Communications Workers Local 9201 (Pacific Northwest Bell)

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 9201 (PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL) Communications Workers of America, Local 9201 (Pacific Northwest Bell) and Violet V. Snow, Shirley A. Patterson , Patricia L. Bailey, Loren F. Miller, Jeffrey R. Baker, Michael Beaty, Becky Willhite, Vicki Bonagofski, Elizabeth Heinson, Janet Gardner, Della A. Mills, Linda Burton, Annette Levison, Phyllis Johnson, and Judy K. Johnson . Cases 36-CB-1092, 36-CB- 1093, 36-CB-1095,' 36-CB-1096, 36-CB-1097, 36-CB-1099, 36-CB-1103, ,36-CB-1105, 36- C13-1106, 36-CB-1107, 36-CB-1108, 36-CB- 1109, 36-CB-1110, 36-CB-1115, and 36-CB- 1119 27 August 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 21 December 1984 Administrative. Law Judge James S. Jenson issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a thi ee- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief. and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. - We agree that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to accept mem- bers' resignations submitted immediately before or during the strike, and by imposing court-collectible fines on those who crossed the picket .line after they had resigned their membership. We disagree, however, with the judge's findings that the Re- spondent was precluded from. fining Michael Beaty, Vicki Bonagofski, and Phyllis Johnson for conduct -prior to the time their resignations would have been effective absent the Respondent's mis- conduct. The Respondent commenced a strike against Pa- cific Northwest Bell (the Employer) on 7 August 19832 and terminated - it on 28 August. Beaty ' The Respondent contends in its exceptions that its "standing rule," whereby it refused to accept members' resignations submitted during,the strike, conforms with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Machinists Local 1327 (Dalmo Victor II) v NLRB, 725 F 2d 1212 (1984) However, the Su- preme Court has vacated and remanded Dalmo Victor II to the circuit court for further consideration in light of the Court 's decision in Pattern Makers v NLRB, 105 S Ct 3064 (June 27, 1985), cert granted 119 LRRM 2992 (July 1, 1985) Thus, there can be no question that the Re- spondent's refusal to accept resignations during the strike violated Sec 8(b)(l)(A) See also NLRB v Textile Workers Local 1029. Granite State Joint Board, 409 U S 213 (1972) 2 Unless otherwise stated, all dates are in 1983 1529 mailed his registered letter of resignation at ap- proximately 10 a.m. on 8 August. He,then reported to work at 11 a.m.3 Bonagofski crossed the picket line on 8 August. Her husband mailed her certified letter of resignation that -day sometime after he dropped her off at work. Johnson returned to work at 6:50 a.m. on 8 August and mailed her certified resignation letter at 4:40 p.m. that day. The judge found that the Respondent would not have accepted or given effect to letters of resigna- tion submitted during the strike. He therefore con- cluded that- mailing the resignations in a timely fashion would have been a futile act and, accord- ingly; the fines levied against these employees were invalid in, their entirety. Contrary to the judge, the futility doctrine has no application on the facts of this case. In Machin- ists Local 1374 (Columbia Machine), 274 NLRB 123 (1984), the. Board held that it would apply an ob- jective standard to determine whether the union's conduct reasonably created in the members' minds the impression that any attempt to resign would be futile. A member is not required to, attempt to resign when the union has made it clear to the member that the union -would reject the resignation in any event. However, the mere existence of the restriction on resignations is insufficient to support a ,finding that it is futile to resign, even where the member has knowledge of the restriction.4 There is no evidence here that any of these members knew the Respondent would not accept their resignations during a strike. (In fact, Bonagofski affirmatively testified that she.was not advised that she could not resign during, the strike.) Thus, there is no showing that any of the three individuals failed to submit a timely resignation- because he or she had an objective basis to believe the attempt to resign would be futile. Columbia Machine, supra. Accord- ingly, the failure timely to resign was not the result of 'any impression created by the Union that such an attempt would be futile. Since the members had not resigned prior to their return to work, we find that Beaty, Bona- gofski, and Johnson were still members and validly subject to fines for their preresignation conduct. 'Newspaper Guild Local 3 (New York Times), 272 NLRB 338 (1984). Accordingly, we conclude that the portion of the fines which is attributable to the employees'- preresignation conduct was lawful. 3 We find that the judge incorrectly distinguished between Beaty's return to work, at an unpicketed site and his crossing a picket line 2 weeks later The Respondent's constitution prohibits working without proper authorization for a struck employer and contains nothing indicat- ing this prohibition was intended to be limited to picketed sites 4 Columbia Machine, supra 275 NLRB No. 214 1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - We, however, shall order the Respondent to re- scind that portion of the fines attributable to con- duct after the Respondent would have received .Beaty's, Bonagofski's, and Johnson's letters of res- ignation.s+ Proof of mailing with proper address and postage raises a rebuttable -presumption that the Respondent would have received each letter in the ordinary course of delivery of registered and certified mail. See Communications Workers Local 11500 (American Telephone), 272 NLRB 850, 851 (1984). In this case, there is evidence that the Re- spondent would have received each letter by the close of business, the day after the letter was posted.6. We shall, therefore, leave to the compli- ance stage of this proceeding the determination of when the Respondent, absent ' its refusal to -accept registered and certified mail, would have received their resignations. Further, we shall leave to that stage the determination of the amount of the fines attributable respectively to their pre-and' postresig- nation conduct. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the. administrative law judge as modified below and 'orders that the Re- spondent,- Communications Workers of America, Local 9201, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the-action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following paragraph 2(a). "(a) Rescind' -the-'fine's levied 'against Violet V. Snow, Shirley'-A. Patterson, Patricia L. Bailey, Loren F. Miller, Jeffrey R. Baker, Becky Willhite, Elizabeth Heinson, Janet Gardner, Della A. -Mills, Linda Burton, Annette Levison, and Judy K. John- son; refund any money they may have paid as a result of the fines levied against them, with interest; and remove. from. its. records all references to charges and fines for working for a struck employ- er- after the. employees resigned their membership, and notify -the employees -in writing that this, has been done:'' - . - , %, ' . 2.. Insert the following, as paragraph '2(b)- and re- letter the subsequent paragraphs. = t ' ' t "(b)' Rescind' that portion ofi:the fines 'levied against' Michael Beaty, Vicki Bon-agofski, and 'Phyli t :t t: "Its • l: , i t i' 5 In cases where the Board has found the rule governing'resignations to be invalid, the Board iias concluded that employees' resignations are effective upon ieceipi liy the union I Newspaper Guild Local 47-(Pulitzer Publishing); 272 NLRB 1195 (1984), Carpenters San Diego County Council (Campbell Industries), 243 NLRB 147, 148 (1979) 6 The record shows that member Pat Early-posted a certified letter of resignation on 4 August, sometime after 3 30 p'm The letter was re- ceived and processed by the Respondent on 5 August Thus, it is reasona- ble to presume, subject to rebuttal, that, absent the Respondent 's unlawful conduct, the resignations would have. been received' by `the Respondent the day after they were mailed - lis Johnson, which is attributable to the employees' postresignation conduct; refund to the employees any portion of the fines they have paid for their postresignation conduct, with interest; and remove from its. records any reference to the charges and fines imposed on the employees for their conduct in the period after they effectively resigned their membership, and notify them in. writing - that this has been done." - , - 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. - APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT tell our members that they will be brought up on charges and/or fined if they attempt to resign their membership for violating our "standing rule" prohibiting resignations from mem- bership immediately preceding or during a strike, nor will we reject their attempts to resign. WE WILL NOT prefer charges against, fry, or fine any employee for crossing a picket line and work- ing without our authorization after that employee has effectively resigned from our Union.' WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by'Section 7 of the Act,. WE' WILL rescind' the "standing rule" prohibiting resignations from membership immediately preced- ing or during a strike., - WE WILL rescind the fines levied against Violet V. Snow, Shirley A., Patterson, Patricia L. Bailey, Loren F. Miller, Jeffrey R. Baker,,Becky Willhite, Elizabeth Heinson, Janet Gardner, Della A., Mills, Linda Burton, Annette Levison, and Judy K. John- son; WE, WILL refund, any money theys inay ,have paid as a. re ' sult, of the fines levied against them, with ,.interest;: ,and WE WILL , remove from our records all references to: the charges and, fines im- posed on them for working for a struck employer after they 'resigned from 'member'ship in our Union, and; notify-.them in .writing,,that we have done so. WE WILL rescind that portion of the fines -levied against Michael Beaty, Vicki i Bonagofski, and Phyl- lis Johnson, which is attributable to their postresig- nation conduct; WE WILL refund to them any por- tion of the fines they have paid,for their postresig- nation conduct, with interest; and =WE SWILL remove COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 9201 (PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL) from our records any reference to the charges and fines imposed on the employees for their conduct in the period after they effectively resigned their membership , and -notify them in writing that we have done so. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 9201 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES S JENSON , Administrative Law Judge. Having been consolidated for hearing, these cases were heard in Portland , Oregon, on August 14, 1984. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by announcing to its mem- bers that they would be fined if they violated a "standing rule" prohibiting resignations from membership immedi- ately preceding or during a strike , and by imposing court-collectible fines upon its member-employees, the charging parties who had either resigned from member- ship before crossing the Respondent's picket line, or who did not resign because of their impression that it would be futile to do so. The Respondent -denies its conduct was unlawful , arguing that its rule against accepting res- ignation was not unreasonable, that what is involved here is an internal - union matter, and that what the Re- spondent did "is totally in keeping with" the Board's de- cision in Dalmo Victor II. i All parties were given full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs Both the Gener- al Counsel and the Respondent argued orally . Neither filed a brief. On the entire record in the case, and from my .observa- Lion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION It is alleged, admitted, and found that Pacific North- west Bell is a public utility providing telephone and re- lated services ; that during the past . 12 months its gross sales exceeded' $1 million, that it meets both the ' Board's direct and indirect inflow and ' outflow standards; ` and that it is an employer engaged in commerce within -the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act: - -II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It-is alleged, admitted , and found that Communications Workers of Anierica, Local 9201, 1 the -Respondent,; is a labor organization within the .-meaning of Section[ 2(5)' of the Act - - Machinists 'Local 1327 (Dalmo V,ctor), 263 NLRB 984 (1982), enf denied 725 F 2d 1212 (9th Cir 1984) III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1531 A. Background Pacific Northwest Bell and the Respondent have been parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements for a number of years. In the spring of 1983,2 the Respond- ent commenced making plans for a strike in the event a new agreement was not reached with the expiration of the current contract at midnight, August 6. A _ special membership meeting was held on July 18 to take a strike vote. Balloting continued through July 19 approximately 7Q percent of the membership voted to strike. As the. Re- spondent and the employer failed to execute a new agreement by the time the old one expired , a strike com- menced on August 7. It was terminated on August 28. The record shows that for a number of years the collec- tive-bargaining agreement has contained an agency shop clause. It further discloses that in July , of approximately 3600 unit employees, approximately 2800 were union members and approximately 800 were not. The record further reveals that, from July 29 through August 5, the Respondent processed an additional 90 resignations from membership. - While the Respondent 's constitution and bylaws con- tain no -provision restricting the right of members to resign during a strike, for a - number of years the Re- spondent has maintained an unwritten "standing rule" that resignations would not , be accepted or processed during a strike . In furtherance of that policy , employees and agents of the Respondent refused to accept regis- tered or certified mail during a strike. Respondent Exec- utive Vice President Richardson informed the Regional Office in an investigatory affidavit that the reason for the refusals was "we knew that those [registered and certi- fied mail] would be resignations " The processing of res- ignations resumed at the conclusion of the strike; howev- er, having refused to accept or process the resignations of • the charging parties, - -,the -Respondent- continues to carry them on the books as dues-paying members B. Attempts to Resign Becky Willhite testified without contradiction that, be- cause of a wildcat strike in February 1980, she decided to resign ' from the Respondent Union She therefore wrote a letter of resignation which she gave to Shop Steward Michelle Simpson who had offered to take it to the union office since she was going there for a meeting Simpson later returned -the letter and,said the Union had to receive it-by registered mail.3 Accordingly, she sent it by. . registeredr mail. • She received the-return receipt. evi- dencing the letter's•'receipt`by the Respondent. While she continued to receive mail from the Union, she did not vote in elections;- attend union meeting's; and considered herself a 'nonmember . She, testified further without con- tradiction that when Union Steward .Chuck Boyden ap- 2 All dates are in 1983 unless stated otherwise Willhite testified she had called the union hall initially to find out how to resign , but that she was. refused -help She then called the Board's Regional Office and was also told , to send. her resignation by registered mail 1532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proached her about doing picket duty during the 1983 strike, she told him that she wasn't a union member and his response was "Yes, that's right" and took the picket- ing schedule back. She apparently worked throughout the 1983 strike She was charged and fined $1,308.50 for crossing, the picket line. On August 4, Elizabeth Heinson, Janet Gardner,-Joe Albrich, Della Mills, and Pat Early sent letters of resig- nation by certified mail, requesting return receipts show- ing to whom and the date delivered. Having failed to re- ceive evidence of delivery, on August 9 those employees went to the post office and learned that the postal serv- ice had attempted to make delivery on Friday morning; August 5, but that the letters had been refused. On August 11, all five employees signed the following letter which was sent by regular mail to Linda Rasmussen, Re- spondent's president:' Dear Linda, During this past month it became a growing con- viction with us that we no longer_ sympathized with CWA Local 9201 in its recent attitudes and con- tract demands. With so many people unemployed and not even able, to make financial ends meet, we felt that a continuation of the present contract or -something similar would be adequate. It seems unfair on the part of a union to force a company in the midst of -divestiture to guarantee more. than it can foreseeably deliver Consequently we called the N.L.R.' board to see if we could still resign our membership in the union . They said the locals had differing-ideas about this, so we called our Local 9201 and were'informed per telephone conversation Thursday, August 4th at approximately 3.30 p.m. that we could still resign up until the day before the end of the current contract, which would be up at midnight August 6th In good faith and in the spirit of the non-discrimination clause (Article 5, Section 5.2) of the current contract we sent in, our resigna- tions to CWA, Local 9201 Please note that this was before the termination of the contract and before we even knew there was to be a strike! To insure re- ceipt of delivery we sent our letters, as instructed, by certified mail. -We' have waited in vain for a week for our return cards and finally checked today with the post office. Now we find that our letters (along with many others) are being held there. Evi- dently (according to P.O. -supervisor we talked to) the union refused to accept the certified and regis- tered nail -and the correct procedure for them is to notify you of the-mail and wait for you to come pick it up (To refuse to accept is not only unfair, it is also short-sighted. One of these letters looked as if it might possibly have contained money of some- thing in it that you might have wanted.) 'Why, then,. do we write at all? Because we want you to understand that as of August 4, 1983, we are no longer members of the CWA. Local 9201 and we hold receipts to that effect. This personal letter is an attempt to get your attention and appeal to your 4 It was stipulated that Rasmussen received the letter sense of fairness in dealing with your former sup- porters. This, after, all, is what union activity is all about. Your behavior at this point such as mail re- fusal, pickets lobbying in our hallways, picture taking by Missy Barlow on third floor of Harrison Square, etc. is more deplorable than any we have ever witnessed with management in the - Bell System. If, however, you refused our, certified mail through ignorance, you still have time, to, rectify your mistake. Allow us the freedom to follow our conscience as we want to allow you the freedom to follow yours. On August 25, the following letter , signed by Gardner, Heinson, Albrich, and Mills, was.sent to President Ras- mussen•5 Dear Linda, Thursday August 4th, we the undersigned, called the NLRB and our local CWA #9201 to find out if we could still resign from the Union. At approxi- mately 3.30 P.M. on August 4th we were -advised (per telephone),by, our local union that there was no time restriction for such action In good faith and in the spirit of the non-discrimi- nation clause (Article _5, Section 5.2 of the current contract), we sent our resignations by certified mail as we were instructed to do. To find that this mail had been refused at the union headquarters on Friday August 5th, after we had complied with union instructions is tantamount to entrapment. Enclosed please find copies of the . letters we. originally sent Respectfully Submitted, Heinson crossed the picket line on August 8 and Mills on August 15. They, along with Gardner, were charged and fined for having done s0.6 Heinson was fined $1539 50, Gardner was fined $1554.47, and Mills was fined $1121. About 9 a m. on August 8, Loren Miller and Jeffrey Baker talked to Vice President Richardson at the union hall. According to Richardson, Miller and' Baker asked him to accept their resignations from the Union Rich- ardson declined to do so and informed them that they had to give at least a 1-week. notice prior to the com- mencement of the strike to be timely. Miller made the point clear "that I was resigning my affiliation with the Union." Baker testified.that- Richardson told "them it was impossible to resign at'that time and, if they crossed the picket line, they would be subject to a fine of $500 and wages. Baker crossed the picket line and returned to work on August 12, and Miller returned to work August 15. On August, 14, both Miller and Baker composed let- Early did not sign the letter since she had received the return receipt for her letter of resignation dated August 4 She was not, as the others were. subsequently, charged and fined for crossing the picket line 6 The record does not disclose whether Albrich was charged and fined In any event, the General Counsel stated at the hearing that only the Charging Parties, all of whom are listed in par 5(a) of the consolidat- ed complaint, are alleged to have received unlawful treatment COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 9201 (PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL) 1533 ters of resignation which they sent to the Respondent by certified mail on August 15. The Respondent. refused to accept them. Both were charged and fined for crossing the picket line. Miller was fined $1.119 50 and Baker was fined $749. - Vicki Bonagofski was not aware of any procedural re- quirement to resign from the Union; nor had she been told she could not resign during a strike. She testified her letter of resignation from, the Respondent was mailed certified, return receipt requested, on August 8, the day she crossed the picket line. The Respondent refused to accept it. She was charged and fined $1308.50 for cross- ing the picket line. - At approximately 10 a in. on `August 8, Michael Beaty posted his registered letter of resignation to the Respond- ent. He reported for work at 11 a in , at a site that was hot being picketed The letter was returned "unclaimed." Beaty did not cross a picket line until approximately 2 weeks later He was charged and fined.$1589 for cross- ing a picket line . Phyllis Johnson-composed a letter Saturday evening, August 6, resigning "effective August 6, 1983, 12 mid- night." She next reported for work on Monday, August 8, at 7 a.m. Her letter of resignation was mailed certified, return receipt requested, at 4.40 that afternoon. It was eventually returned as unclaimed. She was charged and fined $1272.50-for crossing the picket line. Violet P. Snow mailed her certified letter of resigna- tion, return receipt requested, on August 9 On August 10, she crossed the picket line and reported for work. The letter was returned marked "Unclaimed" "Return to sender." She was charged and fined $1,242.38 for cross- ing the picket line Shirley Patterson mailed her certified letter of resigna- tion, return receipt requested, on August 9. Failing return of the return receipt, on August 12 she called an attorney who told her to send another, letter of resigna- tion by messenger service.' Accordingly, another letter of resignation was hand delivered to Marilyn Dorren- bacher, the Respondent's office manager, on, August 12 at 10:15 a.m. Patterson crossed the picket line on August 15, for which she was charged and fined $1161 50. Prior to writing an August 11 letter- of resignation, Linda Burton had called the Respondent's office and had been informed by the office manager "that in order to resign I had to send in a registered letter, and she doubt- ed if. anyone would be authorized to accept registered letters at the union hall." She then wrote a letter of res- ignation which she hand, delivered to the office manager ,who "threw it in an in-basket " Although Burton 'was informed the Respondent was,not accepting resignations, the letter was not returned to her. On August 15, Burton hand delivered another.letter to the'union hall, at.which time she orally requested a copy of the constitution and bylaws, which request was denied. ;She was again in- formed that Respondent was not accepting resignations. The August 15 letter reads: Since I have received no written reply to my res- ignation personally delivered to your office in writ- ing on 8-11-83, and, I have not received a copy of the Constitution & Bylaws requested by telephone twice on 8-9 and again requested by me in person in your office on 8-11-83 which on 8-11-83 1 was told they would be-mailed to me. I was'also told on 8-11-83 that I could not even read them while in your ofc. that day. I therefore interpret this action as an acceptance of my resignation Burton returned to work August 16 or 17. She was also charged and fined $911 for crossing the picket line. Prior to the strike Patricia Bailey was informed by two shop stewards in separate conversations that "you couldn't resign during the strike"; that "It had to be like 30 days before", that resignations would not be accepted after the strike started, and that the Union would fine people that crossed the picket line. Nevertheless, on August 11, .Bailey wrote a letter of resignation which she posted on August 12 by certified mail, return receipt re- quested . The letter was returned later as "unclaimed " As she informed the Respondent in her letter of resigna- tion, Bailey returned to work on August 15. She was charged and fined $790 for crossing the picket line. Judy Johnson wrote her letter of resignation on August 12 and attempted to hand deliver it to Orla Strickland, the Respondent's official secretary. Strickland refused the letter and sent Johnson to the office where she gave it to the office manager, telling her it was her resignation. Johnson testified the office manager stated, "She couldn't accept it, but she'd take it, and I left it at that and I left " She went back to work on August 15, was later charged and fined $1379. Annette Levison honored the picket line until Sunday, August 21, when she returned to work On August 20 she prepared a letter of resignation. The morning of August 21, she called the union hall about 10.30 a.m. Be- cause someone answered the phone, Levison went to the union.hall 'to deliver the letter. Finding the door to the building' locked, she inserted the letter, which was ad- dressed to "CWA", at that address, through the mail -slot in the door and left: It appears from the record that sev- eral other labor' organizations are also located at that ad- dress She was charged and fined $838.09 for crossing the picket line Discussion Article XIX of the Respondent's constitution' deals with charges against members. Section 1 "Specifications -of Offenses-Locals" 'provides that. Members may be fined, suspended' or expelled by Locals in'-the' manner provided in the 'Constitution for any of the' following acts- (e) Working -withouttpropei- union authorization, during the period of a properly 'approved strike in -or'for an establishment - that is'being struck by the Union or Local. 7 A postal employee informed her that the Respondent was not. accept- ing certified mail - The Respondent rests the validity of its imposition of court-collectible fines on members whose resignations it 1534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD declined to process on the above provision . The constitu- tion and bylaws fail to contain any prohibition against re- signing from membership. The General Counsel points out that the Respondent's vice president testified that the reason the Respondent refused to accept registered or certified mail during the strike was because it knew such mail contained resigna- tions. He argues that where, as here, the constitution and bylaws are silent with respect to resignations, any efforts to restrict them are invalid and unlawful. He further argues that since the Respondent would not process any resignations during the strike, it would have been futile for those individuals who resigned contemporaneous with or shortly after crossing the picket line to have re- signed or attempted resignation before , pointing out that "the law does not require futile gestures." In Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 ( 1984), the Board reviewed prior Board, cir- cuit court, and Supreme Court decisions regarding a union's authority to enforce its rules against member and nonmember employees and held that any restrictions placed by a union on its members' right to resign are un- lawful . The Board stated (id. at 1333-34): Most obviously, restrictions on resignations impair the fundamental policies found in the express language and consistent interpretation of Section 7. That section expressly grants employees "the right to refrain from any or all" protected concerted ac- tivities. This statutory right encompasses not only the right to refrain from strikes, but also the right to resign union membership. 14 The only statutory limi- tation on these Section 7 rights is contained in Sec- tion 8(b)(2) and the second proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Even under those provisions, however, no employee can be compelled to become a full union member, and an employee thus remains free to choose to refrain from union or other con- certed .activities.' 5 Certainly, when a union seeks to delay or otherwise impede a member's resignation, it directly impairs the employee 's Section 7 right to resign or otherwise refrain from union or other con- certed activities . In addition, by creating the fiction of continued membership, restrictions on resigna- tions undermine the policies of Section 8(b)(2) and the second proviso to Section 8(a)(3) that serve to prohibit a union from compelling full union mem- bership. Similarly, restrictions on. resignation , also impair the fundamental policy repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court to be imbedded in the very fabric of the labor laws that distinguishes between internal union actions and external union actions. A consistent and enduring basis for distinguishing be- tween ,internal and external actions is whether the union's action applies only to union members. ' By, unilaterally extending an employee's membership obligation through restrictions on resignation, a union artificially expands the definition of internal action and can thus continue to , regulate conduct find no basis in the Act for allowing unions to alter unilaterally the statutory structure so carefully elu- cidated by the Supreme Court. Second, we reiterate the position expressed in the concurring opinion in Dalmo Victor II that any effort to equate the institutional interests of a union with the statutory rights of employees is inappropri- ate. See 263 NLRB at 990-991 For, regardless of their legitimacy, the' union's. interests simply cannot negate or otherwise overcome fundamental Section 7 rights. Third, any argument that suggests that the only conflict here is between unions and employees who want to resign misperceives and ignores another fundamental conflict, namely, that between those employees who choose to engage in strike activities and those who wish to refrain . In this conflict the Board should not and cannot compromise the neu- trality of the Act in favor of the rights of striking employees at the expense of the rights of employees who choose not to strike by sanctioning a union's efforts to restrict resignations . For to do so is to ignore the literal prescription of Section 7 that the Act protects, with equal vigilance: the rights of em- ployees to engage in and to refrain from union or other concerted activities. As-for the final portion of the Scofield[8] test, to give effect to a union 's effort to ignore resignations is contrary to the Court's holding that employees must be "free to leave the union and escape the rule." The Court expressly recognized that a union's authority does not extend to employees who do not choose to remain part of the union and sub- ject to its rules . In our view, it is apparent that this principle is violated by a rule that tells employees they cannot, in fact, escape the rule. 'a Booster Lodge, above, 412 US' S at 87-88, Granite State, above, 409 U S at 217-218, NLRB v Machinists Local 1327 (Dalmo Victor), 608 F 2d 1219, 1221 (9th Or 1979), NLRB v Ma- chinists Lodge 1871 (General Dynamics Corp), 575 F 2d 54, 55 (2d Cir 1978),, Electrical Workers Local 66 (Houston Lighting Co), 262 NLRB 483 (1982), Sales, Service, and Allied Workers' Union (Cap- itol-Husting Co), 235 NLRB 1264 (1978) ' 15 NLRB v General Motors Corp, 373 US 734, 742 (1963) "`Membership' as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core " Thus, the Board has held,_ with court approval, that a union violates Sec 8(b)(1)(A) when it refuses to accept the resignations of employees on 'the ground that full membership is a, .condition of. employment Service Employees Local, 680 (Leland Stanford Junior University), 232 NLRB 326 (1977), enfd 601 F 2d 980 (9th Cir, 1979) The Board has also held that where there 'is no estab- lished,method for, resignation, a member may advise the union of his intent to resign in any reasonable- way, in- cluding - orally, so long . as - the -intent is clearly conveyed Machinists Local -2045 (Eagle Signal); . 268 NLRB 635 (1984). It, is clear from the facts in the, instant case that the Respondent's "standing rule" prohibited resignations, from, membership immediately -preceding or during a strike, and was unlawful. Pursuant to that rule, the Respondent refused to accept or give effect to either over which it would otherwise have no control. We s 394 U S 423 (1969) COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 9201 (PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL) oral or written resignations of its members In 1980 Will- bite's first letter of resignation was taken to the union office by a shop steward and refused on the ground it had to be sent by registered mail. Willhite sent the resig- nation by registered letter, which the Respondent re- ceived Her resignation was not processed. Heinson, Gardner; • and - Mills mailed letters of resignation on August' 4.-. They were refused by the Respondent on August 5.; On August 9 --and again on August 25, they sent letters reiterating their August 4 • resignations. On August 8, Miller and Baker orally informed Richardson that they were resigning. He refused to accept the resig- nations and told them they would be subject to a fine if they crossed the picket line. Although their oral resigna- tions were valid under Board law, they mailed written resignations on August 14, which were refused. Snow's letter of resignation dated August 9 was refused. Patter- son's letter of August 9 was refused, and the Respondent refused to give effect to her August 12 letter of resigna- tion which was delivered to the Respondent's office by messenger service. Burton's August 11 hand-delivered letter of resignation was received. by Respondent and thrown "in an in-basket." On August 15, she delivered another letter to the Respondent's office, stating that she interpreted certain of Respondent's acts "as an accept- ance of my resignation." Although Bailey had been in- formed by shop stewards that resignations would not be accepted after the 'strike started and that the Respondent Union would fine people who crossed the picket line, on August 12 she mailed a letter of resignation to the Union wherein she stated she would return to work on August 15, which she did. The letter was refused. Judy John- son's hand-delivered letter of resignation dated August 12 was refused by an officer of the Respondent. She then left it with the office manager who stated, "She couldn't accept it, but she'd take it." Levison left her letter of res- ignation in the Respondent's mail slot. All of the. forego- ing attempts to resign preceded the return to work of the respective employee. - Only the - resignations of Bona- gofski, Beaty, and Phyllis Johnson were mailed contem- poraneous with or shortly after the employee returned to work. Bonagofski's letter was mailed August 8, the day she went back to work; Beaty's was mailed on August 8, an hour before he went to work at a site not picketed; and Phyllis Johnson's letter of resignation, written on and "effective" at midnight August 6, was mailed at 4:40 p.m. on August 8, although. she went' to work that morn- ing. It is clear, however, that the Respondent' would not have accepted or given effect to any of them during the strike had they been mailed'in time for the post office to have delivered them prior to' the employees' return to work. In light of the Respondent's unlawful policy, to have submitted the resignations earlier would have been' a futile act, 'which the Board does not require. Accord= ingly, it is found that the'Resporident's policy of:refiising resignations was unlawful, that'the"resignations of'the 15 Charging Parties were effective when tendered,' and that -they were no longer members of the Respondent Union when they were subjected to court-collectible fines for crossing a picket line and "working without union au- thorization." ' 1535 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Pacific Northwest Bell is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. - 3. By telling member/employees that they will be fined if they attempted to resign their membership from Respondent Union in contravention of the "standing rule" prohibiting resignations from membership immedi- ately preceding or during a strike, and by rejecting at- tempts to resign, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By imposing court-collectible fines against the fol- lowing employees for crossing a picket line and working without union authorization, after they effectively re- signed their membership in the Respondent Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act: Violet V. Snow Shirley A. Patterson Patricia L. Bailey Loren F. Miller Jeffrey R. Baker - Michael Beaty Becky Willhite Vicki Bonagofski Elizabeth Heinson Janet Gardner Della A. Mills Linda Burton Annette Levison Phyllis Johnson Judy K Johnson. 5 The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Union engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.' Having -Mound' that the Respondent Union fined the Charging 'Parties ,in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, `I shall recommend that the Respondent Union be ordered to refund to the respective Charging Parties any moneys they may have paid as a result of the fines im- posed against them, ' with interest computed in the manner prescribed iii Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 ( 1977) 9 It is further recommended that the Respondent Union be ordered to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful charges; trials, and fines of the Charging Parties and notify them in writing that it has done so and that the charges, trials, and fines will not be used against them in 'any way. I shall also ,recommend that the Re- spondent Union cease' and 'desist from maintaining its "standing rule" 'prohibiting resignations from member- ship' immediately preceding or during a strike Neufeld Porsche-Audi, supra. On these findings of `fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, .1 issue the following recommend- ed10' 9 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,` the' findings, conclusions, 'and recommended Continued 1536 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Respondent, Communications Workers of Amer- ica, Local 9201, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Telling members that they will be brought up on .charges and/or fined if they attempt to resign their mem- bership in violation of our "standing rule" which prohib- its resignations from membershp immediately preceding or during a strike (b) Preferring charges against, trying, or fining an em- ployee for crossing a picket line and/or working without union authorization after they have effectively resigned from the Union. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Rescind the fines imposed against Violet V. Snow, Shirley A. Patterson, Patricia L. Bailey, Loren F Miller, Jeffrey R. Baker, Michael Beaty, Becky Wilihite, Vicki Bonagofski, Elizabeth Heinson, Janet Gardner, Della A. Mills, Linda Burton, Annette Levison, Phyllis Johnson, and Judy K. Johnson, refund any moneys they may have 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 - I paid as a result of the fines imposed against them, and remove from its records all references to the proceedings which resulted in the fines. (b) Rescind its "standing rule" prohibiting resignations from membership immediately preceding or during a strike. (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies- of the notice, on forms provided by'the Regional Director for Region 19, 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) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of the notice to be posted by Pacific Northwest Bell, if that Company is willing to post it. . (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of-this Order what steps it has taken to comply. ' 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 " I