Teamsters Local Union No. 579

548 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters Local Union No. 579, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and -Helpers of America (LC.L. Transit Company) and Robert B. Fisch- bach. Case 30-CB-2403 31 March 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND CRACRAFT On 10 December 1986 Administrative Law Judge Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached de- cision. The-General Counsel. filed exceptions- and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-ex- ceptions and a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. 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 fight of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions as modified2 and to adopt the recom- mended Order. 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. 2 In concluding that the complaint should be dismissed , we rely solely on the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's refusal to issue Fischbach a withdrawal card did not violate Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and find it unnecessary to decide whether the complaint is time-barred by Sec. 10(b). We agree with the judge that Teamsters Local 579 (Northern con- veyor), 274 NLRB 100 (1985), is distinguishable from the instant situation. In that case, the Board found that the Respondent's discipline of an indi- vidual, who had obtained a withdrawal card , for crossing a picket line violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A). In so finding, the Board noted, inter alia, that the language of the Respondent's withdrawal card and its bylaws on its face equated withdrawal status with resignation , that nothing in the bylaws or card informed an employee on withdrawal status of possible discipline for crossing a picket line, and that any ambiguity created in this situation was construed against the Union. Northern Conveyor did not find, however, that an employee on withdrawal status was, in fact, in all situations to be considered a resigned employee. It found, rather, that when certain union documents appeared to equate withdrawal with resig- nation and could reasonably lead an employee on withdrawal status to believe that he could cross a picket line free from union discipline, then any ambiguity whether the union might lawfully discipline the employee for engaging in such conduct subsequent to withdrawal would be re- solved against the union, the author of the documents. But here there is no ambiguity and Fischbach did not rely on the language in the docu- ments to his detriment . He was simply denied a withdrawal card; he was not denied the opportunity to resign . Indeed, in seeking the withdrawal card he had no intention of resigning. He wanted the card so that he could work in another locality and join another local of the International without paying a new initiation fee. We find no Sec. 7 rights were re- strained by the Respondent's refusal to give him such a card . In sum, we find the Respondent's actions did not violate Sec. 8(b)(1)(A). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended order of the administrative law judge and the complaint is dismissed. Paul Bosanao Esq., for the General Counsel. Frederick Perillo, Esq. (Goldberg, Previan4 Uelmen, Gratz Miller & Brueggeman, S.C.), of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for Respondent. Robert B. Fischbach, of Gages Lake, Illinois, Charging Party, pro se. DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAw BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER, Administrative Law Judge. Charging Party Robert B. Fischbach attempted to obtain a withdrawal card from his union, Respondent Teamsters Local Union No. 579, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America . t Respondent's refusal to give him one prompted the issuance of a complaint alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.2 Jurisdiction is conceded. Fischbach was employed by L.C.L. Transit Company (Employer), which is an inter- state freight carrier in Elkhorn, Wisconsin. During the year preceding 20 February 1986 , the Employer derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from the transporta- tion of freight and commodities from Wisconsin to points located outside Wisconsin. I conclude, as Respondent admits, that the Employer is an employer engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also conclude, as Respondent admits, that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Essence of the Dispute Fischbach had been a member of Respondent from 6 February 1973 and had served as a steward from 1979- 1984. On 1 August 1984 he engaged in an argument with Brendan Kaiser, Respondent's secretary-treasurer and business agent, about the transfer of coverage of medical benefits to a different insurance carrier, causing Fisch- bach to pay more for dental care for his daughter. Fisch- bach also complained that the officers of another local of the International had "robbed" him of 3 years of pension credit with one of his former employers. The argument became heated; Fischbach lost his temper and, among other things, he charged that "all Teamsters are crooked bastards," and he told Kaiser in vile terms where he could put his "fucking insurance." Just as Fischbach lost his temper, so did Kaiser, who sent a letter to all the Employer's employees about 2 August 1984, complaining of Fischbach's defamatory statements; advising the employees to quit their jobs and i The caption of this proceeding was amended at the hearing. 2 The relevant docket entries are as follows. The unfair labor practice charge was filed 26 September 1985, the complaint issued 20 February 1986; and the hearing was held in Janesville, Wisconsin, 11 June 1986. 283 NLRB No. 80 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (L.C.L. TRANSIT) find out what it was like to work in a nonwork shop ("The bitchers won't have a complaint about health in- surance, the-changing of health insurance, pension plans, etc., because -there won't be any, and if there is any, it will be solely at the discretion of the Employer"); and accusing Fischbach of making "derogatory, disrespectful remarks about me, my predecessors and other Local Union officials where he had been a Teamster member," of being insubordinate, and of, failing to "render full alle- giance," in violation of Respondent's bylaws. Kaiser asked the employees to choose - between Re- spondent and Fischbach. If ,the majority of employees was dissatisfied with Respondent, it would file a dis- claimer of representation with the Board. ("This will remove the Union from the obligation to represent you. Yes, you will be without a union, a contract, a health in- surance plan that you now are in (paid for by the Com- pany), and a pension plan.") "After that you are on your own,"' he wrote, or the employees could "[f]ile charges against the dissident members for violation,of the Team- sters Local Union No. 579 By-Laws and the Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters Constitution, Article 19." If they 'are found quilty, they can be "reprimanded, fined, suspended for a period of time or expulsion"'; and "[w]ithout membership either through suspension or ex- pulsion the member is unable to work ... on this job because" the Employer could employ only Respondent's members. So the choice, Kaiser wrote, was up to the employees: If the majority are pleased with the way your Local Union has represented you, then I suggest that you reply as previously requested. Further, that if the majority is ' satisfied then I suggest that you talk to the dissidents 'and urge them to make written retraction and apologize to the Secretary-Treasurer of this Local Union. If the dissidents fail to take this opportunity; there will be charges filed against the problem members. On receipt of this letter, Fischbach called Kaiser twice, but Kaiser failed 'to answer his calls. Fischbach then retained an attorney, William A. Pangman, who, on 8 October 1984, with Fischbach, filed internal union charges against Kaiser for his alleged interference with Fischbach's right to "express any views, arguments, or opinions," as guaranteed by Respondent's bylaws and the Landrum-Griffm Act. Kaiser `countered with his own in- ternal union charges against Fischbach, dated 10 October 1984, alleging that he was "disrespectful in words and actions" to Kaiser and made "defamatory statements." A number of the Employer's employees grew, weary of this dispute and requested Kaiser to come to the Em- ployer's premises and resolve his differences with Fisch- bach. Kaiser came about 12 November and met with Fischbach, who said that; he was contemplating another job in Illinois, that he "would get out of [Kaiser's] hair [and] settle our differences so [Fischbach] could, have [his] 'withdrawal ;card." Kaiser said that Fischbach did not have to leave and that the dispute could be resolved 549 if he would write an apology, As a result, Fischbach sent the following letter to Kaiser that evening: This is a letter of apology to Brendan F. Kaiser and Teamsters Local Union No. 579, the board of direc- tors and other brothers members of the Union, Local Number 200, Southeast area pension, fund for any disrespectful words and action that l[ had said. There will be no more in the future. That apology, handwritten by Fischbach' s daughter, but signed by Fischbach, did not satisfy Kaiser, who wrote Fischbach on 18 December 1984, as follows: I am writing you in response to the Executive Baord of Teamsters Local Union No. 579 position on December 15, 1984. The Executive Board agreed with my request to re- scind and expunge the pending charges if the fol- lowing steps are followed without exception: 1. That a typed, letter, which is notarized, from you to Teamsters Local Union No. 579 making the same apology as you did in the handwritten one. (Copy enclosed. 2. That a letter of retraction and apology is sent to Teamsters "General" Local No. 200's Secretary- Treasurer, Raymond "Red" Fularczyk, typed and notarized by you. 3. That a letter of retraction and apology of any misstatements (because of lack of facts) by you about the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund be sent to the Fund, typed and notarized by you. 4.1 That your attorney, Pangman, send a letter of re- traction on the charges against Secretary-Treasur- er Brendan F. Kaiser to Secretary-Treasurer Bren- dan F. Kaiser and to Joint Council No. 39 Secre- tary-Treasurer Raymond "Red" Fularczyk, and that the case is settled. 5. A ,carbon copy of all correspondence sent to all of the above-mentioned parties also to be' sent to Teamsters -Local Union No. 579 Secretary-Treas- urer Brendan F. Kaiser. 6. Upon receipt of all requested, correspondence Sec- retary-Treasurer Brendan F. Kaiser will rescind and expunge all charges against Brother Robert Fischbach. We all must work together with due,respect for each other, in order for our organization to survive the elements of today. On receipt, Fischbach telephoned Kaiser and com- plained that his letter did not reflect what Kaiser had previously asked Fischbach to write. Fischbach said that he'had carried out his part of the agreement and Kaiser had reneged. Fischbach further stated that he had al- ready obtained his job in Illinois, that he was leaving, and that he refused to engage in any more writing or ar- guing. In the first week of January 1985; he gave notice 3 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1985, unless otherwise stated. 550 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the Employer that his last day of employment would be 15 February. On 28 January, Fischbach went to the credit union, withdrew his money, and closed his ac- count; and then went next door to the Respondent's office and asked for the forms necessary to obtain a withdrawal card. After he filled them out, Kaiser walked by. Fischbach told him that he was leaving and had just completed the application for a withdrawal card. Kaiser said that the card was not going to be given to him be- cause "you didn't do what I said," and because Fisch- bach was still employed and was not eligible for with- drawal until he left his employment. On 16 February, Fischbach mailed the following letter to Respondent: This is a formal request for my withdrawal card from Local 579. It was denied by you and I was also told by my steward, Bob Achilli, that you would not, give it to me. My request was filled out in January, 1985, in writing and my dues are paid to date in full. He received no reply; indeed, Kaiser denied that he ever received it. Fischbach then retained Pangman to obtain the withdrawal card. Pangman called Kaiser on 4 June and told him that Fischbach was no longer working for the Employer, that he had received notices, about arrear- ages of dues,4 and that he was entitled to receive his withdrawal card. Kaiser replied that Fischbach knew what he had to do, that it was all set forth in his letter of 18 December. Pangman said that he had understood that Fischbach had already apologized and had delivered his request for a withdrawal card. Kaiser said that he would forward to Pangman the 18 December 1984 letter. Kaiser did so on 10 June, stating in an accompanying letter that Fischbach had filled out a withdrawal card application while employed by the Employer and that., "He was in- formed that he could not get a withdrawal card while being employed and would not be given a withdrawal card until he complied with the 12-18-84 disposition on his membership with the pending charges." Kaiser reaf- firmed that he had not received any timely withdrawal request and further stated; "When Mr. Fischbach com- plies as requested and pays his dues up through the month in which he complies with clearing his member- ship status, and makes proper application for a withdraw- al card, at that time he will be issued a withdrawal card from" Respondent.5 An Explanation of Certain Credibility Findings When Fischbach applied for a withdrawal card on 28 January, his application was premature under the Inter- national's constitution, which mandated that the card could be granted only to a memeber who was no longer employed. Fischbach testified that on 28 January Kaiser 4 Under date of 22 May, the Union sent a form letter to Fischbach confirming that he had paid dues through March; stating that he was in arrears for April and May, and that, if he had terminated his employ- ment, he should request a withdrawal card ; and notifying hun that "Dues must be paid through the month that you request a withdrawal card in." b There is no question that Fischbach's dues were paid only through March. told him only that the card was being denied because he did not apologize as he requested in the 18 December 1984 letter. In my findings above, I have discredited Fischbach's testimony, finding that Fischbach, although truthful and credible, recalled many incidents in general- ities, whereas Kaiser had a thorough and believable recall of the details of his confrontations with Fischbach. Furthermore, I find that Fischbach sent the February letter to Respondent formally requesting a withdrawal card only as a result of Kaiser's advice on 28 January that Fischbach could obtain a withdrawal card only when he ceased his employment, and that Fischbach was advised further that he had to pay his dues to the date of that application (as required by Respondent's bylaws and the International's constitution). Otherwise, there , appears to be no reason that would have prompted Fischbach to send the letter in February, after he had quit his employ- ment, and to specifically mention in the letter that his dues had been fully paid. It also appears that Respondent was put on notice that Fischbach planned to quit, his employment on 15 Febru- ary; and the question is whether Respondent should have delayed the granting of his application until 16 February, 'without any further written notice by Fischbach. Indeed, Respondent could have, checked with the Employer to ensure that Fischbach' had in fact left the Employer's employ, as, he said he was going to, and, on validating Fischbach's claim, issued the desired card. If there had been no further communications in this proceeding, and if the unfair labor practice charge herein had been timely filed, there might be justification to hold that Fischbach's application of 28 January sufficed and put the Union on notice that he was quitting on 15 February and that the withdrawal card was to be issued when he quit. In any event, I am persuaded that Fischbach sent a followup letter on 16 February renewing his request of 28 January. I reject Kaiser's testimony that Respondent did not receive that ' letter. I find that Kaiser's personal animosity to Fischbach affected his truthfulness. Con- trary to his statements and letters, Kaiser testified that Fischbach would not have had to apologize to obtain his card, to wit: "I couldn't have withheld a withdrawal card from him if he had come [sic] in and followed the procedures. We wanted this [apology] in our files be- cause he promised us he would do that" and "We wanted that but we couldn't have held him to that." I find this belated explanation false. Kaiser was irrationally impelled to deny Fischbach his rights and was willing to do anything in order to- avoid giving out a; withdrawal card to one who, he believed, had impugned his integrity and the integrity of his organization. I, therefore, find that he tailored his testimony to deny receipt of Fischbach's February, letter. I reject Respond- ent's claim that Fischbach did not prepare the letter and did not send it. As stated above, I found Fischbach sin- cere, candid, and believable. The,letter is consistent with Kaiser's earlier advice to Fischbach that the 28 January application was untimely and that the application had to be made only after Fischbach. had left his employment. In light of his numerous other requests to obtain the withdrawal card, there is no cogent reason Fischbach TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (L.C.L. TRANSIT) 551 should have attempted to prepare the February letter as a ruse to prove that he did apply for a withdrawal card. The lack of Respondent's address on the letter is of no consequence. Clearly, Fischbach knew the address, as shown on all the other' correspondence introduced in this proceeding. Indeed,' Fischbach visited Respondent's office on 28 January, as Kaiser conceded. Surely, Fisch- bach knew Respondent's address, and I credit his testi- mony that he addressed the envelope containing the Feb- ruary letter and sent it to Respondent. Discussion of the Applicable Law The -General Counsel's argument in favor of finding a violation relies on a prior Board decision involving Re- spondent and is succinct: The proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act states that a labor organization shall have the right .. to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership...' . " Not- withstanding the 8(b)(1)(A) proviso, the Supreme Court in Patternmakers League v. NLRB, 119 LRRM 2928 (1985), held that a labor organization could not fine individuals, who tendered their resig- nations during a strike and returned to work, pursu- ant- to a rule restricting the right to resign from membership. In Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984), the Board held that any -restrictions placed by a union on its members' right to resign are unlawful. [T]he Board has held that Respondent's by-laws and its International's constitution contain provi- sions which render a withdrawal tantamount to a resignation. Teamsters Local No. 579 (Northern Con- veyor Manufacturing Corporation), 274 NLRB 100 (1985), fn. 1.... Accordingly, since - it has been found that, as written, Respondent's by-laws and the International's constitution equate withdrawal status with resignation, any restrictions Respondent placed on a member's right to withdraw must be considered in light of the rules governing a mem- ber's right to 'resign. In his letter to 'Pangman, dated- June 10, 1985, Kaiser states Fischbach was told he would not obtain a withdrawal card until he complied with'the demands of the December 18, 1984 letter, at which time the pending ' charges would be dropped. In Sheet Metal Workers Local 73 (Safe Air, Inc.), 274 NLRB 374 (1985), the Board held that the mere maintenance of a constitutional provision that, inter alia, prohibited resignation during the pendency of internal charges was unlawful. Therefore, Respond- ent's reasons for refusing- Fischbach's request for a withdrawal card, i.e., the pendency of internal 'union charges, and failure to comply with the De- cember 18, 1984 letter, are unlawful. Additionally, Kaiser's insistence that Fischbach pay his dues through the month in which he requested a with- drawal card would also run afoul of the Board's ruling that Respondent can' place no restrictions on .the right to resign. Machinists Local Lodge 1414, supra. Thus, Respondent cannot insist on any dues payment as a condition to obtaining a withdrawal card. In Teamsters Local .579 (Northern Conveyor), 274 NLRB 100 (1985), Respondent fined a member who had previously withdrawn from Respondent for crossing Re- spondent's picket line. The member claimed that he should not have been subject to discipline because he was not a "card-carrying member" and did not feel that he "belonged to the union, because [he] was on a with- drawal status." The Board agreed, stating in footnote 1: In agreeing with the judge that the Union unlaw- fully disciplined Vierck, we rely solely on the lan- guage on the withdrawal card and the Union's bylaws which on its face equated withdrawal status with resignation. The withdrawal card obtained by Vierck stated that the holder "has withdrawn in good standing from membership" and refers to an individual on withdrawal status as an "ex-member." Similarly, the union bylaws state that a member who obtains a withdrawal card "shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the Local Union." ` Nothing in either the bylaws or on the card in- formed an employee on withdrawal status of possi- ble discipline for crossing a picket line and, in fact, the language in the bylaws and card could reason- ably lead Vierck to believe that he could cross the picket line without being disciplined by the Union. Any ambiguity created in this situation is construed against the Union. Accordingly, we find that by dis- ciplining Vierck, the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, -for the purposes of determining the right of a withdrawn member to cross a-picket line, the Board held that a member had such a right and could not be fined or threatened with a -fine, especially, because "the language of the withdrawal card and the Union"s bylaws ... equated withdrawal status with resignation" and the member was "reasonably [led] to believe that he could cross the picket line without being disciplined by .. . the Union." But the instant proceeding, is neither a union discipline case nor a proceeding involving a constitution- al clause limiting the right of a union member to resign nor a proceeding involving a member's resignation from a union. It is a case involving Fischbach's request for a withdrawal card, not for the purpose of -crossing a picket line, but to transfer at some future time to another affili- ate of the International. It should be clear, by now how the Board regards a union member's right to resign. Section 7 of the Act grants an employee the right to refrain,from union activi ty. Anything that interferes with or restricts that right is illegal, except for a lawful union-security provision. 'Thus, the cases cited by the General Counsel demon- strate that a labor organization may not discipline a re- signed member- or otherwise restrict the right to resign from membership in any way by limiting that right to certain periods of time, such as "if offered in anticipation of charges being preferred against ' [the nnember], during 552 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the pendency of any such charges or during a strike or lockout." Sheet Metal Workers Local 73 (Safe Air), 274 NLRB 374 (1985). There is, however, no statutory provision which re- quires a labor organization to grant to a member the privilege of obtaining a withdrawal card. There is no statutory provision which requires a labor organization to charge no initiation fees to a former member who re- signed from the union. The granting of a withdrawal card by Respondent permits a member to sever his or her relationship with the Respondent-to pay no dues and receive no benefits or rights as a fully paid member-and to rejoin as a full member without paying the $100 initiation fee required of other employees, but previously paid by the "withdrawn" member. The' Board held in Northern Conveyor only that the withdrawal card and Respondent's bylaws "equated withdrawal status with resignation." It did not hold that an application for a withdrawal card was the same as a resignation. Furthermore, the Board found a violation in Northern Conveyor only,because the member was reason- ably` led to believe that his crossing of a picket line would not lead to discipline.6 But Fischbach was sub- jected to no misunderstanding. He did not intend to resign. Cf. Machinists Local 758 `(Menasco, Inc.), 275 NLRB 755 fn. 15 (1985), and accompanying text. He de- sired to obtain a withdrawal card so that he could work in Illinois and join another local, of the International without paying a new initiation fee. Nominally, of course, by obtaining a withdrawal card, Fischbach would lose essentially all of his rights as a member of Respondent, but he would maintain the right of not being required to pay an initiation fee a second time. In granting him that right, Respondent may, pursuant to the proviso in Section 8(b)(1XA), enact rules with regard to the retention of membership under a with- drawn status. Respondent contends that it is reasonable to enact a rule not to grant a withdrawal card to one who is still working. I agree. The fundamental basis for withdrawing from a local labor organization is that the employee is no longer working within the local' s juris- diction. Otherwise, the employee can continue to work while-' being listed as a withdrawn member and not being liable to pay dues to the union. There may be some justi- fication for Respondent not to permit a member to take advantage of its benevolent practice of granting with- drawal cards when the member is subject to internal union discipline. But, whether reasonable or not is not for the Board to judge. Under the Act, Congress has left to Respondent the right to adopt rules regarding the re- tention, of membership; and as long as there has been no contention by the General Counsel, no less showing, that 6 No fording was made by the Board that any provision of the Union's bylaws or International's constitution was unlawful on its face. In Safe Air, decided by the Board '11 days after it decided Northern Conveyor, the Board ordered expunged constitutional provisions which restricted the right to resign The Board did not do so in Northern -Conveyor and the complaint herein does not allege that any provision of Respondent's bylaws or the International's constitution is unlawful on its face. Section 7 rights were restrained or coerced, that should end this matter.7 There is, however, one other point that ought to be considered, that is, Respondent's contention that the in- stant proceeding is barred by Section 10(b) of 'the Act. I have found above that Fischbach was denied a with- drawal card on 28 January. Further, his renewal of the application for the card on 16 February was not respond- ed to, which may be understood as, yet another denial. Both those dates were more than 6 months prior to the date, 26 September, when the unfair labor practice was filed. The General Counsel argues that the denial was a continuing violation and the denial was renewed by Pangman on 4 June and reaffirmed by Kaiser on 10 June. I have reviewed all the authorities cited by the parties and find indistinguishable Roofers Local 106 (Midwest Roofing), 202 NLRB 851 (1973), in which a union member was expelled from the union prior to the appli- cable 10(b) period, but applied for membership within the statutory period, and the application was - denied based on the earlier and allegedly unlawful expulsion. The Board reversed the administrative law judge's find- ing that the charge was timely: We do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion with respect to Respondent's refusal to readmit [the employee] to union membership. How- ever illegal Respondent's initial expulsion of [the employee] from membership may have been, that occurred ... far beyond the 10(b) period. No timely charge was filed with respect thereto. The Charging Party may not nullify the effects of the 10(b) bar by thereafter reapplying for membership, and then filing a charge based on Respondent's more recent action, since this action was in essence merely a reaffirmation of Respondent's earlier, time- barred conduct. We therefore ford no violation in Respondent's refusal to, admit [the employee] to membership. Fischbach has done almost the very same thing. Denied a withdrawal card in January and February, he should have filed a charge in July, or possibly August, because his dues were paid up in February. He -did not and instead contacted Pangman who asked Kaiser in June why he had refused to grant Fischbach his with- drawal card in January and February. Kaiser, answered with the same reasons he had previously given. Pang- man's June request was merely a renewal, of Fischbach's requests made - earlier in the year. To paraphrase the Board's language quoted above, Kaiser merely reaf- firmed Respondent's earlier, time-barred conduct, and Fischbach may not nullify the effects of the 10(b) bar by reapplying for the withdrawal card and questioning the earlier, time-barred refusals. Accordingly, even if I had found that the Union violated the Act by its conduct in January and February, Section 10(b) bars the, finding of ' Of course, although it may be argued that Kaiser's actions were rep- rehensible, the Board is not the adjudicator of Fischbach's rights under Respondent's bylaws or under the free speech provisions of the Lan- drum-Griffin Act. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 579 (L.C.L. TRANSIT) 553 any violation. Teamsters Local 595 (Certified Grocers), 218 NLRB 1286 (1975). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- eds ORDER The complaint is dismissed. s If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the poses.