The International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America (Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corp.)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Drivers, Dairy Employees and Helpers Local Union No. 579, a/w the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corporation) and Ken- neth W. Vierck. Case 30-CB-2032 15 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 15 August 1984 Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached decision. The Union filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, General Drivers, Dairy Employees and Helpers Local Union No. 579, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and, Helpers of America, Janesville, Wiscon- sin, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. of the Act, by threatening to fine Vierck because he had crossed a picket line, and by conducting a disciplinary hearing against, and fining, Vierck for crossing a picket line, notwithstanding that at a time prior to Vierck's re- fusal to respect the picket line, he had withdrawn from membership in Respondent Union. Respondent admits that Vierck had taken a withdrawal card from the Union prior to crossing its picket line, but denies that the taking of such constitutes a resignation from the Union, and that since Vierck was still a member of the Union, he was subject to the disciplinary procedures contained in its constitution and bylaws. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corporation, an employer of the Charging Party during a relevant period, manufactures and fabricates conveyors at its plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. During the preceding cal- endar year, it sold and shipped from this plant products and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State. Respondent admits and I find that the Company (Northern Conveyor) is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ' In agreeing with the judge that the Union unlawfully disciplined Vierck, we rely solely on the language on the withdrawal card and the Union's bylaws which on its face equated withdrawal status with resigna- tion. The, withdrawal card obtained by Vierck stated that the holder "has withdrawn in good standing from membership" and refers to an individ- ual on withdrawal status as an "ex-member " Similarly, the union bylaws state that a member who obtains a withdrawal card "shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the Local Union " Nothing in either the bylaws or on the card informed an employee on withdrawal status of possible discipline for crossing a picket line and, in fact, the language in the bylaws and card could reasonably lead Vierck to believe that he could cross the picket line without being disciplined by the [Union Any ambiguity created in this situation is construed against the Union Accordingly, we find that by disciplining Vierck, the Union violated Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS E BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 26, 1983. The charge was filed by Kenneth W. Vierck, an individual, on January 19, 1983, and the complaint was issued June 8, 1983. The complaint alleges that Respond- ent (Local 579 or the Union)' violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) ' The charge, the complaint , and Respondent's answer all set forth the name of Respondent as General Drivers, Dairy Employees and Helpers III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background2 Local 579, with its office in Janesville, Wisconsin, is an affilated local of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters. Its internal affairs are governed by the constitution of the International Union, Jt. Exh. 1, and its own bylaws, Jt. Exh 2. It has approximately 1500 members covered by some 90 contracts with employers who engage in a wide range of industries. At all times materi- al to this case, Brendan F. Kaiser was the secretary- treasurer and principal officer of Local 579. Other full- time employees of the Local were Marvin Lewis, presi- dent, Harley French, organizer, and two office employ- ees. In the late 1960s or early 1970s the Union had orga- nized Northern Conveyor representing its production and maintenance employees. One such employee was Union Local No 579 The bylaws of Respondent, Jt Exh 2, set forth the name as General Drivers, Dairy Employees and Helpers Local Union No 579, as does the stationery of Local 579 in R Exhs 3 and 8 On my own motion I have changed the name of the Respondent to that set forth in its bylaws 2 The material facts giving rise to the legal issues presented herein are not in dispute, except for one incident which will be resolved at the ap- propriate place 274 NLRB No. 22 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (NORTHERN CONVEYOR) Vierck, who began his employment with Northern Con- veyor in August 1979, as a welder. At that time, North- ern Conveyor had approximately 35 employees. Vierck became a member of Local 579 by signing a printed membership application (R. Exh. 1). This printed form stated, among other things, that the signer agreed to abide by the constitution of the International , and the Local Union bylaws, and that the signer pledged "to comply with all the rules and regulations" of the Interna- tional and the Local Union. Vierck testified that he could not say for sure whether he read the document or not, but admitted that he usually does not sign docu- ments without reading them. Vierck became a member of Local 579 in September 1979, after completing a 30-day probationary period. Under the terms of the parties' collective -bargaining agreement, an initiation fee of $100 was checked off by the employer, and forwarded to the Union Vierck at- tended no union meetings, but his monthly dues of $13 per month were checked off and regularly forwarded to the Union. In November work started to slow down, and Vierck was laid off on December 7, 1979. On this date Vierck asked his foreman, Bill Teubert, if he thought the layoff would be a long one. His supervisor advised him that it looked like it was going to be a long one, "so that we were to go pick up our withdrawal cards from the union." B. Withdrawal Card The resolution of this case focuses sharply on the withdrawal card issued by the Union to Vierck. To better understand its legal implications, pertinent provi- sions from article XVIII, section 5, of the International's constitution are set forth below- (a) When a member becomes unemployed in the jurisdiction of the Local Union, he shall be issued an honorable withdrawal card upon his request. If no request is made, an honorable withdrawal card must be issued six (6) months after the month in which the member first becomes unemployed, if he is still unemployed at that time (b) A withdrawal card shall be issued to any member, including a Local Union officer, who has retired from employment at the craft. However, a Local Union may provide in its Bylaws that retired members who have been issued withdrawal cards may continue as honorary members with the privi- lege of attending meetings. In any case where a Local Union is required to give to a member an honorable withdrawal card under the terms of the International Constitution and its Bylaws, it may provide for the continuance of Local Union benefits to such member or former member under conditions which it may set forth, but such member or former member shall not be permitted to hold office or vote, and shall have only such right to participate in the meetings and the affairs of the Local Union as shall be uniformly permitted by the Local Union Executive Board. 101 (c) There may be a maximum charge of fifty cents (504) to any member issued a withdrawal, card and it shall be the duty of the Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union receiving such charge duly to record it in his ledger. (d) Refusal or failure to grant an honorable with- drawal card or issuing a withdrawal card in alleged violation of this Constitution shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the appeal procedure provided for by this Constitution, excluding, how- ever, any appeal to the Convention. (f) The Local Union shall not charge an initiation fee on the deposit of a withdrawal card (g) To be eligible for a withdrawal card a member must have paid to the Local Union issuing the withdrawal card all dues and other financial ob- ligations as a member, including dues for the month in which the withdrawal card is effective. The bylaws of Local 579 in its section 19 on member- ship also contains several provisions relative to with- drawal cards. These paragraphs are: (C) Issuance of Withdrawal Cards (1) A member who has been issued a withdrawal card shall be considered to have voluntarily with- drawn from membership in this Local Union A member shall be considered transferred from this Local Union upon acceptance of his transfer card by another Local Union (2) In any case where the Local Union is re- quired to give to a member an honorable withdraw- al card under the terms of the International Consti- tution and these Bylaws, it may provide for the continuance of Local Union benefits to such member or former member under conditions which it may set forth, but such members or former member shall not be permitted to hold office or vote, and shall have only such right to participate in the meetings and affairs of the Local Union as shall be permitted by the Local Union Executive Board As to resignation from the Union, the bylaws provide as follows: (3) No member may resign from his membership in this Local Union before he has paid all dues, as- sessments, fines, and other obligations owing to the Local Union, and no resignation shall become effec- tive until such payment The International constitution also provides for resig- nation in its article II, section 2 as follows (h) No member may resign from his membership in the International Union or any subordinate body before he has paid all dues, assessments, fines and other obligations owing to the International Union and all its subordinate bodies. A resignation must be in writing to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union. After the Secretary-Treasurer has deter- mined that the foregoing requirements have been complied with, such resignation shall then be effec- 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive thirty (30) days after its receipt by the Secre- tary-Treasurer. 3 Vierck originally testified that on the day of his layoff, he drove to the union office in Janesville, and requested a withdrawal card. The secretary checked the office computer4 to see if his dues were paid up, and then re- quested 50 cents for the card. Upon his paying the 50 cents, she typed in the blanks in the Local's standard withdrawal card, gave it to Vierck, who put it in his ve- hicle's glove compartment. On cross-examination Vierck admitted that he was not sure of the date that he went to secure the withdrawal card. The computer printout records of the Union show he paid 50 cents for a withdrawal card on February 4, 1980, and I so find. (R. Exh 5.) The same printout shows that he paid $26 in cash, which Kaiser testified was for January and February 1980 dues The withdrawal card issued to Vierck was a 2-1/2 by 4-inch card printed on both sides, which reads as fol- lows: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA HONORABLE WITHDRAWAL CARD Pursuant to the provisions of Article XVIII, Sec- tion 6 of the International Constitution, this is to certify that the bearer hereof, SSN (SIN) WAS ISSUED AN Honorable Withdrawal Card on and has paid all dues and demands and has withdrawn in good standing from member- ship in Local Union No . effective for the month of . Given under our hands and the seal of Local Union No. (SEAL) this day of 19. Secretary-Treasurer President [over] ARTICLE XVIII Section 6(b). This card entitles him/her to read- mission to the Local Union from which this card was issued at any time, subject, however, to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section and pro- vided the bearer has obtained employment at the craft. s The requirement that the resignation be in writing to not in accord with the Board's holding in United Autoworkers Local 1384 (Ex-Cell-O Corp), 219 NLRB 729 (1975) The restrictive language contained in the last sentence would appear to be in violation of the Board's recent hold- ing that a union may not lawfully restrict the right of its members to resign from membership Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984) Since the International Union is not a party to the case herein, no further discussion is made relative to par (h) 4 The Local Union's computer is tied into the master unit which is lo- cated at the International 's headquarters in Washington , D C It keeps all financial data of each member up to date, concurrent with the punching in of each financial transaction relating to that member Section 6(c). Any member of a Local Union re- fusing full-time employment when offered or leav- ing employment within the jurisdiction or going to work at another craft or occupation outside its ju- risdiction on other than a temporary or part-time basis shall be given an honorable withdrawal card and cannot remain a member. Section 6(d) Any ex-member out on a withdraw- al card and desiring to return to membership, must first deposit his/her withdrawal card with the Local Union by which it was issued; and upon the with- drawal card being accepted, the member shall be subject to the rules and laws of the Local Union. Refusal of any Local Union to accept a withdrawal card shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the appeal procedure provided for by his Constitu- tion, excluding, however, any appeal to the Con- vention. Section 6(e). The Local Union must not accept a withdrawal card if the ex-member has committed any offense while out on withdrawal card which would be injurious to union principles. Also, if the Local Union is paying benefits and the ex-member has fallen into bad health or is liable to become a charge against the Local Union or International Union, acceptance of the withdrawal card can be refused by the Local Union. Likewise, acceptance of a withdrawal card may be refused where adverse employment conditions exist. The Union's computer contains entries that show that Vierck was recalled by Northern Conveyor in March 1980, and that his withdrawal card was deposited with the Union on April 11, 1980. Vierck did not recall re- turning to work for Northern Conveyor in March 1980, but did not deny that he had done so. This computer record, Respondent's Exhibit 5, shows that dues were checked off for him by Northern Conveyor, and for- warded to the Union for the months of March, April, May, and June. On July 28, 1980, Vierck paid in cash $13 dues for that month, and 50 cents for a withdrawal card. As the General Counsel states in his brief, it is un- disputed that Vierck has been on withdrawal status since July 1980. Vierck was hired by Gilman Engineering in November 1980, and worked as an assembler until being laid off in October 1981. While working for Gilman, he was a member of the International Association of Machinists. When he was laid off he obtained a withdrawal card from the IAM. C. The Events of 19825 On approximately March 19, Local 579 commenced an economic strike against Northern Conveyor, and placed pickets around its plant. The Company, in turn, adver- tised for permanent replacements in the Janesville news- paper. Upon reading the advertisement, Vierck applied for a job on April 4, and commenced working on April 5. He continued to work until August 6 when he was 5 All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (NORTHERN CONVEYOR) laid off. During this period of employment Vierck daily crossed the Union's picket line and worked in the plant. Vierck was admittedly on withdrawal status from the Respondent during the period in which he crossed the picket line On October 29, pickets were withdrawn and Local 579 terminated its unsuccessful strike. In December, organizer French, who had been the picket-line captain at Northern Conveyor during the strike, filed charges against Vierck.6 Most of the charges were in general terms, alleging violation of his oath of loyalty to the Union, secession, and disruptive conduct. But the key charge, as underlined by French, read as fol- lows- 5. Crossing an Authorized Primary Picket Line estab- lished by the members' Local Union or any other subor- dinate body affiliated with the International Union. By a certified letter dated December 3, Respondent's secretary-treasurer Kaiser ordered Vierck to appear before the Union's executive board on January 15, 1983, to hear the charges filed against him by French. A copy of the charges was attached to the letter. On direct ex- amination, Vierck testified that he received this letter on December 5, and proceeded to telephone the union office on the same date, talking to a secretary On cross- examination, upon being shown the postal return receipt signed by him and dated December 8, Vierck admitted that he received the document on December 8, and called the union office on the same day about 5 or 5:15 p.m. where he proceeded to talk to Kaiser. What was said during this conversation presents the sole credibility issue in this case. Vierck testified that the following conversation took place: Well, I asked him what the letter was about, be- cause I didn't know what was going on And at which time he said that I knew what the hell the letter was about, that I had been crossing, we had been crossing picket lines, and I said well, that I wasn't a card-carrying member, that I didn't feel I belonged to the union, because I was on a with- drawal status. And he said that he didn't care if I was on with- drawal status or not, that I had broken their consti- tution, and that they were going to proceed to the Supreme Court if they had to to see that our wages were garnished for the time that we worked there. At the end of the 5-minute conversation, Vierck called Kaiser a foul name and hung up the phone. According to Kaiser, the office secretaries had gone home at their regular quitting time of 4:30 p.m , and he personally answered the phone. The call came at 5:16 p.m. as he looked at the office clock and jotted that time down, as was his standard procedure. Upon Vierck asking him what the charges meant, Kaiser told him they were self-explanatory. The secretary-treasurer described the balance of the conversation as follows- Sec l(f) of art XIX, Trials and Appeals, provides that "Charges may be preferred against a suspended member or an ex-member who has been issued a withdrawal card " 103 And well, he went on to say what are you going to do about it? I said I don't, I can't tell you what we're going to do about it, I said, this will occur before the executive board, and if the charging party don't show up, Ken, I said the charges will be dropped against you If you don't show up, and the charging party shows up, we will proceed unless you send to me a reason why you can't be there, and if you can't be there, just tell me in writing what day will be con- venient for you, because the Constitution provides it's at the convenience of the charged party. I stressed this very clearly to him when I talked to him. And there was-well, then he asked what would be the outcome of it, I told him I said I don't know, I don't make that decision myself, I said, it will be heard before the executive board. And I said then they'll make the decision, not me. Kaiser denied that he made any statement that the Union would go to the Supreme Court to see that Vierck's wages were garnisheed, and did not hear Vierck call him a foul name as he hung up Vierck was an equivocal witness with a faulty memory. Kaiser was a candid, straightforward, impres- sive witness, and I credit his version of this conversation. Since I have credited Kaiser's account of this conversa- tion, I find that Respondent did not threaten Vierck with a fine for crossing a picket line. D. The Trial On January 15, 1983, the executive board of the Union convened for the trial.7 Vierck did not appear and, as he had not asked for a postponement, the trial proceeded. French testified that Vierck had crossed the Union's picket line at Northern Conveyor from sometime in April through August 1982, and at no time during those 5 months had he respected Local 579's picket line The trial board went into executive session, and after noting that Vierck was on a withdrawal card during the period he had crossed Local 579's picket line, found Vierck guilty of: 1. Violating his oath of loyalty to the Local Union and the International; 2 Disruptive conduct; 3. Crossing an authorized primary picket line of the Respondent 8 The trial board imposed the fol- lowing penalties: 1. For violating his oath of loyalty, a fine of $1000; 2. For disruptive conduct, expulsion from the International Union for life; ' The trial board, as provided in the International constitution, consist- ed of the Local Union's president, vice president, secretary-treasurer, re- cording secretary, and three trustees 8 Vierck was not found guilty of fostering secession 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 For crossing an authorized picket line, a fine of $89009 Respondent did not notify Vierck or anyone else of the executive board's decision, nor did it take any action to enforce any of the penalties contained in its decision. Respondent's computer records currently reflect that Vierck is on withdrawal status (as set forth in R Exh 4) As Kaiser candidly testified, if Vierck would again work under the jurisdiction of Local 579, and would turn in his withdrawal card, he would be required to pay the fines imposed on him at the January 15th meeting, before the card would be accepted. E Analysis and Conclusions As correctly stated by the General Counsel in his brief, a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)1O when it fines, or brings proceedings to fine, a person for crossing a picket line, who has resigned from that Union prior to the union penalty. NLRB v. Textile Workers Local 1029 Granite State Joint Board, 409 U.S 213 (1972); Machin- ists Booster Lodge 405 (Boeing Co.) v. NLRB, 412 U S. 84 (1973). It is the linchpin of the General Counsel's case that when Vierck received a withdrawal card from the Union he was in effect resigning from the Union and, since he was no longer a member, he was not subject to any penalty other than expulsion from membership. Respondent argues vigorously in its brief that the taking of a withdiawal card is not equivalent to resigna- tion from the Union, and that when Vierck went on withdrawal status, it was a continuation of his member- ship in the Union, making him subject to applicable union discipline for crossing the Local 579 picket line at Northern Conveyor We are thus faced with the pivotal question of whether Vierck's acceptance of a withdrawal card constituted his resignation from the Union. Since neither the Act nor the International constitution or the Local Union's bylaws define resignation, we must look elsewhere in order to construe the word in its proper meaning. One such construction is to be found in NLRB v. Textile Workers Local 1029, wherein the Su- preme Court said at 217: Where a member lawfully resigns from a union and thereafter engages in conduct which the union rule proscribes, the union commits an unfair labor prac- tice when it seeks enforcement of fines for that con- duct. That is to say, when there is a lawful dissolu- tion 11 of a union-member relation, the union has no more control over the former member than it has over the man in the street From my examination of the record as a whole, I find that there was a dissolution of Vierck's relationship with Local 579 when Respondent issued to him a withdrawal card The strength in the General Counsel's case rests squarely on language found in Respondent's own docu- ments that forcefully negate any thought that a person on a withdrawal card is a member. Time after time the Union's documents clearly refer to such persons as "ex- members" or "former members." Other terms such as "withdrawn from membership" are also used in the Union's own printed forms to establish the relationship of the person with the Union The most powerful and bluntest of all the Unions' doc- uments, to prove that a person on withdrawal is not a member, is the honorable withdrawal card i 2 that was used by Local 579, Respondent's Exhibit 2. This printed form states squarely therein that the bearer "has with- drawn in good standing from membership" in the Local Union 13 Section 6(b) reads that the bearer is entitled "to read- mission to the Local Union from which the card was issued at any time, subject, however, to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section and provided the bearer has obtained employment in the craft." Thus, it is immediate- ly evident that the bearer has no independent right to be readmitted into the Local Union when he or she choos- es, but, as the first step, can only be readmitted if he or she has a job under a contract to which the Union is a party Section 6(c) of this document refers to a member who refuses full-time employment, and states forthrightly, he "shall be given an honorable withdrawal card and cannot remain a member." Section 6(d) squarely used the term ex-member , stating that "any ex-member out on a withdrawal card and de- siring to return to memberhsip must deposit his/her withdrawal card with the Local Union by which it was issued." Further language in this section reads that "upon the withdrawal card being accepted, the member shall be subject to the rules and laws of the Local Union." This language leaves the clear inference, which I draw, that the person on withdrawal is not subject to union rules and laws while he or she is on withdrawal, and only be- comes subject to these rules, after his or her card is ac- cepted and he or she thereby once again becomes a member. 14 9 During the Board's deliberations there had been a consensus that Vierck earned approximately $9000 during the weeks he had crossed Local 579's picket line 10 Sec 8(b)(1)(A) provides that It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 Provided, that this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein 11 Dissolution is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed (1979) as The dissolution of a contract is the cancellation or abrogation of it by the parties themselves , with the effect of annulling the binding force of the agreement and restoring each party to his original rights " 12 As testified to by Kaiser there is no dishonorable withdrawal card 11 The withdrawal form contained in the International constitution was not used by Local 579 Local 579's form contained the same Sec 6(b)(c)(d) and (e) as contained in the International constitution's form Sec 6(a) of the constitution which is not contained in Local 579's form, states therein that the bearer "has withdrawn in good standing from membership" in the Local Union This phrase was placed by the Local in the body of the front half of its withdrawal card, just below where the name of the withdrawing party is typed 14 Kaiser testified that a person on withdrawal could deposit his card at any local union in the country Sec 6(b) and (e) above do not bear this out, as both subsections read that he must first deposit his card with the local union that issued it TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (NORTHERN CONVEYOR) Section 6(e) calls the card bearer an ex-member in two different sentences. It also goes to conclusively prove that a person on withdrawal does not have the uncondi- tional right to deposit his or her card with the union, and thus become a member again This section states that a local union "must not accept a withdrawal card if the ex- member has committed any offense while out on with- drawal card which would be injurious to union princi- ples " Also, if the "ex-member" could become a charge against the Local or International, the Local can refuse to accept the withdrawal card. The final sentence of the paragraph paints with the broadest brush the Local's right to refuse to accept a withdrawal card, "Likewise, acceptance of a withdrawal card may be refused where adverse employment conditions exist." 15 Local 579's own bylaws contain straightforward lan- guage reflecting that a person on withdrawal is not a member, as section 19(c)(1) reads. "A member who has been issued a withdrawal card shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the Local Union." Another key test in showing that a person on with- drawal is not a member is to examine what are the union-granted rights of a member as compared to the rights of a person on withdrawal. Section 19(F) of Local 579's bylaws sets forth the following rights of members: (1) the right to nominate candidates or vote in elections or referendums of the Union, (2) the right to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings; and (3) the right to meet and assemble freely with other members and to express any views, argu- ments, or opinions, and to express at meetings views upon candidates in an election of the union or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organizations established and reasonable rules. A person on withdrawal falls far short of having these rights. Subsection (C) of the same section 19 specifically denies the person on withdrawal the right to vote. It also nullifies the person's right to participate in the business of the meeting, because that person "shall have only such right to participate in the meetings and affairs of the Local Union as shall be permitted by the Local Union executive board "is This restrictive language is broad enough to permit the executive board to bar the person on withdrawal from participating in any aspect of the meeting. The General Counsel argues in his brief that the right to vote and hold office are the essence of union member- ship, and that without this right, there can be no mem- bership The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo- sure Act of 1959 [LMRDA] supports the contention as to the right to vote. In Title 1, the Bill of Rights of 75 Sec 6(d) above does provide that if a local union refuses to accept a withdrawal card, it shall be subject to the appeal procedure provided for by the constitution, excluding an appeal to the convention '6 This clause tracks the wording in art XVIII, sec 5(b) of the Inter- national constitution 105 Members of Labor Organizations, section 101(a)(1) states Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or refer- endums of the labor organization, to attend mem- bership meetings, and to participate in the delibera- tions and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organizations constitution and bylaws. But the International constitution and the Local's bylaws specifically deny the person on a withdrawal card the right to vote in any matter, and basically require that person to be a spectator at a union meeting, without any right to participate in the deliberations, except as permit- ted by the Local's executive board It is also to be noted that the LMRDA defines the word member in Section 3(o) as follows. "Member" or "member in good standing," when used in reference to a labor organization, includes any person who has fulfilled the requirements for membership in such organization, and who neither has voluntarily withdrawn from membership nor has been expelled or suspended from membership after appropriate proceedings consistent with lawful provisions of the constitution and bylaws of such organization. As will be observed, the definition presents three ways in which a member can lose his or her status as a member, by voluntarily withdrawing from membership, by being expelled, by being suspended. This definition does not use the word resignation as a basis for losing member- ship, but uses the much broader term "voluntarily with- drawing from membership," which of course, embraces the narrower term of resignation. Thus, when the Local Union in section 19(C)(1) of its bylaws states that "A member who has been issued a withdrawal card shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from member- ship in the Local Union," it is tracking the language used by the LMRDA on how a person can cease being a member of a union, and is saying, for all practical pur- poses, that he or she has resigned. Respondent in its brief contends that a person may be considered a member, even though he is referred to as an ex-member, and in support thereof cites the case of Alvey v. General Electric Co., 622 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1980) In this case, the court stated that Congress did not limit the protections of the Lan- drum-Griffin Act to those whom the union recog- nizes as members Rather, one who has fulfilled the membership requirements that is, one who is a member in substance, is protected. To prove that Vierck was a member in substance, Re- spondent relies heavily on the assertion that he could attend meetings and could have spoken at those meet- ings. As set forth supra, a person on a withdrawal card attends meetings only at the sufferance of the executive 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD board, and his right to participate in the meeting is com- pletely subject to the executive board's whim and can be denied altogether. Respondent also points to several other factors. One is that a person who resigns does not have to pay any fee to do so. Since the person who goes on withdrawal only pays 50 cents for the withdrawal card, this is too mini- mal to have any weight Also, the 50 cents fee does have some relevance to the cost of the card, and the time of the union secretary to fill it out No such costs are in- curred when a member resigns. Respondent also contends that a person on a with- drawal card has a status to run for office that a person who resigned does not The constitution rules on eligibil- ity to run for office require that a candidate for office be in continuous good standing in the local union for the past 24 months, i.e., that he or she has paid dues on time for the past 24 months. Article II, section 4(a)(1) pro- vides that, if a person who took a withdrawal card in one month, deposits his card in the next month, and pays his dues for those 2 months, that 2-month period will not be considered as a breach in continuous good standing, and he or she can run for office. Respondent further points out that a person who resigns is not entitled to even one day's grace period to avoid a break in the re- quired period of 24 months of continuous good standing. This concession to the person on withdrawal is too insig- nificant to help establish that Vierck was a member in substance Respondent further contends that the fact that article XVIII, section 6(d) of the constitution allows the person on withdrawal to use the union appeal procedure, if any local union would refuse to accept his or her withdrawal card, helps to prove that Vierck was a member in sub- stance, since a person who resigns has no such right This again is a small concession to the person on with- drawal, but is far too weak a reed to rely on Finally, Respondent points out that the obligation to pay dues is suspended when a person is on a withdrawal card, and that unlike a resigned member, when he or she becomes re-employed, and reactivates his or her status as a member, he or she may deposit his or her card with the Local Union and resume paying dues, without the payment of the $100 initiation fee This right not to have to pay the initiation fee a second time is truly a meaning- ful difference between a person on withdrawal and a re- signed person However, due to the fact that the Local Union for various reasons may refuse altogether to accept the withdrawal card, it is a nebulous right that the ex-member may never be permitted by the Local Union to enjoy. It is true as Respondent contends that Vierck never submitted either a written or oral resignation. However, the contents of the document given him by the Respond- ent, the honorable withdrawal card, made such an act su- perfluous. On the front side it told him that he "was withdrawn in good standing from membership" in the Local Union On the reverse side, it informed him that the card entitled him to "readmission" to the Union sub- ject to certain contingencies. It also, in three different places, referred to him as an ex-member. Vierck had a right to rely on the common meaning of these words, and to take them at face value As stated in Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1260 (Western Telestations), 239 NLRB 923 (1978), "Membership in a union is a volun- tary association requiring certain obligations on the part of both parties" If the Respondent did not mean that Vierck was withdrawing from membership in the Union, it has a duty to tell him so. If Respondent did not mean that a person on a withdrawal card was an ex-member, but was really a member of the Union, it had a duty to so advise Vierck that the words on the withdrawal card did not mean what they said. During the period of April 5 to August 6, 1982, when Vierck worked for Northern Conveyor, organizer French observed Vierck crossing the picket line on a daily basis Yet the record does not disclose that Vierck was ever told in any fashion that he was still a member of Local 579, and as a member he had a duty under the constitution not to cross the picket line The contents of the withdrawal card given to him by Local 579 were ample justification for him to believe that he had with- drawn from Local 579, that he was no longer a member, and as an ex-member he had a right to work wherever he pleased, without being subject to any discipline from Respondent. Respondent further contends in its brief that if the complaint is not dismissed, the Board will be holding in effect that a union may not have a withdrawal system at all, and that will be an interference with internal union affairs, prohibited by the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A). This decision is in no way to be so construed Withdraw- al cards have long played a substantial and recognized part in the American industrial system, and their contents vary from union to union . All this decision holds is that the contents of the withdrawal card of Local 579, and the balance of the record in this case, show that Vierck was not a member of Local 579 when he crossed the picket line at Northern Conveyor. Respondent also contends that since the decision of the executive board was never communicated to Vierck or acted on in any way, there was no restraint or coercion to constitute a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) But Kai- ser's testimony as to what would happen if Vierck were to turn in his withdrawal card leaves no doubt that Re- spondent stands poised to coerce Vierck by requiring him to pay his fine that was imposed at the January 15, 1983 meeting, before his withdrawal card would be ac- cepted When Local 579 went through the steps leading up to, and including Vierck' s trial , certainly the Union did not intend the verdict of the trial board to have no meaning. It is to be noted that Vierck signed his charge on January 14, and that it was filed at the Regional Office on January 19, 1983. For reasons known only to Respondent, it did not transmit the results of the January 15 trial to the person it fined. It is also important to note that section 9(d) of article XIX of the constitution provides that if the decision of the trial board carries with it an order of expulsion, such order of expulsion shall "immediately take effect" subject only to a stay by the International president Thus, by the constitution, Vierck was expelled on January 15, 1983, even though it was not communicated to him and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (NORTHERN CONVEYOR) the fine sits there like a sword of Damocles, ready to be triggered at the moment he would request readmission to the Union I, therefore, find that it was Respondent who terminat- ed its contractual relationship with Vierck when it issued him the withdrawal card, and that it thereby dissolved its relationship with him. After Vierck had withdrawn from membership in the Union in July 1980, he in no way could be construed to be a member in substance. I, therefore, find that Vierck did not enjoy the membership status that would permit Respondent to fine him for crossing a picket line during a strike Accordingly, I find that by imposing fines on Vierck, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1260 (Western Telestations). Ibid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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. By being issued an honorable withdrawal card in July 1980 by the Respondent, Kenneth W. Vierck had voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the Union. 4. By fining Kenneth W Vierck for crossing a picket line when he was not a member of the Respondent, Re- spondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have also found that Respondent levied fines against Vierck in violation of the Act. Accordingly, I shall rec- ommend that Respondent rescind the fines levied against him, and advise him in writing that it has done so. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed17 ORDER The Respondent, General Drivers, Dairy Employees and Helpers Local Union No. 579, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from 17 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 107 (a) Refusing to give effect to Kenneth W. Vierck's withdrawal from membership in the Union in July, 1980. (b) Restraining or coercing employees who are not members of Respondent in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, by imposing fines on them for crossing a picket line. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Rescind the fines levied against Kenneth W. Vierck because he crossed a picket line established by Respond- ent at the premises of Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corporation in 1982, and expunge from its records any reference to these fines. (b) Notify Kenneth W. Vierck, in writing, that he had effectively withdrawn from memberhhip in the Respond- ent when he was issued a withdrawal card in 1980. (c) Post at its business office and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."18 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail to the Regional Director sufficient signed copies of the notice for posting by Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corporation, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The copies, after being signed by Respondent's authorized represent- ative, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Direc- tor. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, insofar at it alleges mat- ters that have not been found to be violations of the Act, the complaint is dismissed ]A If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL rescind the fines levied against Kenneth W Vierck because he crossed a picket line authorized by our Union at Northern Conveyor Manufacturing Corpo- ration in 1982, and expunge them from our records. WE WILL notify Kenneth W Vierck, in writing, that he has effectively withdrawn from membership in our Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. GENERAL DRIVERS, DAIRY EMPLOYEES AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 579, A/W THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA