael Frost, Eva Morales, Refugio Ortiz, Janalee Erkel, Laura Powell, and Richard Ham- mill for nonpayment of dues and initiation fees in a manner which did not satisfy its fiduciary obligation to said employees. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor pratices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 12 I credit Powell's testimony in this regard. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated the Act as alleged, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from, and from engaging in any like or related conduct, and that it post an appropriate notice, signing additional notices for posting by the Employer should the Employ- er so desire. Respondent shall further be ordered to advise the Em- ployer and each of the employees, in writing, that it withdraws and rescinds its request for the discharges of the named employees, and that it has no objection to their reinstatement, without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. In addition, Respondent shall be ordered to make whole the said employees, with interest, for losses suf- fered by them as a result of Respondent a conduct found to be unlawful herein. Said backpay is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heat- ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The General Counsel suggests in her brief that certain employees, namely Culp, Erkel, Ortiz, and Powell should provisionally be excused from an obligation to pay a reinitiation fee until such time as it is determined that the employees have such an obligation. In this regard, the General Counsel requests that Respondent be ordered to return the reinitiation fee these employees may have paid upon their reinstatement subsequent to April 19, 1979.13 I deem this matter to be properly rel- egated to the compliance stage of the proceeding. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Sec- tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec- ommended: ORDER '14 The Respondent, United Metaltronics and Hospital Supply Employees, Local 955, Irwindale, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Pharmaseal Labora- tories, Inc., to discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees Joseph Bejarano, Steven Buttery, Maria Calderon, Martha Culp, Marisal Llibre, Michael Frost, Eva Morales, Refugio Ortiz, Janalee Erkel, Laura Powell, and Richard Hammill, or any other employee, for failure to timely tender initiation fees or periodic dues, without adequately advising them of their obliga- tions. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. xa See Chauu/fur/ . Slhsdriver & Itelpe'rs Uion Local 572. et at Raulphr Grocery (f'ompany. 247 NL.RB No 108, fn 10 (1980) 4 In the etent nIl exceplions are filed as prosided by Sec 1()246 off the Rules and Regulations of the National labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusion', and recommended Order herein shall, as proided in Sec 102 4 of the Rules and Regulations, be adtopted by the Board and become Its findings, conclhusils, and Order and all objicfIons thereto shall he deemed s iatied for all purposes 607 I)F(CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RLATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Advise Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc., and each of the above-named employees, in writing, that Respondent withdraws and rescinds its request for the discharges of the said employees and that it has no objection to their reinstatement, without loss of seniority and other rights and privileged previously enjoyed. (b) Make whole the named employees, with interest for any loss of pay they may have suffered in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its business office and on the union bulletin board at the plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided Is In the event that this order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted 'arsu by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Forward a sufficient number of signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Region 21, for posting by the Employer, in places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted, if the Employer is will- ing to do so. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relatiotns Board." 608