UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

alleged, I find that the mere maintenance of this policy, on its face, does not abridge ...... Casino Hotel), 291 NLRB 989, 990 (1988) (finding 8(b)(1)(A) violation for ...
144KB Sizes 4 Downloads 285 Views
JD-60-15 Croswell, MI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES

LOCAL 58, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (IBEW), AFL–CIO (PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES, INC.), and

Case No. 07–CB–149555

RYAN GREENE, an Individual

Counsel: Robert M. Buzaitis, Esq. (NLRB Region 7) of Detroit, Michigan, for the General Counsel Robert D. Fetter, Esq. (Miller Cohen, PLC) of Detroit, Michigan, for the Respondent Amanda K. Freeman, Esq. and Glenn M. Taubman, Esq. (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation), of Springfield, Virginia, for the Charging Party

DECISION DAVID I. GOLDMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. In this case a union adopted a membership policy that provides that members who want to resign membership or revoke a duescheckoff authorization are to resign or revoke in writing, in person, and show identification. The policy also states that if any member feels that appearing in person poses an undue hardship, he or she may contact the union hall and make other arrangements to verify identify. The government contends that the maintenance of this policy violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) on its face, without regard to motive, enforcement, application, or any record evidence that an employee’s failure to comply with the policy has consequences of any kind. No issue is presented, and therefore I do not reach the issue, of whether the policy is enforceable or valid—in other words, whether or not the policy could serve as a defense in a case alleging unlawful action by the union against an employee who had attempted to resign or revoke in a manner inconsistent with the policy. However, as to the issue alleged, I find that the mere maintenance of this policy, on its face, does not abridge Section 8(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, I dismiss the complaint.

JD-60-15 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 6, 2015, Ryan Greene filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging violations of the Act by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 58, AFL–CIO (Union or Respondent) docketed by Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) as Case 07–CB–149555. Based on an investigation into this charge, on June 12, 2015, the Board’s General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 07 of the Board, issued an order consolidating this case with a related case and issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing alleging that the Union had violated the Act. On June 24, 2015, the Union filed an answer and affirmative and other defenses denying all alleged violations of the Act. On July 23, 2015, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director, issued an order severing the instant case from the related case with which it had been consolidated, approved withdrawal of the related case, and withdrew certain allegations from the consolidated complaint. A trial was conducted in this matter on July 30, 2015, in Detroit, Michigan. Counsel for the General Counsel, the Union, and the Charging Party, filed post-trial briefs in support of their positions by September 14, 2015.1 On the entire record, I make the following findings, conclusions of law, and recommendations. JURISDICTION Paramount Industries, Inc. (Paramount) is, and at all material times has been, a corporation with an office and place of business in Croswell, Michigan, engaged in the manufacture, non-retail sale, and distribution of lighting equipment. In conducting its operations during the calendar year ending December 31, 2014, Paramount sold and shipped from its Croswell, Michigan facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Michigan. At all material times, the Employer has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. At all material times the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all material times, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative, based on Section 9(a)