Local 582, Graphic Communications Int'L Union

504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 582, Graphic Communications International Union and Alco Gravure, Inc. Case 5-CB-4987 25 April 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS On 30 December 1985 Administrative Law Judge James J. O'Meara Jr. issued the attached de- cision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering 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, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings In sec I,B, par I of his decision, the judge stated that Engraving De- partment Superintendent Leonard Louis Stoops has been a member of the Respondent Union since 1959 Stoops testified that he has been a member of Local 582, Graphic Communications International Union, the Respondent, since March 1985 , and that he was a member of other locals of the Graphic Communications International Union from 1959 until March 1985 In sec I,B, par 2 , the judge inadvertently misquoted art 9, sec I of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement The provision should read "overtime shall be worked when necessary but the refusal of an employ- ee to work overtime shall not be deemed a breach of contract nor shall any employee be disciplined or discriminated against for refusal of over- time " (Emphasis added) The judge found in sec I,B, par 5 of his decision that Stoops partici- pated in the collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Employer The record shows, however, that Stoops, who became the engraving department superintendent in December 1984, had not partici- pated in negotiations for an agreement as of the hearing date The record, however, supports the judge's finding that Stoops was a representative under Sec 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act Contrary to the judge's finding in sec 1,B, par 11 of his decision, Union President Panuska's position at the 18 March 1985 grievance meet- ing was that, although employees could not be disciplined for refusing overtime production work, the contract prohibited superintendents from performing that work In sec I,B, par 16 of his decision , the judge inadvertently stated that Stoops learned about the unfair labor practice charge on 15 rather than 16 April 1985 2 We shall modify par 1(b) of the judge's recommended Order to change the word "agreeing" to "acquiescing," as currently stated in the judge's notice to employees We shall issue a new notice to employees to conform more closely to the Order in other respects spondent, Local 582, Graphic Communications International Union, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b). "(b) Restraining and coercing the Company in the selection and retention of its representatives for collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev- ances by threatening reprisal and retaliation, in- cluding possible loss of union membership, against supervisors of Alco Gravure, Inc. for filing, caus- ing to be filed, or acquiescing in the filing of an unfair labor practice charge against the Union." 2. 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 restrain or coerce Alco Gravure, Inc. in the selection and retention of its representa- tives for collective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances by fining or otherwise disciplining supervisors for performing supervisory duties. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Alco Gravure, Inc. in the selection and retention of its representa- tives for collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by threatening reprisal and retaliation including possible withdrawal of union membership against supervisors of Alco Gravure, Inc. for filing, causing to be filed, or acquiescing in the filing of any unfair labor practice charge against the Union. WE WILL rescind all fines or other disciplinary action taken against Leonard Stoops and remove all records of internal union charges brought against him. WE WILL advise Leonard Stoops in writing that all fines and other disciplinary action against him have been rescinded and that all records of internal union charges against him have been removed. LOCAL 582, GRAPHIC COMMUNICA- TIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION Carol A. Baumerich, Esq., for the General Counsel. Charles Lee Nutt, Esq., of Baltimore, Maryland, for the Respondent. Richard C. Lowe, Esq., and D. Mark Hilliard, Esq., of Nashville, Tennessee, for the Charging Party. 279 NLRB No. 80 GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 582 (ALCO GRAVURE) 505 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES J O'MEARA JR, Administrative Law Judge. The complaint in this case was issued on 17 May 1985 and is based on a charge filed on 10 April 1985 by the Alco Gravure, Inc. (Alco or the Charging Party). The complaint charges that Local 582 of the Graphics Com- munications International Union (the Union) did disci- pline one of its members Leonard Louis Stoops who was also employed as the superintendent supervisor of the Charging Party and further that the Union threatened Stoops with subsequent and further discipline in the event of a repetition of the performance of bargaining unit work by Stoops or Stoops failure to resolve the unfair labor practice charge which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act The Union denied that it has violated the Act in any way This case was heard in Baltimore, Maryland, on 29 July 1985. The parties were given an opportunity to present evidence and argue their respective positions. At the termination of the hearing the parties waived oral ar- gument and have filed briefs which have been received and duly considered a member of the Respondent Union and has been a member since 1959. As engraving superintendent Stoops is not a member of the bargaining unit The engraving department general foreman, Steve Hinch, assistant fore- man, Lou Flaig, and the leadmen were also members of Respondent Union. The parties collective-bargaining agreement in effect at the time provides in part as follows- Article 9-Overtime, Section I. Overtime shall be worked when necessary, but refusal of an employee to work overtime should not be deemed a breach of the contract, nor shall any employee be disciplined or discriminated against for refusal of overtime. Section 3-The company shall give the employees advance notice of work scheduled on weekends (Saturday, Sunday) forty-two (42) hours except in the event of mechanical difficulty or an emergency. Employees will be required to give the company advance notice when it is impossible for them to report for work on said weekends. However, said notice must be given within one and one half (1- 1/2) hours after notification of said weekend worked FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the evidence of record including the testimo- ny and demeanor of the witnesses and in consideration of briefs filed by the parties, I make the following findings. 1. JURISDICTION Respondent Local 582, Graphics Communication International Union is, and has been at all times material, a labor organization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose of dealing with employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. The Charging Party is a New Jersey corporation with an office and place of business located in Glen Burnie, Maryland (the Charging Party's facility) and is engaged in the production of advertising supplements and maga- zines. During the preceeding 12-month period the Charg- ing Party, during the course and conduct of its oper- ations, sold and shipped from its Glen Burnie facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Maryland and is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I further find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Statement of Facts Alco Gravure, Inc. (the Company) operates a rotogra- vure printing facility in Glen Burnie, Maryland. The Re- spondent Union has represented journeyman photoen- gravers working in the Employer's cylinder processing or engraving department for many years. The Superin- tendent of the engraving department since December 1984 has been Leonard Louis Stoops (Stoops). Stoops is The collective-bargaining agreement also provides, inter alia, the following: Article 16-Operation of Equipment and Performance of Work, Section 4-No superintendent shall per- form any production work covered under the terms of this contract except to instruct, direct or teach a journeyman or apprentice. The agreement also sets forth under article 21 entitled "Grievance and Arbitration" the procedure to be fol- lowed in any dispute between the parties arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of the agreement and that in such event such dispute will be re- solved in accordance with the procedure set forth in the agreement. The Company has stipulated that the engraving super- intendent, Stoops, is now, and at all relevant times has been, a supervisor of the Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The Company contends, and the record establishes, that Stoops is a representative of the Company for the purpose of collective-bargaining and/or the adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. As superintendent, Stoops is responsible for the overall production and qual- ity of the engraving department. He also is required to participate in grievance procedures and contract negotia- tions and is management's representative at the first step of the grievance process in the engraving department. He also participates as a representative of management in further grievance meetings which prove necessary. As such a representative of management, Stoops is responsi- ble on a day-to-day basis for the interpretation of the col- lective-bargaining agreement as management's represent- ative in the engraving department Stoops also participat- ed in the collective-bargaining agreement between the 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer and the Respondent. The engraving depart- ment supervisor at that time participated in the negotia- tions as a management representative . Because the en- graving superintendent participates in the contract nego- tiations as a management representative Stoops, as a member of the Respondent Union, has voting rights on everything in the Local except ratification of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. On the weekend of 23 and 24 February, the Employer required weekend overtime in order to get a critical job to press on the following Monday to meet a scheduled deadline. A customer's representative was coming to the Employer's facility in order to "proof" a job before it was to go to press the following Monday. Photoen- gravers were required to work in order that the correc- tions, if any, required by the customer's representative were needed before the press run on Monday. To obtain the necessary photoengravers to work the weekend over- time, Stoops, on Thursday, 21 February, asked General Foreman Hinch, in accordance with normal procedures, to post a list of the overtime employees needed to work on Saturday, 23 February. Stoops requested four reetchers and two finishers from the second and third shift in the printing department. Hinch posted the over- time list on Thursday, 21 February. The overtime list comprised the names of employees in order of each one's eligibility for overtime work. The employee with the least overtime worked would be the first employee named on the list. The employees practice was to mark "yes" if they accepted the overtime and "TD" if they turndown such offer. On Friday, 22 February, Stoops learned that no employees had signed up to work the overtime. Stoops then went to the Employer's industrial relations manager, Edward W. Gold, and told him that he was having a problem covering the required overtime for Saturday. That morning, Friday, 22 February, Stoops and Gold met with Respondent Union President William Panuska and Shop Steward Lewis Wiedenhoeft to dis- cuss an unrelated matter. At this meeting, Gold men- tioned to Panuska and Wiedenhoeft that the Employer was having some problems in the backroom, meaning the cylinder processing department. That same day Friday, 22 February, Stoops spoke to the plating department leadman, Elmer Nicks, General Foreman Steve Hinch, and Assistant General Foreman, First-Shift Leadman Lou Flaig and requested that they work the Saturday overtime. Stoops emphasized to them the critical need for the overtime help that weekend. He explained that if the work was not completed the presses would be down. Nicks, Hinch, and Flaig said they could not work over- time on 'Saturday. Hinch and Flaig suggested that Stoops would very likely find someone to work that needed overtime if it was rescheduled for Sunday. Hinch also suggested that Stoops come in on the third shift Friday night to ascertain whether or not the third-shift employ- ees understood that overtime was needed. Hinch, in compliance with prior practices and procedures, notified the first and second shift about the necessary weekend overtime. In efforts to obtain employees to work the weekend overtime, Stoops rescheduled the work for Sunday, 24 February, which is a higher premium rate day. Hinch, in accordance with practice, reported the overtime for a Sunday day-time shift. After the reposting Stoops again spoke to Nicks on Friday afternoon and received his as- surance that he would work overtime on Sunday. Stoops then required other employees to work overtime in the finishing and reetching department. In view of the diffi- culty in obtaining overtime employees, Stoops came in on a third-shift Friday night at around midnight and spoke to third-shift leadman, Maloney and stressed to Maloney the critical nature of the need for weekend overtime. On Saturday, 23 February, on arriving at work, Stoops found that no one had signed up for the Sunday overtime in the finishing or reetching depart- ments. Stoops called the industrial relations manager, Gold, and asked him to call the union president and stress the critical problem the Employer is having obtain- ing weekend overtime work. Gold did call President Panuska on Saturday, 23 February, and in three separate phone conversations with Panuska explained the emer- gency nature of the problem the Employer was having with the weekend overtime. Gold explained that the overtime work was necessary because a customer's rep- resentative of a valuable customer (Sears) was coming in that evening, Saturday, 23 February. He asked Panuska to use his efforts to get employees to work overtime and, if he was unable to do so, the Employer would be forced to request Stoops to perform the work. Gold told Pan- uska that he was not going to jeopardize a valuable ac- count, Sears, because employees would not cover the necessary weekend overtime. Panuska explained to Gold that he had been unable to get in touch with any em- ployee by phone and that Panuska was refusing permis- sion to Gold to have Stoops run the equipment. At approximately 6 p.m. on Saturday, 23 February, Stoops learned from Gold that the efforts to obtain over- time employees through Panuska had been unsuccessful. Stoops decided that it was necessary for him to do the work in order to get the work out. Stoops contacted Steve Heifler, assistant production control manager, and asked him to help Stoops move cylinders in the engrav- ing department. The representative of Sears arrived at the plant at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, 23 February, and worked with Stoops until approximately 10 p m. that evening. From approximately 11:30 p.m. Saturday until 6:30 a.m. Sunday, Stoops performed the engraving department overtime work that he had been unable to get bargaining unit employees to cover. Heifler assisted Stoops in moving cylinders. On 5 March Union Shop Steward Wiedenhoeft filed a grievance against the Employer concerning the fact that Stoops and Heifler had performed bargaining unit finish- ing and reetching work on 23 February. Stoops was the management representative to first consider such a griev- ance according to the grievance procedures. He denied the grievance on behalf of management. Two grievance meetings were held concerning this grievance. A meeting was held on 12 March between Wiedenhoeft, Gold, and Stoops. The grievance was not resolved at this meeting. Sometime after the first meet- ing, Stoops received a letter dated 11 March from Pan- uska. This letter requested Stoops' presence at a meeting GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 582 (ALCO GRAVURE) 507 of the Union's executive board on 26 March to consider the fact that Stoops had "worked on cylinders" on the weekend of 23 and 24 February. The second grievance meeting on the grievance of 5 March was held on 18 March between Panuska, Weiden- hoeft, Gold, and Plant Manager Murray Farkas. At this meeting Stoops told the Union that he had no intention of doing production work but if a situation such as oc- curred on 23 and 24 February occurred again he, Stoops, would do what was necessary to complete the work. Panuska stated the Union's position by reading article 16, section 4 from the collective-bargaining agreement. A management person, Farkas, and the union president ex- pressed their respective opinions as to the meaning and intent of the collective-bargaining agreement under which the parties were operating. Farkas then stated that it was obvious that the Employer and the Union had a philosophical difference of opinion as to the intent of the language used in the agreement. Farkas was of the posi- tion that if the necessary overtime was not worked by the employees, the Employer had the right to do what- ever it needed to get the work out. Panuska stated that, although overtime was to be worked, no provision was in the contract to force an employee or employees to do overtime work. Farkas stated that such differences of opinion between the parties were remedial under the col- lective-bargaining provisions to resolve any such dis- agreement by arbitration. After further discussion the Employer agreed to re- solve the grievance by scheduling two nonproduction overtime shifts of work on their future weekend. This proposal was made specifically without the admission of any prior wrongdoing. Farkas also emphasized that the Employer maintained its position that it had a right to man the department if the required people were unable to do the work and, if the situation repeated itself, the Company would again see that the work was performed. Panuska and Weidenhoeft agreed to settle the grievance according to the proposal of management. After settle- ment of the grievance, Panuska told Stoops that he still had to attend the Union's 26 March executive board meeting. Notwithstanding the settlement of the grievance be- tween the Union and the Company arising out of Stoops working on the weekend on 22 and 23 February, Stoops was requested to appear before the union executive board. Gold, the industrial relations officer of the Com- pany, and Wiedenhoeft, the union shop steward, were each present at this meeting. During the portion of the meeting allocated for the Stoops matter, Panuska read aloud to the board his 11 March letter to Stoops. Wie- denhoeft advised the executive board what had occurred during the weekend of 22 and 23 February. The union officers and executive board members then questioned Stoops about the incident. Stoops persisted in his position that he had made a supervisory decision and was not going to jeopardize a valuable customer by refusing to meet a deadline. Stoops stated that if he was faced with a similar situation in the future, he would respond to the situation in a like manner . Stoops also stated that he did not feel that the contract prohibited him from doing the work under the circumstances that existed the weekend of 22 and 23 February. Gold and Stoops then left the ex- ecutive board meeting and the board reached its decision regarding the charges that had been brought against Stoops. Wiedenhoeft and Panuska testified at the meet- ing. Panuska repeatedly stated that the issue was whether an employer had the right to have a superintendent do bargaining unit work when the collective-bargaining agreement stated that they could not. The union executive board found that Stoops did bar- gaining unit work on the weekend of 22 and 23 February and, therefore, sent a letter to Stoops which, in part, read as follows: In light of you being a new superintendent in the Baltimore plant, the executive board feels that a fine of $500 be imposed, but that the payment of this fine be held in abeyance until the next time you per- form bargaining unit work in violation of the con- tract. If this occurs in the future the fine will auto- matically be imposed and payment required immedi- ately. The executive board also instructed Panuska to with- draw his union card if the fine was not paid or if he felt that the next violation of such a nature would require an additional penalty. An unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case about 11 April charging that the Union had attempted to compromise Stoop supervisory capacity by imposing a fine on Stoops. Stoops did not personally institute this charge and did not learn about it until 15 April, some 5 days after its filing. Panuska, the union president, re- ceived a copy of the charge about 15 April. He contact- ed Shop Steward Wiedenhoeft and told him to speak to Stoops and tell him that the charge had been filed and that it could result in a very serious action being taken by the Union against Stoops even including the loss of Stoops union card. In accordance with Panuska's tele- phone call, Wiedenhoeft spoke to Stoops and conveyed to him what Panuska had discussed over the phone. Wie- denhoeft told Stoops that Panuska had said that Stoops ought to get the Company to drop the charge because it might result in the loss of Stoops' union card. He also told Stoops, through Wiedenhoeft, that if he felt he had been wronged, he should follow the union internal pro- cedures. II. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The Respondent is charged with a violation of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, Section 8(b)(1)(B), which provides: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor orga- nization or its agents to restrain or coerce an em- ployer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. The "restraint or coercion" alleged by the General Counsel comprises the act of the calling of Stoops before the union executive board to give an account of his con- duct on the weekend of 22 and 23 February; the union 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fine assessed against Stoops for the performance of bar- gaining unit work on the subject weekend; the union threat to terminate Stoops' union membership in the event of a repetition of the events of 22 and 23 February; in the threat of disciplinary action against Stoops if he did not withdraw the charge which gave rise to this complaint. The Respondent has stipulated that Stoops was a su- pervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and Stoops was the Company's negotiator of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between the Company and the Union in regard to the engraving department employees. Stoops was also the Employer's representative in matters arising as grievances between the employees and the em- ployer. I find, therefore, that Stoops was the employer representative for the purposes of "collective bargaining" and the employer representative for the "adjustment of grievances." This is the employee expressly identified in Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The selection of such an employee by the employer cannot be comprised and any attempt to restrain or coerce either directly or indirectly such an employer's selection is a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The incident which arose on the weekend of 22 and 23 February put into focus the dilemma faced by Stoops which arose as a result of the expressed language of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union. The Company was in need of overtime work in the engraving department in order to meet a schedule required by a customer of Alco. i When it became apparent to the Company that it was going to require overtime work on the subject weekend, adequate notice in form and procedure dictated by precedent was provided to the employees in the bargain- ing unit. Efforts were instituted by Stoops and Gold, the industrial relations officer of the Company, to involve the union president, Panuska, in assisting the Company to meet this need. These efforts were unavailing and no bargaining unit employee consented to work the over- time needed on the subject weekend. As a result, Stoops and the Company were faced with a dilemma of having supervisory personnel perform the work or defaulting in its obligation to its customer. The collective-bargaining agreement provided that al- though overtime should be worked when necessary the refusal of an employee to work overtime shall not be deemed a breach of the contract nor the subject of any discipline or discrimination against the employee for such refusal to work. That agreement also provided that no superintendent shall perform any production work cov- ered by the terms of the contract. No resolution of the attached contradictory provisions was provided for in the agreement itself. However, such agreement did pro- vide for arbitration of any dispute between the parties arising out of or relating to the interpretation or applica- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement. i There is the allegation that this requirement of the Company for overtime work was contrived There is no evidence to indicated that the Company's overtime requirement on the subject weekend was not a le- gitimate need undertaken to provide satisfactory results to a favored cus- tomer (Sears) and to meet a predetermined press time. The resolution of Stoops' dilemma was accomplished by Stoops himself performing work over that subject weekend. The Union filed a grievance against the Com- pany based on Stoops performance of bargaining unit work over the weekend of 22 and 23 February. This grievance was, according to procedure, directed to the company representative who was, incidentally, also Stoops. Stoops denied the grievance at the first level and subsequently it was resolved at a higher level by compa- ny personnel. During the pendancy of the grievance on the subject matter, Stoops was summoned to appear before the Union's executive counsel in order to explain why he had performed bargaining unit work in violation of the expressed terms of the bargaining agreement. Even though the grievance was disposed by a settle- ment, the Union was persistent in its requirement that Stoops appear before the executive committee. Upon his appearance before the union executive committee, Stoops explained his dilemma and took the position that the terms of the contract provided for the resolution of such dilemma in the manner in which he resolved it and that if faced with a similar set of circumstances he would give preference to the Company's prerogative and get the work done. Subsequently, the Union assessed a fine against Stoops (payment was suspended) and subjected Stoops to discipline for his engagement in work of the bargaining unit on the subject weekend. As a result of this disciplinary action on the part of the Union, the Company filed the instant charge in the name of Stoops. The issues in this case have been resolved in the case of Teamsters Local 524 (Yakima Beverage), 212 NLRB 908 909 (1974). There, the Board, in treating these issues said as follows: We have previously addressed ourselves to union attempts to discipline supervisor/members for the manner in which a collective-bargaining agree- ment's provisions are interpreted and applied. In San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, Inter- national Typographical Union (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172 NLRB 2173 (1968), we held that a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by imposing fines and other discipline upon foremen/members for alleged- ly violating the contract between their employer and the union with respect to work assignments. In finding the union's disciplinary action violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) we observed: [T]he relationship primarily affected is the one between the Union and the Employer, since the underlying question was the interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement between the par- ties. The relationship between the Union and its members appears to have been of only secondary importance, used as a convenient and, it would seem, powerful tool to affect the employer-union relationship; i.e., to compel the Employer's fore- men to take prounion positions in interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement. The purpose and effect of Respondent's conduct literally and directly contravened the statutory policy of al- lowing the Employer an unimpeded choice of GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 582 (ALCO GRAVURE) representative for collective bargaining and set- tlement of grievances. In our view it fell outside the legitimate internal interests of the Union. .. . [172 NLRB at 2174.] We have consistently applied these principles in finding union disciplinary actions against supervi- sors unlawful where they were rooted in disputes between employers and unions over the interpreta- tion of their collective-bargaining agreement. Our concern in each of these cases rested upon the union's use of unlawful means to impose its inter- pretations directly or indirectly upon an employer's representative which, in turn, infringed upon the employer's right to unencumbered control of that representative. Here, it is quite clear that the union president was pri- marily concerned about the prohibition in the contract against supervisors performing bargaining unit work. He apparently deemed Stoops' efforts to acquire overtime work from the employees to be of secondary importance. I can draw no other conclusion than that the basic bottom-line issue was an interpretation of the collective- bargaining agreement between the Union and the Em- ployer and it is clear that the Union's efforts to discipline Stoops, especially that part of the provision which pro- vided for a subsequent punishment in the event of a repe- tition by Stoops, was an attempt to coerce Stoops to re- solve issues the Company may have with the Union in the Union's fashion or at least to bend in that direction. See also Teamsters Local 296 (Northwest Publications), 263 NLRB 778 (1982). An additional violation of the Act allegedly arose when the union shop steward, Wiedenhoeft, spoke to Stoops in regard to Stoops filing a charge alleging unfair labor practices by the Union. Wiedenhoeft denied that he spoke to Stoops in this regard. Stoops contends that Wie- denhoeft told him that Penuska had threatened him, that "Stoops would be the only loser if the Company did not drop the case," and "if the Company won the case he would have no control over [Stoops]." He also threat- ened Stoops with the loss of his union card because of his filing of the charge. The credibility as to whether Wiedenhoeft told Stoops this is resolved by the consider- ation of a notation made by Stoops shortly after Wieden- hoeft's conversation with Stoops and the fact that Pan- uska clearly testified that he instructed Wiedenhoeft to tell Stoops what Stoops claims he was told by Wieden- hoeft. These factors strongly mitigate against the credi- bility in this regard of Wiedenhoeft, and I therefore credit the testimony of Stoops. Such threats as to the result of finding an unfair labor practice charge and the threat conveyed by Penuska to Wiedenhoeft to Stoops that it may involve the loss of his union card is coercion exercised against the employee designated by the Em- ployer for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. For the reasons set forth above, I find that the Re- spondent's action violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 509 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Alco Gravure, Inc. is, and at all times material has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and Section (8)(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 2. Alco Gravure, Inc. is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent Local 582, Graphics Communications International Union (GCIU) is, and at all times material has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 4. Leonard Lewis Stoops is, and at all times material has been, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and a representative of Alco Gravure, Inc., within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 5. By (1) requesting Leonard Lewis Stoops to appear before the union executive committee in order to explain his prior conduct, (2) by imposing a fine against Leonard Lewis Stoops for his actions deemed a violation of union rules and contract provisions, and (3) by threatening Leonard Lewis Stoops with loss of his union card or other disciplinary action, Respondent has restrained and coerced Alco Gravure, Inc., in the selection and reten- tion of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances , and has en- gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions to effec- tuate the policies of the Act and that Respondent shall rescind any fine against Leonard Lewis Stoops. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed2 ORDER The Respondent, Local 582, Graphic Communication International Union, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Restraining and coercing the Company in the selec- tion and retention of its representatives for collective bargaining and the adjustments of grievances by fining or otherwise disciplining supervisors of Alco Gravure, Inc. for performing supervisory duties. (b) Restraining and coercing the Company in the se- lection and retention of its representatives for collective bargaining in the adjustment of grievances by threatening reprisal and retaliation including possible loss of union 2 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 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership against supervisors of Alco Gravure, Inc., for filing, causing to be filed, or agreeing in the filing of an unfair labor practice charge against the Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Rescind all fines or other disciplinary action taken against Leonard Lewis Stoops. (b) Remove all records of internal union charges brought against Leonard Lewis Stoops pertaining to this charge. (c) Advise Leonard Lewis Stoops, in writing, that all fines and other disciplinary action have been rescinded and that all records of internal union charges have been removed. (d) Post at its offices and meeting halls and other places where notices to its members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."s Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (e) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 5 with signed copies of such notice for posting by Alco Gra- vure, Inc., in places where notices to members are cus- tomarily 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. a] Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of 0 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- Labor Relations Board "