Opinion ID: 3011720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the nlrb's decision and order

Text: The NLRB agreed that Quick had effectively resigned from the Union in his March letter . It also agreed that S 2.2 of the CBA did not require employees to continue paying any union dues after resigning from membership in the Union. Accordingly, the NLRB ruled that the Union had committed an unfair labor practice under S 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA, by continuing to accept dues deducted fr om Quick's wages after his resignation up to mid June, and by threatening to sue and by actually suing to collect delinquent dues. The NLRB ordered the Union to cease and desist the unlawful conduct, and from similarly restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. It also ordered the Union to make Quick whole for all dues deducted from his wages beginning April 10, 1997 when his resignation became effective; to dismiss the lawsuit for the collection of union dues to the extent that it had not _________________________________________________________________ the Company's counsel filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). However, counsel for the Company withdrew his entry of appearance shortly before Quick's reply to the Union's Opposition to the Motions was due. The Company's attorney was understandably concerned about the propriety of the Company defending Quick against the Union. Immediately after the Company's attor ney withdrew his appearance, the Foundation entered its appearance for Quick. The Foundation represents, without contradiction from the Union, that the district court dismissed the Union's action to collect dues for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Foundation's Br . on Behalf of Quick as Petitioner in No. 99-4043, at 10-11. 10 already been finally dismissed or withdrawn; to give employees appropriate notice of the Boar d's determination; and to reimburse Quick for any expenses incurr ed in defending the lawsuit. However, the NLRB r efused to order the Union to pay attorney's fees to Quick's counsel. Quick filed a petition for review of the NLRB's order insofar as it denied his request for attor ney's fees (No. 994043) and the NLRB filed an application for enfor cement. (No. 00-3032). The Union intervened in Quick's petition for review and Quick intervened in the NLRB's petition for enforcement.