Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/597/681/125930/
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 19:57:50
Document Index: 711233728

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 159', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 160', '§ 8']

National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Albert Van Luit & Company, Respondent, 597 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1979) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1979 › National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Albert Van Luit & Company, Respondent
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Albert Van Luit & Company, Respondent, 597 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1979)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 597 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1979)
1. By soliciting invalid checkoff revocations from its employees, the Company violated § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
2. By discriminatorily refusing to withhold checkoff moneys from employees who had submitted invalid revocations, while withholding from those who had not, the Company violated § 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By unilaterally repudiating the checkoff provisions of its bargaining agreement with the Union, the Company violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
Whether the Board properly determined that the Company violated § 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158) by soliciting and honoring revocations of employees' union dues checkoff authorizations after an affirmative vote to rescind the authority of the Union but before certification of the election results, and by failing to remit to the Union checkoff moneys it did collect.
Section 9(e) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(e) (1) provides:
"Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and a labor organization made pursuant to section 158(a) (3) of this title, of a petition alleging they desire that such authority be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer."
Section 8(a) (3) states:
In Penn Cork & Closures, Inc., 156 NLRB 411 (1965), the Board held that it was a violation of § 8(a) (1) and (2) to continue to deduct dues after an affirmative union deauthorization vote, and after the employees had resigned from the union and revoked their checkoff authorizations. The Board stated:
Certification of the election results in Penn Cork, however, occurred a mere ten days after the election and before the revocations, so the Board did not have to reach the question of whether the election or the certification triggered the employee's right to revoke checkoff authorization despite the terms of the agreement. Nevertheless, the Company relies on the statement in Penn Cork that "deauthorization under Section 9(e) (1) is immediately effective," 156 NLRB at 415, to show that the election itself immediately relieves employees of their obligation under the union-security clause, thereby freeing them to revoke their checkoff authorizations.
The Company argues that its solicitation of revocations was equivalent to the conduct of employers approved by the Board in Cyclops Corp., 216 NLRB 857 (1975); Perkins Machine Co., 141 NLRB 697 (1963); and Tennesco Corp., 206 NLRB 48 (1973). In those cases, the employers informed employees of their rights under the bargaining agreement. The Company claims that it "acted neutrally in responding to questions posed by the employees" and that the Board erred in concluding that the Company violated § 8(a) (3) and (1) or § 8(a) (5) and (1).
The ALJ, however, determined that the revocations submitted before certification on August 31 were of no legal effect. Solicitation of invalid revocations, therefore, "intruded into the relationship between the unit employees and their bargaining representative in a manner . . . violative of Section 8(a) (1)." 229 NLRB at 813.2 The Company's "repudiation of the checkoff provisions of the agreement, by honoring those revocations and by failing to make prompt remittance of the checkoff moneys it did collect, constituted unilateral changes violating Section 8(a) (5) and (1)." Id. A deauthorization vote does not automatically eliminate an employer's contractual obligation under a checkoff provision. An employer may not cease deducting dues unless the employees revoke their authorization. W. P. Ihrie & Sons, 165 NLRB 167 (1967). Therefore, by recognizing the invalid revocations, the Company, in effect, was unilaterally repudiating the checkoff provisions of the agreement.
Finally, the ALJ concluded that the Company discriminated against its employees, in violation of § 8(a) (3) and (1), "by withholding checkoff moneys from some but not from others (those who had submitted the void revocations) based upon a legally invalid classification." 229 NLRB at 813.
All of the above conclusions logically follow from a determination that the revocations were ineffective between the dates of their execution following the election and the Board's certification of the results of the election. That determination is supported by the language of prior NLRB cases3 and of §§ 9(e) (1) and 8(a) (3) (ii) of the Act.
"If the findings of the National Labor Relations Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, they are conclusive; and so long as the Board did not misapply the law, the order is to be affirmed." NLRB v. Heath Tec Division/San Francisco, 566 F.2d 1367, 1369 (9th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S. Ct. 110, 58 L. Ed. 2d 127 (1978).
The Supreme Court has held that "where the Board has acted properly within its designated sphere, the court is required to grant enforcement of the Board's order." NLRB v. Warren Co., 350 U.S. 107, 112, 76 S. Ct. 185, 188, 100 L. Ed. 96 (1955). "Congress has invested the Board, not the courts, with broad discretion to order a violator 'to take such affirmative action . . . as will effectuate the policies of (the Act)' 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) . . . ." NLRB v. Food Stores Employees, 417 U.S. 1, 8, 94 S. Ct. 2074, 2079, 40 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1973).
In Shen-Mar Food Products, Inc., 221 NLRB 1329 (1976), an employer was held in violation of § 8(a) (1) for relying on an untimely revocation and failing to deduct and remit dues, though there was no deauthorization election in that case
Of course, the Board is not strictly bound by its prior cases, though it does have a duty to explain departures from established agency policy. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 808, 93 S. Ct. 2367, 37 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1973)