Local Lodge No. 1198, District Lodge No. 99, International Association Of Machinists And Aero-Space Workers, Afl--Cio

154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Lodge No. 1198, District Lodge No. 99, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO and Interstate Food Processing Corp. Interstate Food Processing Corp . and Dawn Leves- que, Petitioner and Local Lodge No. 1198, Dis- trict Lodge No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CB-6092 and 1-UD-196 22 January 1986 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 31 July 1985 Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions and supporting briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. 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, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.' 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c). "(c) Make whole employees Andrew Higgins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly Adams, Rita Hamilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouellette, and David Ossie for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision." 2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and re- letter the remaining paragraphs. "(d) Reimburse $15.50 to those employees listed in the judge's decision who paid June 1984 dues, with interest computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See gen- erally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case 1-UD-196 be set aside and a new election held. [Direction of Second Election omitted from pub- lication.] - APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Local Lodge No. 1198, International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. i The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's failure to order the Respondent to reimburse to employees moneys which the employees paid to the Respondent in response to its unlawful demand of 2 July 1984. We find merit in this exception Of the $35 each employee paid to the Respondent, $15.50 represented monthly dues for June 1984 and the remainder represented an initiation fee. As the Respondent could not lawfully assess dues for June 1984, which was within the 30-day statutory grace period, we shall order the Respondent to reimburse $15.50, with interest, to each employee who paid June dues in response to the Respondent's unlawful demand. We will not, however, require the Respondent to reimburse the initiation fees paid because the employees were obligated to pay those fees, albeit at a later tune. See Electrical Workers IUE Local 601 (Westinghouse Electric), 180 NLRB 1062, 1063 (1979) The General Counsel has also excepted to the judge's inclusion in his order of a make-whole remedy for employee Vince Brown, who was not named in the complaint and for whom the General Counsel is not seeking any relief. Under these circumstances, we shall delete Brown's name from the Order. We further find, as requested by the General Counsel and in accordance with the parties' stipulation, that Yvette Blaisdell paid $35 to the Respondent on 24 July 1984. The judge inadvertently failed to cite Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), for the rate of interest on any backpay due the employees. 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 give effect to, implement, or in any manner enforce a practice which fails to grant to employees of Interstate Food Processing Corp. the statutory time before requiring that they pay dues or other fees, and WE WILL NOT fail to give these employees adequate notice of the amounts and method of computation of such fees when the statutory period has elapsed. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Inter- state Food Processing Corp. to discharge or other- wise discriminate against its employees where we are not entitled to collect dues or other fees from these employees. 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 remove from our records any demand for the discharge of any employee of Interstate Food Processing Corp. to whom we did not grant the statutory time before requiring that they pay dues or other fees. WE WILL notify Interstate Food Processing Corp. in writing, with copies to the employees af- 278 NLRB No. 25 MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD) 155 fected, that we rescind any demands for the termi- nation of their employment, and ' that we have no objection to their continued employment in their former _ or substantially equivalent positions with full seniority and other rights. WE WILL make whole employees Andrew Hig- gins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly Adams, Rita Hamilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouellette, and David Ossie for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against them, with interest. WE WILL reimburse $15.50 to those employees who paid June 1984 dues in response to our unlaw- ful demand of 2 July 1984, with interest. LOCAL LODGE No. 1198, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL- CIO Don C. Firenzi, Esq., for the General Counsel. Peter R Kraft, Esq., Herbert H. Bennett and Associates, P. A., of Portland, Maine, for the Charging Party Em- ployer. Sam Luterotty, of Washington, D.C., for the Respondent Union. Dawn Levesque, of Fort Fairfield, Maine, for Petitioner, pro se. DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE F. MCINERNY, Administrative Law Judge. On 5 July 19841 Dawn Levesque, an individual, an em- ployee of Interstate Food Processing Corp. (the Compa- ny), and also a member of Local Lodge No. 1198, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO, (the Union or Respondent), filed a peti- tion in Case 1 UD-196 requesting an election under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, wherein the Company's employees would vote on whether or not to withdraw the Union's union-shop authority under Sec- tion 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. On 18 October 1984 -the Union, the Company, and Levesque agreed, in a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, on the time and place for the union- shop 'deauthorization election. The election was held on 1 November, resulting in a 79-to-53 vote in favor of, re- taining the Union's union-shop authority,; The Petitioner, Levesque, filed timely objections on 8 November to con- duct affecting the results of the election, as follows:2, (1) First the Union filed a number, of unfair labor `practice charges 'against the company which were untrue. The unfair labor practice charges unfairly stalled our election for several months. The Union ' There being no evidence here concerning Distract Lodge No 99, that organization is dismissed from the complaint. 2 The grammar is as set out in the original objections should not have been allowed to abuse the law and delay our election on false charges. (2) Second the Union tried to scare employees by threatening to fire people and actually having people fired because they hadn't paid union dues. The Union was trying to get rid of employees who the Union thought would vote against them. (3) Third the Union tries to have people who had either been fired or who had quit to be included in the vote. There was a lot of people who the Union were no longer employees that the Union had to get on the eligibility list. As I understand it, the number of eligible voters is very important. The Union tried to-make a much ,bigger list of voters than there should have been. (4) Fourth, the Grand Lodge Representative union stewards and Local `Union officials told people in letters and in person a lot of lies about what deauthorizing the Union. They told employees that a deauthorization meant getting rid of the Union and that we would not have an open shop in- stead of a closed shop. They said that if we deauth- orized we would lose overtime, vacations, seniority and other fringe benefits. They also said that the company would get rid of employees and fire them for any reason if the union was deauthorized. They told employees that the company not me was behind the deauthorization petition. They told em- ployees that a number of us employees who were exercising our legal rights to deauthorize had been corrupted and bought off by the company. A lot of- employees believed all these lies and voted, against deauthorizing the Union because of them. During the last few months the Union has' scared the employees, told them lies about deauthorization, and'told them lies about those of us who supported the deauthorization petition. The Regional Director for Region 1 conducted an in- vestigation of these objections, concluding on 28 Novem- ber that the matter covered by Objection 2 was also the subject of another case , and that the objections should be consolidated with the other case for hearing. The other case referred to, Case 1-CB-6092, was initi- ated through a charge filed 'on - 22 October With the Board by the Company, alleging that ` the Union had committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (5) of the Act. This charge was amended on 10 December adding additional alleged vio- lations of Section 8(b)(2)' of the Act: Then, on 11 De- cember, _ the ' Regional' Director issued an order consoli- dating Cases 1-UD-196 and 1-CB-6092, issuing a com- plaint in the latter case and assigning ' the -consolidated cases for hearing. Following appropriate notice, a hearing on these mat- ters was held 'before me in Presque Isle, Maine, on 4 and 5 February 1985, at which all parties were represented, the Company and the General Counsel by counsel, and were afforded the opportunity to produce testimony and documentary evidence,, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally. Following the close of the 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing, the Company and the General Counsel submit- ted briefs, which have been carefully considered. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow- ing FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Company is a corporation which maintains an office and place of business in Fort Fairfield, Maine, where it is in the business of processing and selling peas and potatoes. During the calendar year ending 31 De- cember 1984, it sold and shipped from its plant goods valued at over $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Maine. There is no question that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED There is no question that the Union is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Company and the Union here had been involved in a collective-bargaining relationship for the Company's production workers for some years.3 The latest, but one, contract between them ran from 2 March 1981 to 28 February 1983. Following the expiration of that agree- ment, there was a strike, then a series of bargaining ses- sions involving Grand Lodge Representative William H. Layman, and Herbert Bennett, the Company's attorney, resulting in a contract which was actually signed on 1 June 1984 and made effective as of 21 May 1984 until 24 May 1987. The contract contains certain union security provi- sions, as follows Article II UNION SECURITY Section 1. All -employees in the bargaining units must as a condition of continued employment be either a member of the Union and pay union dues or pay an agency fee to the Union, but not both. Section 2. All employees within the bargaining unit on the effective date of this agreement who are not union members must as a condition of continued employ- ment, pay to the Union, while on the active payroll, an agency fee equal in amount to monthly member- ship dues, beginning with the month following the month in which they accumulate thirty (30) days' continuous service in the bargaining unit since their last date of hire or rehire. Employees entering the bargaining unit without seniority after the effective date of this agreement who do not become union members or having become, do not remain union members must as a condition of employment, while on the active payroll, pay such fee to the Union commencing the month following the month in which they accumulate thirty (30) days service in the bargaining unit. Section 3. Employees who are union members on the effec- tive date of this agreement shall continue to pay membership dues to the Union as a condition of em- ployment while in the bargaining unit; employees within the bargaining unit who are not union mem- bers on the effective date of this agreement and choose to become members of the Union shall pay while on the active payroll, an original initiation fee and membership dues to the Union, as a condition of continued employment while in the bargaining unit and while remaining a union member. Section 4. Any employee required to pay an agency fee, membership dues, or initiation or reinstatement fee as a condition of continued employment who fails to tender the agency fee or inititation , reinstate- ment, or periodic dues uniformly required, shall be notified in writing of his/her delinquency. A copy of such communication shall be mailed to the Com- pany not later than fifteen (15) days prior to such request that the Company discharge any employee who is not in good standing as required by this Ar- ticle. Section 5. After the initial contract, employees, who are not members of the Union and have paid their service fee, shall be entitled to vote on any future contract. Should this entitlement to voting privileges on the acceptance or rejection of contracts be denied, then the requirement that non-members pay a service fee will become null and void. After employees who are not members of the Union tender their service fee, there shall be no additional financial obligations or requirements to the Union. Both the General Counsel and the Company maintain that the plain language of these provisions does not permit an interpretation that initiation fees or their equiv- alent was encompassed within this article. When I first read the article, noting particularly section 1 , 1 agreed with this, ruling at one point that I would not receive testimony about the intent of the parties during negotia- tions on this issue4 and, at another point, declining to hold open the record to receive rebuttal testimony from the Company's attorney and chief negotiator Herbert Bennett. 8 More accurately , the Company and its predecessor, the Great Atlan- tic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc. 4 Despite my ruling, quite a bit of evidence got into the record con- cerning the discussions on this issue MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD) In reading the entire article on union security, howev- er, I can see where there may well be some ambiguity on the question of whether the parties contemplated that ini- tiation fees would be required of employees. Looking at section 1 alone, it seems clear that dues or agency fees alone are required; but when one reads section 4, it would seem that initiation or reinstatement fees are, in fact, also required. Because of my rulings at'the hearing, I do not think it would be fair to the parties if I were now to use William Layman's testimony as the basis for a finding that initi- ation fees were a part of article II, but using the lan- guage of section 4 together with reference to Layman's letter of 26 June to General Manager Chris French; the letter of about 2 July to French from Union President Lawrence Gallop; the memorandum of 11 July from management official Steve Henning to all employees; and the Company's answers to union grievances; all which are in evidence here, I have no difficulty in finding that the parties clearly understood that the obligations of the Company's employees under the contract included the payment of initiation or reinstatement fees, as well as dues or agency fees. The next question is whether the Union was entitled to collect such fees, or whether such actions themselves violated the law, Professional Engineers Local 151 (Gener- al Dynamics Corp.), 272 NLRB 1051 (1985). The record here, however, is not clear enough for me to determine which employees were employed before the strike in 1983, or whether any of these employees resigned from the Union. Thus, I can make no finding on this issue, which, in any event, was not a part of the complaint, and not fully litigated at this hearing. The sole questions left for decision, here,-5 are, first, whether the demands made by the Union in July 1984 for the discharge of employees and the subsequent dis- charges of employees violated Section 8(b)(1XA) and (2) of the Act; and, second, whether the union-shop deau- thorization election of 1 November 1984 should be set aside. On the question of the Union's demands for discipli- nary action against employees for nonpayment of fees, there is no question of fact. William Layman and Chris French met on 25 June to discuss some individual grievances. During the course of that meeting, Layman raised the question of the payment of initiation fees, and told French the amount that each employee would be required to pay. This last was not difficult since all, members and agency fee people, paid the same-$35-of which $15.50 was dues and the re- mainder an initiation or reinstatement fee. Layman fol- lowed up this conversation with a letter to French dated 26 June in which he set out the fees noted above, and indicated that these fees would be due as of 1 July 1984, for all employees who had not paid either dues or agency fees. On 2 July, at Layman's direction, the secre- tary-treasurer of the local, union, Lodge 1198, sent to each employee who had not paid the fees a form entitled 5 In his brief, the General Counsel abandoned the position that the fees in question here were excessive or discrumnatory within the meaning of Sec 8(bx5) of the Act 157 "Local Lodge 1198 form lA," which described the em- ployee's delinquency, and served also as "the required fifteen (15) day notice to discharge the above employ- ee. . . ." After that, around 15 July, Union President Lawrence Gallop sent to French a list of 125 names of delinquent employees, and requested that the Company terminate all of them. The Company took no action on people who were then in layoff status, were out sick, or who had quit or been terminated for other reasons. But between 19 July and 15 August, it did terminate nine employees: Andrew Higgins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly Adams, Rita Hamilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouel- lette, David Ossie, and Vince Brown. A number of other employees, as listed in the complaint, paid either union dues or an agency fee. The names of these employees to- gether with the amounts paid and the dates on which payments were made, was stipulated by the parties as follows: Susan Achorn, August 1, $35, agency. Wayne Adams, August 1, $35, agency. Shirley Amnot, July 17, $35, agency. Gene Anderson, September-22, $35, initiation. Wayne Ballard, August 31, $35, agency. Ida Beaulieu, July 17, $35, agency Frances Beckwith, July 17, $35, reinstatement. Lucy Bellefleur, September 24, $35, initiation. Noella Bernier, July 27, $35, agency. Juanita Berube, July 27, $35, agency. Donald Bishop-sometime in the first weeks of July, $93, reinstatement. Yvette Blaisdell, July 24, agency. Kevin Bonderson, July 28, $35, initiation. Lola Boulier, July 16, $35, reinstatement. Hattie Brooker, October 30, $35, initiation. Gerald Brouette, July 25, $35, agency. Angie Brown, August 10, $35, agency. Phllis Brown, July 17, $35, agency. Dolly Butler, August 21, $35, agency. Minnie Butler, July 20, $35, agency. Robert Caldwell, July 18, $35, agency. Donald Chapman, July 17, $35, reinstatement. Ernest Chapman, July 17, $35, reinstatement. Douglas Clifford, July 25, $35, agency. Timothy Cole, September 22, $35, initiation. Pauline Craig, July 14, $35, reinstatement. Florence Davenport, July 20, $35, agency. Larry Davenport, July, 18, $35, agency. Judy DeMerchant, September 28, $35, agency. Jeanne Deveau, October 6, $35, agency. Madeline Dionne, September 22, $35, agency. Eva Donovan, July 20, $35, agency. Hope Doughty, July 16, $35, reinstatement. Kent Doughty, July 18, $35, agency. Danny Dufour, July 22, $35, agency. Stephen Dumond, July 11, $35 reinstatement. Vincent Emery, July 17, $35, reinstatement. Cecilia Guimond, September 28, $35 agency. Michael Guimond, October 20, $46.50, agency. Becky Hafford, July 17, $35, agency. Elouise Helstrom, July 20, $35, agency. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Otis Hewitt, July 28, $35, agency, Winslow Kenney, July 21, $35, reinstatement. Virginia Larrabee, November 8, $35, reinstate- ment. Raymond Leavitt, July 25, $35, agency. Austin Levesque, July 17, $35, agency. Dawn Levesque, there are two entries, July 18, $35, agency; that check apparently bounced and there was a payment on August 18 of $50.50, agency. Simone Levesque, August 15, $35, agency. Carolyn Lilly, July 17, $35, agency. Yvonne Madore, August 4, $35, agency. Olive McDougal, August 14, $35, initiation. Pauline McDougal, August 10, $35, agency. Walter McDougal, July 17, $35, agency. Randy McGrath, July 17, $35, agency. Shirley McShaw, August 14, $35, agency. Lendal Mills; August 10, $35, initiation. Bertha Morin, July 20, $35, agency. Arnold Murchison, July 20, $35, reinstatement. Wyona O'Nela, August 14, $35, agency: Linda Pechkam, July 24, $35, reinstatement. Gertrude Petty, September 22, $35, agency. Donald Rand, July 18, $35, agency. Linda Rand, July 18, $35, agency. Jane Rogers, July 18, $35, agency. Jeannie St. Jarre, July 21, $35, agency. Robert St. Peter, July 20, $35, agency. Linda Sutherland, July 17, $35, agency. It is the position of the General Counsel, as expressed on the record here, that all of these employees were re- strained and coerced, by the, Union either to join the Union or to pay an agency fee. I have examined all of the evidence here, including the Union's communications of 26 June to French, and to all employees on 2 July, together with the testimony of several employees who were convinced that they would have lost their jobs if they had not paid what the Union demanded, that the General Counsel is correct, and that the,Union's actions were responsible for the reactions of the employees. It seems clear, also, that the Union's actions in de- manding initiation , fees, reinstatement fees, dues, and agency fees were unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The, old contract had expired in 1983, and the employees were, under no obligation to pay dues or other fee to the Union. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 258 NLRB 29 (1981). The new contract was signed on 1 June 1984, so that the 30-day statutory, period prescribed in the first proviso to Section 8(a)(3), would have begun on that date, making a demand requiring these payments for any period before 1 July, premature and unlawful. The Union's demand for payments covering the month of June 1984 was therefore a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), and the accompanying threat of discharge for nonpayment a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra at 31. The actual discharges of nine employees, effected by the Company at the demand of the Union, likewise con- stitute violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The General Counsel and the Company also contend that because the 2 July notice did not explain how the $35 fee demanded had been calculated, the demand was, on its face,' defective. In this case there is no question about the total amount or the place where payment was to be made. The only question concerned the fact that the amount on the 2 July letter was not broken down as to initiation or reinstatement fees, and the dues or agency fees. I think this defect comes within the proscription of the Board's decisions in this area. Moreover, the Union's letter of 26 June to French, containing a breakdown of the $35 amount, shows that copies were sent to the fi- nancial secretary, and all officers and stewards of Local Lodge 1198, Thus, anyone interested in the figures, would have been required to seek help from one of those officers or stewards. Harsh Investment Corp., 260 NLRB 1088, 1092 (1982). In this instance, the Union has violat- ed Section 8(b)(1)(A). With respect to the General Counsel's contention that the, 2 July notice did not allow a reasonable period of time to make payments. I do not think there is enough evidence here to permit me to make the requested find- ing. Although the stipulated dates showing when, em- ployees actually paid show a wide spread of time, there is no evidence here of the disparity of special situations or unusual circumstances present in United Metaltronics Local 958 (Pharmaseal Laboratories), 254 NLRB 601 (1981). IV. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS The objections to the election are listed above: The Regional Director for Region 1 consolidated those matters for hearing before me in this matter, and I make the following findings and recommendations. Concerning Objection 1, Chris French testified that William Layman had told him after a prior union-shop deauthorization was filed that French did not have to "worry about an election because he [Layman] was going to run so many charges against the company that they would never see an election up in that plant." This was, of course, alleged to have been said before the filing of the instant petition, but, in any event, is imprecise and, standing alone, does not convince me that, if it was said, it proves that any charges filed were "untrue" or were filed primarily for the purpose of stalling the election. Concerning Objection- 2, my findings of violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) above are ample justification for a further finding that the Union's conduct unfairly af- fected the results of the election. There is no evidence on and I find no merit to Objec- tions 3 and 4. Based on my finding that Objection 2 is meritorious, I recommend that the election in Case 1-UD-196 be set aside, and a new election be held in the unit found to be appropriate. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. MACHINISTS LOCAL 1198 (INTERSTATE FOOD) Having found that the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding the discharge of 125 employees named above, I shall recommend that the Union remove such demand from its own records and notify the Company in writing that it has no objection to the continued employment of such persons. Having found that the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding the discharges, and causing the discharges of Andrew Higgins, Lennie Levesque, Lynn Flannery, Kimberly Admans, Rita Ham- ilton, Kenneth Hayden, Sylvia Ouellette, David Ossie, and Vince Brown, I shall recommend that it remove from its records any reference to the demand for their discharge, and notify the Company that it has no objec- tion to their reemployment, and that it pay to them amounts of money calculated to make them whole for the discrimination against them, all in the manner pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest in accordance with Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). It is further recommended that Case 1-UD-196 be re- manded to the Regional Director, that the election held there on 1 November 1984 be set aside, and a new elec- tion conducted when the Regional Director deems ap- propriate. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Employer, Interstate Food Processing Corp., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union 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 unlawfully threatening to discharge, and by actually causing the discharge of, certain employees of the employees herein. .On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- s ORDER The Respondent, Local Lodge No. 1198, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Giving effect to, implementing , or in any manner enforcing a practice which fails to grant to employees of r 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 159 Interstate Food Processing Corp. the statutory time before requiring that they pay dues, initiation or rein- statement fees or agency fees, and failing to give employ- ees adequate notice of the amounts and method of com- putation of such fees when the statutory period has elapsed. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Interstate Food Processing Corp. to discharge or otherwise discriminate against its employees where Respondent is not entitled under the Act to do so. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Remove from its records any demands for the dis- charges of any of the employees named in this decision. (b) Notify Interstate Food Processing Corp., in writ- ing, with copies to all the employees whose names are mentioned in this decision, that it rescinds any demands for the termination of their employment, and that it has no objection to their continued employment in their former or substantially equivalent position with full se- niority and other rights. (c) Make whole the nine employees actually dis- charged for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of their unlawful discharges by paying to them sums of money specified in the remedy section V of this decision. (d) Post at its facility in Presque Isle, Maine, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees 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. (e) Forward to the Regional Director for Region 1 signed copies of the notice sufficient in number for post- ing by Interstate Food Processing Corp., that Company being willing, at all locations where notices to their em- ployees are customarily posted. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 7 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "