Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local No. 16, Afl-Cio (Losli International, Inc.)

972 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local No. 16, AFL-CIO (Losli International, Inc.) and Stephen H. Leasia, Attorney, for Ronald Hyde, Roger S. Terrell, Henry Boschee, Richard Hunt, Donald Merris, Leroy Moser, and Raymond Pittman and Stephen H. Leasia, Attorney for Gary Munden and Douglas D. Losli. Cases 36-CB-1301 and 36-CB-1325 September 27, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT On July 20, 1988, Administrative Law Judge James M Kennedy issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting bnef, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting bnef The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authonty 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 as modified' and fully set forth below The judge found that the Respondent admitted that Job Coordinator Gary Munden and Manufac- turing Manager Douglas D Losh were 8(b)(1)(B) representatives because they possessed the author- ity to adjust employee gnevances The judge found that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act when it imposed sanctions against Munden and Losh for working for Losh International, the Employer, because there was no collective-bargaimng relationship or any immediate prospect of such a relationship when Munden and Losh were disciplined We disagree, and find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) We agree that Munden and Lash clearly pos- sessed the authonty to represent the Employer in the adjustment of gnevances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act In its answer, the Re- spondent admitted the consolidated second amend- ed complaint allegation that Munden and Losh 1 We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(1XA) of the Act by fining employees Ronald Hyde, Roger S Ter- rell, Henry Boschee, Richard Hunt, Donald Mems, Leroy Moser, and Raymond Pittman for their postresignation conduct We do not, however adopt the judge's recommended Order requiring the Respondent to an- nounce at its membership meetings and in its publications that the Inter- national Union's constitutional provision does not govern its members' resignations Rather, we will order the Respondent to remove from its governing documents any provisions requiring adherence to the Interna- tional Union's constitutional provision See Auto Workers Local 73 (McDonnell Douglas), 282 NLRB 466 (1986) "both possess authonty to adjust gnevances, and have been, and are now, agents of Lash [Interna- tional, Inc ] acting in its behalf, and are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act" The parties do not dispute that they are 8(b)(1)(B) representatives For an 8(b)(1)(B) violation to occur, the union must have a current collective-bargaining relation- ship with the employer or be seeking to establish such a relationship 2 Because the Respondent did not have a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, we are concerned here with wheth- er the evidence establishes that the Respondent was seeking such a relationship Carpenters District Council of Dayton (Concourse Construction), 296 NLRB 492 (1989) In our opinion, the evidence here establishes that the Respondent had a current recognitional objective On February 25, 1987, 3 the Respondent asked Losh to sign a petition to bnng the Respondent back into the plant That request signaled that the Respondent, which had had a collective-bargaining relationship with the previous owner of the plant, was similarly interested in representing the employ- ees who began working for the Employer when it took over the plant on February 20 4 More impor- tantly, it also signaled the beginning of its cam- paign to organize the employees and obtain recog- nition from the Employer as their collective-bar- gaining representative Nor did Losh's declining the request cause the Respondent to abandon that campaign To the contrary, on March 27, the Re- spondent asked employee Hyde to distnbute au- thonzation cards Again, notwithstanding that Hyde refused to do so, the Respondent continued its efforts to become the employees' bargaining representative On May 13, it demanded recogni- tion from the Employer, 3 which the Employer re- fused In the meantime, on the same day that Hyde was asked to distnbute authonzation cards among his fellow employees, the Respondent filed mtraun- ion charges against Munden and Losh for violating the International Union's constitution by accepting employment with and performing work for an em- ployer that does not have a contract with the Re- spondent On the same day that the Union demand- ed recognition, the Respondent found ment m those charges and fined Munden and Losh The timing of these events makes it clear that the Re- 2 NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 340 (Royal Electric), 481 U5 573 (1987) 'Ail subsequent dates are in 1987 unless otherwise stated 4 No contention has been made that the Employer is either a successor or an alter ego 2 The parties stipulated that an explicit demand for recognition was made on that date 299 NLRB No 147 SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 16 (LOSLI INTERNATIONAL) 973 spondent had current recogmtional and organiza- tional objectives with respect to the Employer and its employees when it disciplined Munden and Losh for going to work for the Employees 6 Con- sequently, we find that the Respondent's conduct satisfies the Royal Electric requirement that a union has an actual, and not simply a hypothetical or speculative, intent to establish a collective-bargain- ing relationship with the employer, if one, as here, does not exist In light of our finding that the Respondent was seeking recogmtion from the Employer, the Re- spondent's discipline of Munden and Losh for per- forming their supervisory duties, including adjust- ing grievances, for the Employer amounted to the imposition of sanctions on those two supervisors that would have an adverse effect on their per- forming those grievance-adjustment duties There- fore, the Respondent's conduct constituted restraint and coercion of the Employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) See Sheet Metal Workers Local 68 (DeMoss Co), 298 NLRB 1000, 1006 (1990) 7 AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Substitute the following for Conclusions of Law 4 "4 By filing mtraumon charges against, trying, , and imposing fines on Munden and Losh for ac- cepting work with and performing work for the Employer at a time when the Respondent was cur- rently seelung recognition from the Employer, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) " AMENDED REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(B), we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from restraining or coercing the Employer in the selection of representatives for the purposes of adjustment of grievances by filing in- traumon charges against those representatives, sub- jecting them to trial, and imposing fines against them because they worked for the Employer We shall further order the Respondent to rescind the fines imposed on Munden and Losh, and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of the fines, with interest computed in the manner set forth in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 6 Operating Engineers Local 101 (St Louis Bridge), 297 NLRB 485, 487 (1989) 'Member Devaney did not participate in DeMoss He agrees there is a violation here on the facts of this particular case ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders the Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local No 16, AFL-CIO, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining or giving effect in its governing documents article 16, section 13 of the constitution and ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers' Internation- al Association, AFL-CIO, to the extent it provides that Any member in good standing who has paid all dues and financial obligations may sever his connections by written resignation mailed to the Financial Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union with which he is affiliated by certified or registered mail Resignations shall be effec- tive upon receipt of notification in the manner prescribed herein No resignation shall be ac- cepted if offered in anticipation of charges being preferred against him, during the pend- ency of any such charges or in Canada during a strike or lockout (b) Restraining or coercing employees who have resigned from, and are no longer members of, the Respondent in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by filing mtraumon charges against them, subjecting them to trial, and imposing court-collectible fines against them be- cause of their postresignation work for Losh Inter- national, Inc (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act (d) Restraining or coercing Losh International, Inc in the selection of representatives for the pur- pose of adjustment of grievances, by filing mtraun- ion charges against those representatives, subject- ing them to trial, and imposing court-collectible fines against them because they worked for Lash International, Inc (e) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing any employer an the selection of repre- sentatives for the purposes of adjustment of griev- ances 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Remove from its governing documents the portion of the constitution and ritual set forth above (b) Rescind the fines imposed on Ronald Hyde, Roger S Terrell, Henry Boschee, Richard Hunt, Donald Merns, Leroy Moser, and Raymond Pitt- man because of their postresignation work for Losh 974 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International, Inc , and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of those fines, with interest, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision (c) Rescind the fines imposed on Gary Munden and Douglas D Losh for working for Losh Inter- national, Inc , and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of those fines, with inter- est, as set forth in the remedy section of this deci- sion (d) Remove from its files any reference to the charges and fines that were imposed against the above-named employees and employer representa- tives, and inform them, in wntmg, that the action has been taken (e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- ing, all records necessary to analyze the amounts due under the terms of this Order (f) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Respondent's authonzed representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places mcludmg all places where no- tices to members are customarily posted Reasona- ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other matenal (g) Sign and return to the Regional Director suf- ficient copies of the notice for posting by Losh International, Inc , if willing, at all places where notice to employees are customarily posted (h) Notify the Regional Director in wnting within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply 8 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" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the Umted 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 maintain or give effect in our governing documents article 16, section 13, of the constitution and ritual of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, to the extent it provides that Any member in good standing who has paid all dues and financial obligations may sever his connections by wntten resignation mailed to the Financial Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union with which he is affiliated by certified or registered mail Resignations shall be effec- tive upon receipt of notification in the manner prescnbed herein No resignation shall be ac- cepted if offered in anticipation of charges being preferred against him, dunng the pend- ency of any such charges or in Canada during a strike or lockout WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees who have resigned from, and are no longer members of, the Union, in the exercise of nghts guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, by filing mtraumon charges against them, subjecting them to tnal or imposing court-collectible fines on them because of their postresignation work for Losh International, Inc WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Losh Interna- tional, Inc in the selection of representatives for the purpose of adjustment of gnevances, by filing mtraumon charges against those representatives, subjecting them to trial, or imposing court-collect- ible fines on them because they worked for Losh International, Inc WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce any employer in the selection of representatives for the purposes of adjustment of grievances WE WILL remove from our governing docu- ments the portion of the constitution and ntual set forth above WE WILL rescind the fmes imposed on Ronald Hyde, Roger S Terrell, Henry Boschee, Richard Hunt, Donald Merns, Leroy Moser, and Raymond Pittman because of their postresignation work for Losh International, Inc , and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of those fines, with interest WE WILL rescmd the fines imposed on Gary Munden and Douglas D Losh for working for Losh International, Inc , and refund to them any moneys they may have paid as a result of those fines, with interest WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the charges and fines that were imposed against the above-named employees and employer representa- SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 16 (LOSLI INTERNATIONAL) 975 tives, and inform them, in wntmg, that this action has been taken SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION 68, AFL-CIO Dale B Cubbison, for the General Counsel David S Paull, of Portland, Oregon, for the Respondent Stephen H Leasza, of Portland, Oregon, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried before me in Portland, Oregon, on March 1, 1988, on a consolidated second amended complaint' issued by the Regional Director for Region 19 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board on November 30, 1987 It is based on two separate charges filed on behalf of cer- tain named individuals by their attorney, Stephen H Lea= The first, Case 36-CB-1301, was filed on April 21, 1987,2 and was twice amended thereafter The second charge, Case 36-CB-1325 was filed on July 20 The consolidated second amended complaint alleges that Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 16 (the Respondent) has committed certain violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act Issues The complaint now asserts that Respondent has violat- ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act by instituting disciplinary proceedings against and by fining certain employees of Losh International, Inc , at a time when they had resigned their membership in Respondent Seven of these individuals are rank-and-file employees Respondent's conduct toward these seven is alleged to violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) Two of the individuals are statutory supervisors, the complaint alleges that Re- spondent's action against them violates Section 8(b)(1)(B) Finally, the General Counsel asserts that these individuals were demed their Section 7 right to resign from union membership by virtue of certain language found in article 16, section 13, of its constitution and ritual She seeks an order requiring Respondent to ex- punge that section from its constitution as impairing the congressional policy of freely allowing resignations from labor unions The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examme and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs The General Counsel made a short oral argument, Respond- ent has filed a brief Both the argument and the brief have been carefully considered The caption and pars 9 and 10(b) of the complaint have been amend- ed to correctly spell Donald Merns' name 2 All dates are 1987 unless otherwise noted Based on the entire record of the case, as well as my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS Respondent admits that Logi International, Inc (the Employer) is an Oregon corporation with an office and place of business in Tigard, Oregon, where it manufac- tures kitchen counters and sinks It further admits that the Employer during the 12 months preceding the issu- ance of the complaint made sales in excess of $500,000 and inflow to its Oregon operation exceeded $50,000 Accordingly, I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and in an Industry affecting commerce within Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits that it is, and has been at all mate- rial times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Employer took over an existing manufacturing plant on approximately February 20 Respondent had had a collective-bargammg relationship with the previous owner, but does not contend, by its answer or by evi- dence that the Employer is either a successor or an alter ego 3 The Employer, however, did hire a number of the previous owner's employees including the nine in ques- tion, all of whom were or had been members of Re- spondent According to Respondent's business manager and fi- nancial secretary-treasurer Milton R Hill, about Febru- ary 20 he told Gary Munden and Douglas Losh that they would shortly be working for a nonunion employer and were subject to discipline by the Union if they did so He says both asked if they could have a couple of weeks to make up their minds to "see what develops" Beginning on March 3, the nine members began sub- mitting written resignation letters to Respondent Hill testified, however, "The letters of resignation weren't even taken into consideration because they were not in conformance with the constitution" The following chart shows their dates of hire and the dates the resignations were received Date of Receipt of Hire Date Resignation from Union Gary D Munden February 25 March 3 Douglas D Losh February 25 March 3 Ronald Hyde March 9 March 9 3 A claim of successorslup would be no defense for Respondent's con- tract with the predecessor would not be binding upon the Employer, and its union shop clause, if any, would not survive Burns Security Services v NLRB, 406 US 276 (1972) The defense of alter ego would be relevant, but was not affirmatively raised, no doubt because it could not be proven 976 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Date of Receipt of Resignation from Union Roger S Terrell March 23 March 19 Le Roy Moser March 27 March 25 Donald Merns April 14 April 10 Raymond Pittman April 27 April 17 Richard Hunt April 28 April 28 Henry Boschee May 21 May 18 On February 25 and March 27, Respondent's business agent, John Snyder, attempted to persuade Douglas Losh and Ronald Hyde, respectively, to circulate authorization cards among Respondent's employees Both declined 4 Respondent is, of course, a chartered local of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL- CIO As such, it is bound by the parent organization's constitution and ritual Article 16, section 13, of that constitution, which purports to govern voluntary resig- nations, reads as follows Any memlier in good standing who has paid all dues and financial obligations may sever his connec- tions by written resignation mailed to the Financial Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union with which he is affiliated by certified or registered mail Resig- nation shall be effective upon receipt of notification in the matter prescribed herein No resignation shall be accepted if offered in anticipation of charges being preferred against him, during the pendency of any such charges or in Canada during a strike or lockout In summarizing that section, it essentially states that no member may resign unless he is in financial good stand- ing, resigns in writing, mails the resignation by certified mail, and addresses it to the Local's financial secretary- treasurer It also provides that resignation will not be permitted if it is offered in anticipation of charges being preferred, but will be accepted "upon receipt" if all of the recited conditions have been met Shortly after receiving each of the resignation letters described above, Hill filed mternal union charges against each of these individuals asserting that as members they had violated the constitution and ritual by accepting em- ployment with an "employer that is not signatory to or bound by a collective-bargaining agreement with an af- filiated local union of this International Association" and by performing sheet metal work on a "piece work basis, a lump sum basis, or any basis except that provided and specified by this constitution and by the established and recognized Union agreements governing the em- ployment of members" Hearings were held and, despite the obvious defense that the individuals in question had resigned, and consist- 4 The parties stipulated that on May 13 Respondent sent a letter to the Employer demanding recognition and that the Employer declined Thereafter, Respondent filed refusal to bargain charges against the Em- ployer, Case 36-CA-5613 No complaint was Issued in support of that charge, counsel for the General Counsel stated on the record that It was dismissed ent with Hill's determination to ignore the resignations, all nine were found guilty and subjected to court-collect- ible fines Hill explained that he regarded the attempts to resign by these individuals as ineffective on varying grounds He asserts that two employees were in arrears, that others had failed to address the letter properly in the sense that they had sent it to him in his capacity as business manager rather than in his capacity as financial secretary-treasurer, or had not addressed it to any specif- ic officer, just to the Umon, others had failed to send it by certified mail or had failed to date it Moreover, Hill asserts that the rule itself barred their resignation because each of the resignations was in anticipation of charges being preferred against [the resigning member] and the constitution prohibits resignations in that circum- stance He says he reached this conclusion because all the employees, at some point, had asked if they could be fired for "working non-union" and had been told that they could be Finally, he says Hunt never resigned be- cause he continued to pay dues at least through July IV ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The consolidated complaint, of course, asserts two types of violations The first is an allegation that Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by fining employees who were not members of the Union Specifically, this allegation deals with employees Hyde, Terrell, Boschee, Hunt, Mems, Moser, and Pittman The second alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by disciplin- ing two supervisors, Munden and Losh Although the fact patterns with respect to each of these employees are virtually identical, the legal theories are quite different Accordingly, separate treatment is required A The 8(b)(1)(A) Allegations With respect to the rank-and-file employees who re- signed, it is clear that each of them resigned before the Union made any effort to file charges against them It is now clear that a union may not lawfully restrict the right of a member to resign at any tune The Supreme Court so held in Pattern Makers League v NLRB, 473 U S 95 (1985), when it adopted the rule announced by the Board in Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche- Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984) Section 7 of the Act protects an employee's right to join or to refrain from joining a union The Court held that right necessarily includes the right to resign In the instant matter, of course, there was no collective-bargain- ing contract between the Employer and Respondent and no union-shop clause requiring mandatory membership as set forth in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Thus we are not faced with the concept of "financial core members" as discussed in NLRB v General Motors Corp, 373 U S 734, 742 (1963), Hershey Foods Corp. 207 NLRB 897 (1973), enfd 513 F 2d 1083 (9th Cu 1975) 5 Instead, we a Hunt may be an exception If, after he resigned, he continued to pay dues, his status could be considered unclear He may well have wished to reduce his status to something less than constitutional membership Yet, his resignation letter was clear Given the fact that Respondent would not honor his resignation, It seems more likely that he was confused and paid as a result of that refusal Hire Date SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 16 (LOSLI INTERNATIONAL) 977 deal solely with the qualitative difference between mem- bership as defined by a union constitution and member- ship as defined by the Act See Union Starch Co, 87 NLRB 779 (1949), enfd 186 F 2d 1008 (7th Cir 1951), cert denied 342 US 815 (1951) Section 8(b)(1)(A) states "It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 "Connected to that section, how- ever, is a proviso which states "[T]his paragraph shall .; not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership" In Pattern Makers, supra, the Supreme Court resolved i the apparent conflict between the unfettered right under Section 7 of an employee to refrain from union member- ship through resignation and a union's 8(b)(1)(A) proviso right to prescnbe membership rules, including the right to govern resignations In resolvmg that conflict, the Court specifically held that a union's restriction on the nght of a member to withdraw (resign) was not a "rul[e] with respect to the retention of membership" within the meaning of the proviso, i e, it held the proviso deals only with the right of a union to expel a member and does not govern resignations It further held that Con- gress in considering passage of the proviso obviously thought it was unnecessary to protect the right to resign union membership for it was simultaneously outlawing the closed shop Fmally, the Court held that the common law of associations and the right to impose re- strictions on resignation under that concept did not apply in circumstances where the statute had spoken Accord- ingly, the Supreme Court deferred to the Board's posi- tion in both Pattern Makers and Neufeld Porsche-Audi that Section 7 protects an employee's right to resign from a union, even in the face of a collective-bargaining agreement to the contrary (a hoop through which the employees in question need not jump since there has never been a collective-bargaining contract between Re- spondent and the Employer) and that upon such a resig- nation the employees freed themselves from subsequent union discipline Indeed, Pattern Makers must be read as holdmg that a union may not place any restnctions whatsoever on its members' right to resign See dicta found in the majonty opinion in 'NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 340 (Royal Electric), 481 U S 573 (1987), where the Court, referring to Pattern Markers says, "[U]mon members have a right to resign from a union at any time and avoid imposition of union discipline" (Emphasis in original ) Id at 595 Respondent argues, however, that its restrictions as set forth in its constitution and ritual are perfectly reasona- ble and should not be ignored It contends that to require members to follow those rules merely allows both parties to more clearly understand the nature of the transaction Yet, assuming the requirement for the resignation to be written to be reasonable, Respondent's decision to disal- low these resignations was unreasonable even under its own view Hill held both the offices of business manager and fi- nancial secretary-treasurer Although acknowledging that the Union had received the letters which were ad- dressed to him as business manager or simply to the Union without reference to a specific office, he chose to blind himself to the reality of the letters by saying that their receipt was not good enough for the letters did not name the appropnate officer required by the constitution Frankly, that argument is fatuous and deserves little at- tention It demonstrates only that Respondent wishes, as a matter of policy, to prevent resignations The interpre- tation serves no legitimate purpose Hill clearly received them no matter what title, if any, the employee gave the addressee Those letters which were received but which were not certified were also valid under the rule Obviously the rule was designed to assure delivery of the letter and to provide proof of its receipt That became unnecessary when Respondent acknowledged their receipt The un- dated letter was received as well and Hill knows exactly when it was received, well before his attempt to disci- pline the employee in question That it was undated is of no significance Hill's bnttle interpretation of the consti- tution, therefore, does little to credit the Union's position here and serves only to emphasize that it is Respondent's desire to prohibit resignations Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Pattern Makers, the Board had consistently held that in the ab- sence of any union constitution or bylaw restricting res- ignation, a member could resign at will so long as the desire to resign was clearly communicated Moreover, it had held that the communication could be made in any feasible way and no particular form or method was re- quired See Electrical Workers Local 66 IBEW (Houston Lighting), 262 NLRB 483, 486 (1982), Potters Local 340 (Macomb Pottery), 175 NLRB 756, 760 fn 4 (1969) In August 1986,6 subsequent to the Court's Pattern Makers decision, Respondent's parent International Union en- acted the constitutional restraint in question Pattern Makers nonetheless disallows its invocation and the Houston Lighting/Macomb Pottery rule governing the means of resigning remains valid 7 Therefore, despite the specific language of the Union's constitution here which directs resigning employees to follow a specified procedure, the law overrides it I hold that any defect which may be attributed to any of these resignation letters, at least insofar as the constitution is concerned, is meaningless That document may not, as a matter of law, be utilized to deprive these employees of their Section 7 nght to resign Accordingly, I conclude that each of the resignation letters was valid and Re- spondent had no authority to impose fines on those resig- nees for breaching its constitution and ritual It follows, therefore, that Respondent's attempt to do so, the actual levying of fines and all efforts to collect them, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees with respect to a Section 7 right and therefore violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act NLRB v Granite State Joint Board, Textile Workers Union, 409 U S 213 (1972), cf Scofield v 6 The date set forth in the Seventh Circuit's decision in NLRB v Sheet Metal Workers Local 73, 840 F 2d 510 fn 1 (1988) 'See Electrical Workers MEW Local 1547 (Homer Electric), 280 NLRB 1362 (1986) 978 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NLRB, 394 U S 423 (1969), cf NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg Go, 388 U S 175 (1967) (union may fine full mem- bers for breach of union rule) Hill's last argument, that the constitution prohibits members from resigning if the resignation is in anticipa- tion of internal union charges being preferred against them, is subsumed by the previous logic I might note first, however, that Hill's analysis is not based on fact He says that each member had asked him about working for nonunion employers and he concluded from their question that their subsequent resignations was designed to avoid such charges as defined by article 16, section 13 Yet a fair reading of the clause would not allow for that analysis in any event, for then every resignation could be deemed to be in anticipation of charges Such an inter- pretation would defeat the use of the clause at all, for it specifically permits resignations Hill's interpretation here once again emphasizes his desire to prohibit resignations at all costs Of course, since the law allows for resignations at any time, the "in anticipation of charges" prohibition flies di- rectly in its face The phrase "at any time" means "at any time", it does not allow for exceptions, no matter what they may be, for they are contrary to the rights granted by the statute Accordingly, this argument fails as well B The 8(b)(1)(B) Allegations Section 8(b)(1)(B) is quite different from Section 8(b)(1)(A) in that It does not protect any employee's right Instead, it protects an employer's right Specifical- ly, it states that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce "an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances" Generally speaking, it is designed to prevent a labor union from disciplining either a supervisor or a collec- tive-bargaining representative in circumstances where the individual is acting on behalf of the employer while en- gaging in either collective bargaining or administering a collective-bargaining contract In this instance the Union has admitted in its answer that Munden and Losh were representatives of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) in the sense that they possessed the authority to adjust employ- ee grievances Munden was the Employer's job coordina- tor and Losh was its manufacturing manager Further- more, Respondent has admitted that both of these indi- viduals were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act Being supervisors, of course, they do not fall under the protective umbrella of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and are not part of the employee group dis- cussed above in subsection (a) Section 8(b)(1)(B) is quite limited in its scope Recently, the Supreme Court in NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 340 (Royal Electric), 481 U S 573 (1987), definitively dealt with a union's authority to discipline such individuals under Section 8(b)(1)(B) Prior to its decision in Royal, the courts of appeal had differed with respect to whether a union had the authority to discipline individuals who possessed the attributes of an 8(b)(1)(B) representative if his or her employer did not actually have a collective- bargaining relationship with the union The Ninth Circuit had held in NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 73 (Chewalah Contractors), 714 F 2d 870 (1980), that Section 8(b)(1)(B) did not protect such individuals The Eleventh Circuit had held that it did NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 323 (Drexel Properties), 703 F 2d 501 (1983) In Royal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Cir- cuit's view and rejected the Eleventh's on the ground that there was no collective-bargaimng relationship be- tween the Union and the two employers, Nutter and Royal, which needed the Act's protection There the two employers had recognized a rival union and the IBEW had no representative status When it attempted to discipline two of its members who had putative 8(b)(1)(B) status for working for a non-IBEW employer, the Court found that the union's discipline could not impair the employers' collective-bargaining relationship with the rival union Therefore no 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurred on the IBEW's discipline of them The Court did intimate that where a collective-bargaining relation- ship had not yet come to fruition, an 8(b)(1)(B) violation might be found if the union disciplined such a representa- tive In dicta it suggested that if the union was seeking a collective-bargaining relationship that fact might be suffi- cient to warrant finding a violation, but offered little fur- ther guidance In the instant case, of course, Business Agent Snyder had attempted to persuade the Employer's early hires, such as Losh and Hyde to try to organize the Employer Both had declined and the Union's organizing efforts fell flat That occurred in February and March, its discipline of individuals did not begin until March when it realized that its organizing efforts would not succeed I conclude, therefore, that there was no collective-bargaining rela- tionship or even any immediate prospect of such a rela- tionship between Respondent and the Employer 8 Re- spondent had not even collected any authorization cards much less begun to seek 9(a) status by filing a representa- tion petition and neither Lash nor Munden had ever en- gaged in collective-bargaining duties for the Employer 9 Therefore, bound by Royal, I find that Section 8(b)(1)(B) was not violated when Respondent disciplined Losh and Munden, for there was no collective-bargaining relation- ship for that section of the Act to protect Accordmgly, as Section 8(b)(1)(B) did not protect either Losh or Munden, the 8(b)(1)(B) allegation should be dismissed THE REMEDY With respect to Respondent's treatment of the seven rank-and-file employees whose resignations were protect- ed by Section 8(b)(1)(A), Respondent shall be ordered to cease and desist disciplining employees who are not its members as well as affirmatively ordered to rescind the fines or, if they have been paid, to refund any monies so * As more fully punctuated by the Regional Director's dismissal of Re- spondent's May refusal-to-bargain charge 9 It seems to me that Sec 8(b)(1)(B) would not likely protect an em- ployee's representative until the union obtained recognition or became certified However, it is unnecessary here to decide when Sec 8(bX1)(B) might become mvocable SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 16 (LOSLI INTERNATIONAL) 979 collected, together with interest" thereon and to post the attached notice The General Counsel contends, however, that article 16, section 13, of Respondent's constitution and ritual is, standing alone, an improper impediment to the statutory policies of the Act permitting the unfettered right to vol- untarily resign from any labor union She seeks an order requiring Respondent to rescind that section from its constitution Such a remedy has become the standard in cases such as this Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed- California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983), Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330 (1984), Sheet Metal Workers Local 73 (Safe Air), 274 NLRB 374 (1985), enfd 840 F 2d 501 (7th Cir 1988) Unfortunately, I am faced with a procedural bar pro- hibiting me from granting the remedy The constitution in question is that of the parent International Association, not that of Respondent Local It is true that Respondent is bound to follow it, but it is equally true that Respond- ent has no power to expunge it That can be done only by the International, which is legally a separate entity Electrical Workers IBEW Local 5 (Franklin Electric), 121 NLRB 143 (1958), citing United Mineworkers Union v Coronado Coal Co, 259 U S 344, 395 (1921) Section 10(b) of the Act requires that a charge be filed against the perpetrator of the unfair labor practice Since no charge has been filed against the International here, nor has it even been served with the charge or the complaint against the Local, I am powerless to grant the remedy sought It may, however, prove to be unnecessary See Safe Air, supra, where the Board has obtained enforce- ment of an expunction order against this International Yet, I must agree with the contention that the very ex- istence of the provision serves only to chill members from the free exercise of their Section 7 right to resign Certainly an order requiring Respondent to cease givmg the clause any effect is required, but is that enough? I do not think so Respondent has, by maintaining the clause, been creating an atmosphere of acceptance which a mere cease-and-desist order, even accompanied by a notice, Interest on such moneys is appropnate Seafarers Atlantic District, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962), Machinists Local 405 (Boeing Co), 185 NLRB 380 (1970) The rate of interest shall be the "short-term Federal rate" See New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) cannot easily erase And, I suspect, the International Union will not yield the point until it is absolutely forced to In the meantime, it may well direct Respondent to comply with the article, thereby further contributing co- ercion to the atmosphere Accordingly, I believe the only appropriate remedy is to require Respondent not only to cease enforcing the rule, but to clearly advise its members that their right to resign is not governed by the International's constitution, but by law To accomplish that end, Respondent should be obligat- ed to educate its members by more than a simple notice posting I believe the appropriate remedy should also in- clude regular announcements describing its members' actual rights, both at meetings and in publications To allow for less will permit the illegal atmosphere to per- sist, and persist it will until the International strikes the clause from its constitution The Safe Air order will eventually result in the clause being stncken, but I cannot be certain when that will actually occur I will, therefore, require Respondent to announce at each of its membership meetings, whether regular or specially called, and in each edition of its newsletter or newspa- per, that members have the right to resign at any time and that article 16, section 13, of the International's con- stitution does not govern resignations from membership Such announcements shall be made until that language is removed from the constitution CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers International As- sociation, Local No 16, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2 Losh International, Inc , is an employer engaged in commerce, and in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3 In March 1987, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by initiating disciplinary proce- dures against and by fining employees who were not its members because they chose to work for a nonunion em- ployer 4 Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act when it fined Gary D Munden and Douglas D Losh [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]