Puget Sound Area Local 298 (Postal Workers), 19-CB-09568, 792 (2008)

Puget Sound Area Local #298, affiliated with the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (United States Postal Service) and Li Eagle Ransom

American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (United States Postal Service) and Li Eagle Ransom. Cases 19–CB–9568 and 19–CB–9593

June 30, 2008

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman

On January 18, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondents filed a reply brief.

The National Labor Relations 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[1] and to adopt the recommended Order.[2]

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent Unions violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by distributing certain settlement moneys only to union members. The judge found the alleged violation. As set forth below, we affirm.

In 2003, the United States Postal Service (Employer) and the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (APWU) entered into an agreement to settle grievances, challenging the Respondent’s assignment of nonunit casual employees to perform bargaining unit work. The agreement included a provision that funds intended for former employees who could not be located would “be remitted to the local unions.” However, when Puget Sound Area Local #298 (Local 298) requested the remittance of funds in accordance with this provision, the Employer offered to pay a “greater total amount” if Local 298 would “waive its right to receive payment directly and instead designate employees for direct payment.” The parties subsequently executed a new settlement agreement in 2006, which stated that it was the “final and complete resolution of any and all issues” concerning the 2003 agreement, and which provided that “[c]urrent clerk craft employees,” to be identified by APWU Business Agent Marty Barron, would receive a lump-sum payment. The Respondents decided that the lump sum would be divided equally among unit employees who were also members of Local 298. Nonmember unit employees were excluded from the distribution.

The judge found that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by discriminating against nonmember bargaining unit employees in distributing the settlement moneys. Excepting, the Respondents assert that Local 298 had a contractual right under the 2003 settlement agreement to the funds distributed under the 2006 settlement agreement and thus could lawfully assign its rights to those funds as it chose. This argument ignores, however, that the 2006 agreement modified the relevant provision of the 2003 agreement by providing for remittance of the settlement proceeds to the “[c]urrent clerk craft employees” rather than to “the local unions.”

Even assuming that Local 298 retained, under the 2006 agreement, a contractual right to the settlement moneys that it was otherwise free to assign, it was not free to do so on the basis of union membership. “It is well settled that Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits unions, when acting in a statutory representative capacity, from taking action against any employee upon consideration or upon the basis of classifications that are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair.” See Steelworkers Local 2869 (Kaiser Steel Corp.), 239 NLRB 982, 982–983 (1978). Consistent with this principle, the Board has found that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it discriminates against unit employees solely on the basis of their nonmembership status as such discrimination necessarily coerces employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to join or refrain from joining a labor organization. See, e.g., Stagehands Referral Service, 347 NLRB 1167, 1169 (2006) (finding that union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to refer hiring hall registrant based on his nonmembership status); Postal Service, 345 NLRB 1203 (2005) (finding, inter alia, that union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by conditioning training academy instructorships on union membership), enfd. 254 Fed.Appx. 582 (9th Cir. 2007). In light of this precedent, we agree with the judge that Local 298 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by discriminating against nonmember unit employees in distributing the settlement moneys from the 2006 agreement. Cf. District 65, Distributive Workers of America (Blume Associates, Inc.), 214 NLRB 1059 (1974) (union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by discriminatorily distributing settlement funds only to those employees who picketed and supported the union).

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondents, Puget Sound Area Local #298, affiliated with the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO, and American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO, Tacoma, Washington, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the administrative law judge.

APPENDIX

Notice To Employees and Members

Posted by Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union

Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer

Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection

Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

We will not fail or refuse to include nonmembers of our Unions among unit employees who share in the distribution of a 2006 lump-sum payment made by the United States Postal Service to employees identified by us, in settlement of a class action grievance.

We will not in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

We will make Li Eagle Ransom and other injured nonmembers whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the our failure and refusal to include nonmembers among unit employees who share in the distribution of a lump-sum payment made by the United States Postal Service to employees identified by us, in settlement of a class action grievance.

Puget Sound Area Local #298, affiliated with the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO and American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO

Ryan E. Connolly, Esq. and Daniel Apoloni, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Anton G. Hajjar, Esq. (O’Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson), of Washington, D.C., for the Respondents.

Li Eagle Ransom, an Individual, of Tacoma, Washington, Pro se.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

Jay R. Pollack, Administrative Law Judge. This case was submitted to me based on a stipulation of facts dated September 17, 2007. On February 13, 2007, Li Eagle Ransom (Ransom) filed the charge in Case 19–CB–9568 alleging that Puget Sound Area Local #298, affiliated with the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (Respondent Local), committed certain violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On April 5, 2007, Ransom filed the charge in Case 19–CB–9593 alleging that American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (Respondent National) committed certain violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On April 26, 2007, the Regional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent Local, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On July 31, the Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing in Cases 19–CB–9568 and 19–CB–9593 alleging that both Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Respondents filed timely answers to the complaint denying all wrongdoing.

By stipulation, the parties have waived their right to a hearing before an administrative law judge. All parties have been given the opportunity to file briefs. Upon the stipulated record, including all exhibits thereto, and having considered the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following

Findings of Fact and Conclusions

i. jurisdiction

The United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT