Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, Afl-Cio

632 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO and Edwin Rodriguez. Case 2-CB-11879 June 30, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On December 15, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Joel P . Biblowitz issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross- exceptions and a reply brief. 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 as modified and to adopt the recom- mended Order. In agreeing with the judge's finding that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(1XA) and (2) of the Act by failing to give Rodriquez proper and ade- quate notice of his dues delinquency and by caus- ing Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc. to discharge him, we rely on the judge's finding that the Respondent did not correctly notify Rodriquez of the amount of his dues arrearage . Thus, the Respondent's notice, which incorrectly stated the number of months for which Rodriquez owed back dues, did not meet the Respondent's "minimum obligation [of] giving . . . a statement of the precise amount and months for which dues were owed." Teamsters Local 122 (August A. Busch), 203 NLRB 1041, 1042 (1973). We also note that the Respondent's calculation of total dues owed is questionable even apart from the 1-month discrepancy . It appears that the Re- spondent operated under a presumption that Rodri- quez had authorized a dues checkoff as evidenced by the fact that the dues reports that the Respond- ent sent the Employer each month listing the em- ployees on whose behalf the Employer should submit dues included Rodriquez . Furthermore, the Employer's copies of these reports offered into evi- dence contained handwritten figures that Otto Hel- prin, assistant vice president for J. Clarence Davies Realty Co., Inc.,' testified represented the amount of the check submitted to the Respondent for dues. While no canceled checks were offered substantiat- ing the amount tendered by the Employer to the 1 J Clarence Davies Realty Co, Inc. was the managing agent for the building in which Rodriquez worked from mid- to late-1984 to about July 1, 1986 Respondent, the handwritten figures on the dues reports suggest that the amount tendered to the Respondent covered Rodriquez' dues. With regard to some months, this was further substantiated by Rodriquez' paystubs indicating that deductions for union dues (UN) had been made. Despite the Re- spondent's continuing submission of dues reports that included Rodriquez among those for whom two successive employers were responsible for for- warding dues, and despite the absence of any evi- dence that the Respondent ever accused the em- ployers of improperly withholding checked-off dues, the Respondent's accounting of the total dues owed by Rodriquez generally continued to increase each month.2 The timing of the Respondent's actions also indi- cate less than careful attention to its dues-collection processes. Rodriquez was notified by letter July 7, 1986, that he was delinquent in the payment of his dues for an 11-month period. This letter further stated that if Rodriquez did not reinstate himself in good standing with the Respondent within 15 days from the date of the letter, the Respondent would ask for his discharge from employment. But no fur- ther action was taken until 4 months later when the Respondent notified Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc., that it was requesting that Rodriquez be terminated for his lack of good standing as a result of his non- payment of dues and a reinstatement fee. More- over, although Rodriquez made a $115 payment to the Respondent in response to the Respondent's July 7, 1986 letter, the Respondent apparently never recalculated Rodriquez' dues delinquency in light of this payment and never notified Rodriquez in any fashion of the amount still owed. There is no evidence that Rodriquez was deliber- ately evading his union-security obligations or at- tempting to be a "free rider."3 We do not minimize the significance of dues delinquencies such as those with which Rodriquez was charged; and we recog- nize the right of unions to cause the discharge of employees who fail to comply with their obliga- tions under lawful union-security clauses. But caus- ing an employee to be fired is a serious act, and a union that seeks to do so should accept its responsi- bility for maintaining clear and accurate records of the employee's dues-payment status and giving clear notice of the precise amount owed. The evi- 2 We are aware of the judge's discrediting of Rodriquez' testimony that he had executed a checkoff authorization, and we do not disturb that credibility finding Our point concerns the conflicts in the Respondent's own records that, at the very least, suggest that the Respondent should have inquired of the employers why checks for dues payments did not cover Rodriquez, if in fact they did not s See Teamsters Local 630 (Ralph's Grocery), 209 NLRB 117 (1974) 289 NLRB No. 83 SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 32B-32J dence here shows that the Respondent fell short of that responsibility. Therefore, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by failing to give Rodri- quez proper and adequate notice of his dues delin- quency and by causing Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc., to discharge him. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Local 32B- 32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL- CIO, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. Gwynne A. Wilcox, Esq., for the General Counsel. Ira A. Sturm, Esq. (Manning, Raab, Dealey & Sturm), for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOEL P. BIBLOwrrz, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard by me on 26 October 1987' in New York, New York. The complaint and notice of hearing, which issued on 30 June and was based on an unfair labor practice charge and an amended charge filed on 3 March and 16 March by Edwin Rodriguez, alleges that Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by requesting and causing the discharge of Rodriguez, notwithstanding that its request of Rodriguez for the payment of back dues owed was flawed. On the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses and the briefs received , I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION There being no dispute, I find that Brown, Harris, Ste- vens, Inc., is engaged in the business of managing resi- dential apartment buildings and is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. FACTS AND ANALYSIS Rodriguez was employed at a condominium apartment building (the building) located at 55 East 86th Street in the City and State of New York for about 6 years until about 1 March. While there, he was employed as a porter, acting superintendent , and handyman. Respond- ent is the collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in these job classifications at the building, which is covered by a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement containing a union -security clause requiring ' Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to are for the year 1987 633 membership in Respondent after the 30th day of employ- ment as a condition of employment. The contract also states, inter alia: 5. Upon receipt by the Employer of a letter from the Union's Secretary-Treasurer requesting any em- ployee's discharge because he has not met the re- quirements of this Article, unless the Employer questions the propriety of so doing, he shall be dis- charged within fifteen (15) days of said notice if prior thereto he does not take proper steps to meet said requirements. When Rodriguez was first employed at the building, the managing agent (his employer) was Solomon Equi- ties, Inc. (Solomon); about mid- to late-1984 J. Clarence Davies Realty Co., Inc. (Davies), became the managing agent for the building. About 1 July 1986 Brown, Harris & Stevens, Inc. (Brown Harris), became the managing agent for the building and has been the managing agent at all times relevant here. Rodriguez testified that while he was employed by Solomon he had to go to Respond- ent's office to pay his dues; when Davies and Brown Harris were managing agents for the building he execut- ed dues checkoff authorizations and his dues were auto- matically deducted from his wages and sent to the Re- spondent.2 By letter dated 7 July 1986, Respondent wrote to Ro- driguez: Dear Sir: Our records show that you are delinquent in your dues for the period July 1985 thru June 1986. Please be advised that, in accordance with Local 32B-32J's Constitution and Bylaws, your monthly dues are one and one-half (1-1/2) times your regular hourly wage rate, PLUS THREE DOLLARS $3.00, WITH A MINIMUM OF $14.00 PER MONTH AND A MAXIMUM OF $19.74 per MONTH. Local 32B-32J's Constitution and Bylaws further provides: "Members who fall in arrears three months in dues or other financial obligations are automati- cally suspended as members of the Local." Therefore you are hereby advised that you have been suspended as a member of Local 32B-32J and that in the event of your failure to reinstate yourself in good standing in the Union within 15 days from the date of this letter, the Union will, in acorodance with the terms of the collective bargaining agree- ment with your employer, demand your discharge from your employment. Reinstatement requires the payment of a rein- statement fee of $34.48, which is the equivalent of two (2) times your regular monthly dues of $17.24 per month, as established by Local 32B-32J's Joint 8 Otto Helpnn, an assistant vice president for Davies, testified that Davies does check off dues and transmit the dues to Respondent He did not testify whether Rodriguez executed a dues-checkoff authorization 634 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Executive Board on July 31, 1980 pursuant to the provisions of Article XI, Section 4 of the Union's Constitution and Bylaws, plus all dues in arrears as described above and the current month's dues. In order to make payment , please appear at the Dues Department of Local 32B-32J, I East 35th Street, New York, N.Y. Rodriguez testified that he never received this letter through the mail; rather, while he was at work his dele- gate, John Donnelly, gave him a letter and told him that he owed dues to Respondent and he should straighten it out before he got into trouble. He could recollect noth- ing else about the letter Donnelly gave him other than the fact that it was dated July 1986. He then went to Re- spondent's office (where he had previously gone to pay his dues while employed by Solomon); he gave the clerk $115 in cash and was told that he still owed approxi- mately $185 for a fine: ". . . when you're late on the union dues, they give you a fine." There are some differ- ences in Rodriguez' testimony regarding what the clerk told him after he paid the $115. On direct examination he testified that she said: "She'll take care of those fines for me, and then I went back to work." On cross-examina- tion he testified that the clerk told him: "I'll see what I can do for you," and "she would take care of it." Rodri- guez gave two affidavits to the Board in this matter. The earlier one states: "The cashier told me that the union would try to work something to cancel the fine, which totalled the majority of the difference between the $300 and the $115." The second affidavit states that the cash- ier said that she would see what she could do about can- celing the fine. As to both, Rodriguez testified that what the cashier told him was "something like that." By letter dated 11 November 1986, Respondent wrote to Brown Harris regarding Rodriguez: Please be advised that the above mentioned em- ployee is no longer a member of Local 32B-32J in good standing due to the non-payment OF DUES AND REINSTATEMENT FEE. Therefore, in accordance with our agreement, we are requesting that he (she) be terminated immedi- ately and replaced by another person whose em- ployment will be in compliance with the agreement between the parties. Sometime in December 1986 a resident of the building told Rodriguez that she heard that he was having trouble with his dues and that he should take care of it. At that time he went to Respondent's office and spoke to Feli- ciano, a delegate, because Donnelly was not available. Feliciano told him that he owed $300 and Rodriguez said that was impossible. Feliciano then called Lars Johansen, Brown Harris' district manager, but was told that he was on vacation and would not be returning until mid-Janu- ary. Rodriguez asked if he could speak to someone higher at Respondent, and he spoke to Sampson, Re- spondent's district head in the area. Rodriguez told Sampson that there was a mistake-"I don't owe-that kind of money to the union. No way." Sampson said that, "you owe union dues," and that Brown Harris did not want him back at the building and so there was noth- ing he could do for him. Rodriguez then went to the Brown Harris office to attempt to straighten out the situ- ation (before Johansen returned) but he was told that Jo- hansen was the only person who could take care of the matter. On 20 January, Rodriguez went to Johansen's office, pursuant to his request. At that time, Johansen gave him the following letter, dated 20 January: Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Please be advised that we have been instructed by the Union, Local 32B/J, to terminate your em- ployment as Handyman, at 55 East 86th Street Con- dominum, for failure to pay your union dues. Furthermore, in evaluating your job performance and your mechanical skills and knowledge, we have found them to be far less than satisfactory. Finally, it has come to our attention, that on a couple of occasions, you have been seen leaving the building before the end of your shift. The termination will be effective March 1, 1987. Rodriguez told Johansen that he thought he had done a great job at the building; he had been acting superintend- ent, at one time, and once received a $300 Christmas bonus. Johansen told him that he is a nice guy, but is not a qualified handyman. Rodriguez asked him to use him as a doorman or a porter at the building. Johansen said that they had enough porters at the building and "I don't think I can have you in that building," but that he would attempt to get him a job at another building if he desired. Rodriguez said that he did not want to work at another building. Rodriguez' last day of employment at the build- ing was 1 March; on 28 April, at his request, Brown Harris gave him the following letter, signed by Johansen: To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Mr. Eddie Rodriguez, was employed as Handyman, at 55 East 86th Street, New York, for seven years. The reason for his departure was a personality conflict with another employee. His last day of work was March 1, 1987. Sometime after 1 March, Rodriguez went to Respond- ent's office and spoke to Sampson and told him that he wanted his job back. Sampson called Johansen and asked him to put Rodriguez back to work at the building. After his conversation with Johansen, Sampson told Ro- driguez that Johansen would not rehire him at the build- ing because he felt that he was not a good handyman, but that he was willing to give him a job at a different building. Rodriguez refused this offer. By letter dated 13 July, Respondent wrote to Johansen stating that it "has no objection to the employment of Edwin Rodriguez and requests that Rodriguez be reinstated ." By letter dated 15 July, Johansen wrote to Respondent that he is "pleased to hear" that the Respondent has withdrawn its complaint against Rodriguez and has no objection to his being employed again, but: "Presently we do not have any openings for Mr. Rodriguez, but will contact him the moment a suitable position becomes available." SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 32B-32J As regards the contents of the 20 January and 28 April letters, and Rodriguez' 20 January conversation with Jo- hansen, Rodriguez testified that he was never informed of any complaints aobut his work, nor did he ever re- ceive a warning or suspension while employed at the building. He does not recall the superintendent talking to him about not being on the job when he was supposed to be there-"I'm always on my job." He testified that he does not know of any situation when the superintendent was looking for him and could not find him, and that he had no problems with the superintendent or his fellow employees. There were occasions when the superintend- ent asked him to do something a second time because he was not satisfied with the way it was done initially. When Johansen gave him the 20 January letter, he never questioned Johansen about the letter's references to his less than satisfactory mechanical skills and his occasional absence from the building. Rodriguez testified that during the period of his em- ployment at the building while Davies and Brown Harris were managing agents his dues were deducted from his pay and transmitted to the Respondent; "it was Solomon that was the one that I might have goofed up a little bit." He testified that he could not recall for how long a period he was delinquent while employed by Solomon, but "it couldn't be over a year." Received into evidence were monthly dues reports for the building's employees for the period August 1985 through June 1986. These reports are prepared by Re- spondent (based on information supplied by the employ- er) to show what each employee owed, transmitted to the employer (in this case Davies), who then (supposed- ly) sent a check to Respondent covering the amounts (or at least, the current amounts) owed by the employees. The General Counsel introduced these documents through Helprin, who was not very familiar with them, and presented no supporting documents, like the can- celed checks, for each of the months. These reports show the following for Rodriguez:3 Date Arrears Reinstate- ment Fee Current M h D Total Dues Due ont ues 8/85 $ 99 68 $27.48 $15.49 $142.65 9/85 115.17 27.48 15.49 158.14 10/85 130 66 27.48 15.49 173.63 11/85 130.66 30.98 15.49 177 13 12/85 130.66 30.98 15.49 177.13 1/86 149.65 11.39 15.49 177.13 3/86 177 13 30.98 15.49 223.60 4/86 161.64 31.48 15.74 208.86 6/86 178.13 32.48 16.24 226.85 Similar statements for Brown Harris for the months August 1986 through January were received. They state the following: 8 Reports for the months of February and May 1986 were not includ- ed. 635 Date Arrears Reinstate- ment Fee Current M h D Total Dues Due ont ues 8/86 $179.63 $30.98 $17.24 $227.85 9/86 196.87 30.98 17.24 245.09 10/86 -0- 30.98 17.24 262.33 11/86 231.35 30.98 17.24 279.57 12/86 248.59 30.98 17.24 296.81 1/87 265.83 30.98 17.24 314.05 Another document received into evidence was Rodri- guez' employee ledger card (from Davies), which states that in April and May 1986, $15.74 was deducted from his pay and in June 1986 $16.24 was deducted from his pay for "UN." It also states that for "year to date" (the end of June), $77.45 had been deducted from his pay for "Union." In addition, Rodriguez was able to locate some of his past pay stubs; the ones that show dues deduction are as follows: Week Ending Amount Deducted' 11/13/85 $15.49 12/18/85 15.49 2/17/86 15.49 3/3/86 15.49 3/17/86 15.49 4/21/86 15.74 5/12/86 15.74 6/23/86 16.24 11/3/86 17.24 2/2/87 17.24 3/2/87 17.24 A computer printout of Respondent, dated 10 April, that Respondent transmitted to the Board in its investiga- tion of this matter, showing Rodriguez' union dues pay- ments, and the months for which they were credited, shows the following: Dues Credited Amount To Date Paid 1/85 $13.74 24 September 1985 2/85 13.74 5 November 1985 3/85 13.74 6 March 1986 4/85 13 .99 6 March 1986 5/85 14.49 27 March 1986 6/85 14.49 6 May 1986 7/85 15.49 27 June 1986 No further payments are recorded. The initial determination to be made here is the cause of Rodriguez' discharge on 1 March . The General Coun- 4 A check of the figure on these paystubs establishes that these amounts were actually deducted from his pay No proof was offered to establish that these amounts were actually transmitted to Respondent Additionally, the conflict between these figures and the "year to date" deduction of $77.45 from his employee ledger card, supra, was never ex- plained 636 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sel alleges that Rodriguez was discharged because of Re- spondent's letter of 11 November 1986 to Brown Harris demanding his discharge for nonpayment of dues and re- instatement fee. Respondent, while admitting that it sent the 7 July 1986 letter to Rodriguez, and the 11 Novem- ber 1986 letter to Brown Harris, defends that Rodriguez was fired for reasons unrelated to these letters. The diffi- culty with this argument is that no witnesses were pro- duced to support it. The only support for this argument are the "furthermore" and "finally" paragraphs in the 20 January letter, the accompanying conversation with Jo- hansen, the 28 April letter and the postdischarge conver- sation between Sampson and Johansen , which question his ability as a handyman and that "on a couple of occa- sions" he was seen leaving the building prior to the end of his shift. The 28 April letter refers solely to a "person- ality conflict with another employee ." Although these al- leged complaints might otherwise be valid causes for a discharge, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to support these allegations. Rodriguez testified that he had never been warned about the quality of his work and, in fact, had been acting superintendent of the building, and no evidence was adduced to contradict this testimony. The fact that Rodriguez' shortcomings were first mentioned 2 months after Respondent requested Brown Harris to fire him convinces me that this was an afterthought and was used as a pretext for the true reasons for the discharge- the Respondent's letter. I, therefore, find that the Gener- al Counsel has sustained her initial burden under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), which I find controlling in 8(b)(2) cases as well as 8(a)(1) and (3) cases. Soft Drink Employees (Chattanooga Coca Cola), 264 NLRB 24 (1982); Laborers Local 282 (Austin Co.), 271 NLRB 878 (1984). I also find that Respondent has not sustained its burden of establishing that Rodriguez would have been discharged even absent its 11 November 1986 letter. In his 6 years of employment at the building he had never been criticized for his attendance , work, or relationship with his fellow employees. It was not until 2 months after this letter that Respondent first informed Rodriguez of these problems . As stated, supra, I find these alleged complaints were a pretext, and cannot support Respond- ent's burden. The ultimate question, therefore, is whether Respond- ent, in its 7 July 1986 letter to Rodriguez, and its 11 No- vember 1986 letter to Brown Harris requesting Rodri- guez' termination, complied with the Board's rules in this regard. In Teamsters Local 13 (Mobile Concrete), 268 NLRB 930 (1984), and Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 275 NLRB 262 (1985), the Board set forth a "minimum level of con- duct" (Mobile Concrete, supra at 931) that unions must comply with when they notify a member of his dues de- linquency. This includes reasonable notice of the delin- quency, including a statement of the precise amount and month for which dues were owed, and explanation of the method used in computing such amount, the precise amount of any reinstatement fee that may be required and notice of the possible consequences of nonpayment. By its letter to Rodriguez of 7 July 1986, Respondent set forth how his monthly dues are arrived at, the provision of Respondent's constitution and bylaws regarding delin- quency, notice of what Respondent's reinstatement fee is and what Rodriguez had to do to avoid Respondent noti- fying his employer of his delinquency: pay the reinstate- ment fee, "plus all dues in arrears as described above and the current month's dues." This letter therefore informed Rodriguez of the months for which he was allegedly de- linquent, how the monthly dues are arrived at, and the amount of the reinstatement fee. Although the letter did not contain a total amount due to Respondent, this was not necessary as it could have been arrived at easily enough with the facts and figures provided. The letter also informed Rodriguez of the consequences of nonpay- ment. The only question is whether Respondent was cor- rect in identifying July 1985 through June 1986 as the delinquent months; if it was not, Respondent has violated Section 8(bx1XA) and (2) of the Act. A review of the testimony and exhibits leads to some answers and considerable confusion. The principal confu- sion arises from the fact that the uncontradicted testimo- ny establishes that Davies and Brown Harris each checked off its employees' dues and transmitted it to Re- spondent. Yet the monthly dues reports from Respondent for Davies and Brown Harris show that Rodriguez' ar- rears and total dues owed increased a majority of the time during the period August 1985 through January. This may be explained by the fact that Rodriguez did not execute a dues-checkoff authorization, although he testified that he did so ; however, no documentary evi- dence was adduced to support this. A further complica- tion, but more readily explainable , is the fact that while certain exhibits establish that dues were deducted from Rodriguez' pay, other exhibits state that his dues were not paid for that same period . For example, his employee ledger card and his paystubs from Davies state that dues were deducted from his pay for the payroll periods ending 13 November and 18 December 1985, 17 Febru- ary, 3 and 17 March, 21 April, 12 May, and 23 June 1986, while his paystubs from Brown Harris state that union dues were deducted from his pay for the payroll periods ending 3 November 1986, 2 February, and 2 March. Yet the computer printout of Respondent on Ro- driquez' dues history states that the last payment re- ceived by Respondent for Rodriguez was on 27 June 1986 and was credited to July 1985 dues . This appears to explain the lack of correlation of dues paid and months credited; apparently, no matter when Respondent re- ceived the dues, they credited the amount received to the oldest delinquent month. It does not explain why this printout (prepared 10 April for the Board's use) shows no dues payments for Rodriguez after June 1986, when his paystubs from Brown Harris show three subsequent deductions, one of which was prior to Respondent's 11 November letter to Brown Harris requesting Rodriguez' termination . Also unexplained is why, of Respondent's reports transmitted to Davies and Brown Harris (the ones in evidence through January), a majority do not re- flect the 11 occasions, supra, where Davies and Brown Harris' records establish that dues were deducted from Rodriguez' pay. Two points are clear, however . Even according to Re- spondent's records, dues were paid for July 1985 (de- ducted by Davies on 23 June 1986 and received by Re- SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 32B-32J spondent on 27 June 1986) and that, at the minimum, Re- spondent's 7 July 1986 letter was therefore incorrect in including that month as delinquent. The brief of counsel for Respondent, while acknowledging this error, argues: Technically, it would appear, therefore, that Rodri- guez' letter of delinquency had one month extra listed as arrears. However, by the time the letter was received by Rodriguez, he became obligated to pay the July 1986 dues, which were not paid; and, hence, although by calendar calculations the latter was off, in terms of the actual dollars owed, the letter was absolutely correct. This argument is not persuasive. The cases cited, supra, state that one requirement of a proper delinquency notice is that it include "a statement of the precise amount and months for which dues were owed." Respondent's 7 July 1986 letter did not do so correctly and therefore its cau- sation of Rodriguez' discharge violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Three additional deduc- tions from his pay, made by Brown Harris, occurred sub- stantially after the 7 July 1986 letter and too late to affect Respondent's 11 November letter to Brown Harris, so it will not be considered here. Although I have found that Respondent violated the Act, I am constrained to say that I have little sympathy for Rodriguez. Unions cannot live by its members' fervor alone, rather their dues payments are more important in paying the salaries of officers who negotiate contracts and handle grievances on behalf of their members and the salaries of office employees, who service the mem- bers and keep track of their fringe benefits. Rodriguez was substantially delinquent in his dues payments and was therefore not carrying his share of this burden. Al- though he testified that he executed a dues-checkoff au- thorization, I do not credit this testimony as the General Counsel never introduced such an authorization into evi- dence and, if he had authorized Davies and Brown Harris to check off his dues, he would not have fallen so far behind in his dues payments. I find it more likely that he paid his dues at Respondent's office when he felt so inclined, which appears to have been rarely. Be that as it may, the Board law on the subject is clear, and as Re- spondent inadvertently included July 1985 as a delin- quent month in its 7 July 1986 letter to Rodriguez, his subsequent discharge violated the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc. is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By failing to give Rodriguez proper and adequate notice of his dues delinquency, and by causing Brown, Harris to discharge him, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I recommend that it be or- 637 dered to cease and desist from engaging in such activity. While normally I would recommend that Respondent be ordered to notify Brown, Harris that it has no objection to the reinstatement and employment of Rodriguez, Re- spondent has already done this in its 13 July letter. I also recommend that Respondent be ordered to make Rodri- guez whole for any loss he suffered as a result of Re- spondent's actions. I leave for the backpay hearing deter- minations on the effect of Respondent's post 1 March ac- tions on behalf of Rodriguez and his refusal to accept employment at another building. The amount of backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Wool- worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provid- ed in New Horizons for the Retarded.5 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent Union, Local 32B-32J, Service Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Causing or attempting to cause Brown, Harris, Ste- vens, Inc. to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole Edwin Rodriguez for any loss of wages or other rights and benefits he may have suffered as the result of its discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (b) Remove from its records any reference to the un- lawful discharge of Rodriguez and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful discharge shall not be used as a basis for future action against him. (c) Post at its business office and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- 5 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Interest will be computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amend- ment to 26 U S C § 6621 6 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 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 " 638 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 2 signed copies of the notice in sufficient numbers to be posted by Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc., in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, if it is willing. Ask Brown Harris to remove any reference to Rodriguez' unlawful discharge from its files and notify Rodriguez that it has asked Brown Harris to do this. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc. to discriminate against Edwin Ro- driguez or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that those rights may be abrogated by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi- zation as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole Edwin Rodriguez for any loss of wages or other rights and benefits he may have suf- fered by reason of our discrimination practiced against him, with interest, until he has been reinstated by Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc., or obtains substantially equivalent employment elsewhere. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the discharge of Edwin Rodriguez and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlaw- ful discharge will not be used as a basis for future action against him and WE WILL ask Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc. to remove any reference to Rodriguez' unlawful dis- charge from its files and will notify Rodriguez that we have done so. LOCAL 32B-32J, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO