Court Opinion

ID: 9451516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:18:49.183057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:46.605377
License: Public Domain

HASTINGS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
On September 13, 1965, a division of this court unanimously rendered a judgment and filed an opinion denying the petition of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board order under consideration dismissed complaints charging the Union1 with unfair labor practices based on charges filed by Allis-Chalmers.
Subsequently, our court, by a vote of 6-1, granted the petition of Allis-Chal-mers for a rehearing en banc with respect to its judgment entered September 13, 1965. I joined in the action to grant a rehearing en banc for the reason that two members of the division which heard the case originally voted for the rehearing en banc, and because of the importance of the question involved in this review.
On such rehearing en banc, a majority of our court decided to withdraw the prior opinion and judgment of the division which heard the original review and reached a contrary result.
In short, the majority holds that a union which imposes fines upon its members for crossing a picket line of the union and seeks to secure payment of the fines by suit or by threat of suit is guilty of violating the prohibition, in Section 8(b) (1) (A)2 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141, et seq., against union action restraining or coercing employees *662in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 3 of the Act.
The effect of this holding is to say that the employees of Allis-Chalmers have a statutory right to belong to the Union on their own terms; to deny the Union the right to regulate its internal affairs; to rule that the disciplinary action taken by the Union infringes upon the rights of the dissident members protected by Section 7 of the Act; and to rule that such disciplinary action by the Union constitutes restraint or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) of the Act.
I feel compelled to dissent from the result reached by the learned majority in this rehearing en banc.
I cannot agree that the Union action in this case violates Section 7 of the Act.
In substance, Section 7 grants to an employee the right of self-organization for collective bargaining purposes and to refrain from concerted activities, including an economic strike. It does not necessarily follow that an employee who is a union member may claim the same right of self-organization for collective bargaining purposes and at the same time claim the right to belong to the labor organization on his own terms. I cannot believe the Congress intended any such result.
I shall not belabor the legislative history of the Act, except to say that it is perfectly clear to me that employees are granted the right to belong to a union or not to belong to a union. If the employees elect to belong to a union and through such membership engage in concerted activities (an economic strike in this instance) for the purpose of collective bargaining, I find no prohibition in Section 7 to prevent a union from disciplining those members who decline to honor an authorized strike.
It has never been disputed that a union may discipline its members for engaging in an unauthorized strike. I fail to see any congressional purpose to distinguish between wildcat strikers and strikebreakers. The activities of each are equally abhorrent to the establishment and maintenance of industrial peace through the orderly processes of collective bargaining.
In this case, membership in the Union is voluntary and not compulsory. The applicable union contracts with Allis-Chalmers incorporate union security clauses. These do not compel union membership as such but only require an employee to become and remain “a member of the Union to the extent of paying his monthly dues * * This limitation on union security clauses was declared by our court in Union Starch & Refining Co. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 7 Cir., 186 F.2d 1008, 27 A.L.R.2d 629 (1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 815, 72 S.Ct. 30, 96 L.Ed. 617 (1951), and remains unimpaired today.
Here, the strikebreaking employees had a choice. They could reject full union membership and merely pay their monthly dues, and thus remain outside and beyond the reach of union discipline. They chose, however, to associate themselves with others in full union membership. Thereby, they elected to receive all the benefits of full membership through the medium of collective bargaining. It necessarily follows that they incurred an ensuing obligation of union solidarity with respect to concerted work refusal. A member’s obligations to his union as the reciprocal counterpart of his rights within the organization has been the *663subject of much writing4 and need not be further extended here. See Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs., 4 Cir., 314 F.2d 886 (1963), cert. den. 372 U.S. 976, 83 S.Ct. 1111, 10 L.Ed. 2d 142 (1963).
Section 7 of the Act safeguards an employee’s right to strike and his right to refrain from striking. However, such rights are far from absolute rights. The Supreme Court has held that the right to strike falls in the face of a union’s consent to a “no strike” clause in its labor agreement. National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682 (1939). An employee union member may not exercise his right to strike contrary to an internal union regulation prohibiting membership strikes unauthorized by the union. Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs., supra. The Supreme Court recently held that an employer’s right to “the use of a temporary layoff of employees [lockout] solely as a means to bring economic pressure to bear in support of the employer’s bargaining position, after an impasse has been reached” is not “in any way inconsistent with the right to bargain collectively or with the right to strike” as granted by Section 7 of the Act. American Ship Bldg. v. National Labor Relations Board, 380 U.S. 300, 308, 310, 85 S.Ct. 955, 962, 963, 13 L.Ed.2d 855 (1965).
The underlying statutory authority of bargaining representatives to represent all the members of an appropriate unit is derived from Sections 7 and 9(a)5 of the Act and it must be allowed a “wide range of reasonableness” in serving the unit it represents without expecting to satisfy all who are represented. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953).
The First Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. International Union, United A., A. & A. I. Wkrs., 320 F.2d 12 (1 Cir., 1963), considered the amenability of union members to internal union regulations in light of Section 7 and Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. It concluded on pages 15-16:
“Under Section 7, absent a collective bargaining agreement to the contrary, the employee has indeed the unfettered right to abstain from indulging in union activity. He need not ‘form,’ ‘join’ or ‘assist’ a labor organization and, again, an agreement apart, this inactivity cannot be the source of recriminations. It is by now too clear for citation that this facet of Section 7 was designed to prevent forcing the unwilling worker into a union.
“However, we believe that it is quite another thing when the employee eschews his ‘reluctance’ and voluntarily joins a labor organization. At this point, under our view, the employee takes off the protective mantle of Section 7’s ‘refraining’ provision and renders himself amenable to the reasonable internal regulations of the organization with which he chooses to cast his lot.
* * *
“* * * It is true that under Section 7 of the Act, and in the light of the limited security agreement which obtained between the Company and the Union in the instant case, the subject employees need not have joined the Union. However, once they voluntarily took that step, they embraced not only the benefits but also the burdens which flowed from their union membership. One of those ‘burdens’ was the duty of comporting with the Union’s reasonable *664internal regulations; a requirement they failed to discharge here.”
I would conclude, therefore, that Congress in the 1947 amendments to the Act, aside from barring a union from attempting to enforce its internal regulations by affecting the members’ employment status, refrained from exploring the area of internal union affairs. It did not interfere with nor prohibit the right of the union to discipline its members for the violation of reasonable rules or policies it could legitimately expect its members to observe.
This conclusion is buttressed by the enactment of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C.A. § 401, et seq. The proviso added to Section 101(a) (2) reads: “Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.”
Further, Section 101(a) (5) recognizes the right of a union to discipline by fine, suspension and expulsion and provides certain procedural safeguards for the offending member.
The explicit provisions of this 1959 legislation are in harmony with the rationale I have attributed to the 1947 enactments.
Now, a few words about the strikes involved in this case. The first strike occurred in 1959. Of approximately 7400 bargaining unit employees, 175 union members elected to disregard the strike and work. The union warned the strikebreakers they were subject to a fine of as much as $100 for each day they worked during the strike. The strike continued for 54 working days and the dissidents remained at work. Subsequently, the offenders were fined, but no fine was more than a total of $100.
The second and third strikes occurred in 1962 and each lasted less than a week. Members who refused to strike and elected to work were fined in amounts up to $100 each.
I can only conclude that the fines instituted by the Union against its dissident members for strikebreaking in this case do not represent the type of restraint or coercion proscribed as an unfair labor practice in Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. My reading of the legislative history, cited authorities and the comprehensive regulatory provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, supra, makes clear to me that Congress was not addressing its proscription to intra-union regulation but rather to coercive acts of violence, intimidation or job discrimination.
In National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Amalgamated Local 286, Etc., 7 Cir., 222 F.2d 95, 97-98 (1955), we held that the action of a union in threatening to withhold certain insurance coverage from members because they had refused to pay certain disciplinary assessments and fines imposed on them by the union was not a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, and was in full conformity with the union’s right to regulate its internal affairs. See also, American Newspaper Pub. Ass’n. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 7 Cir., 193 F.2d 782, 800 (1951).
Finally, the majority accepts the view of Allis-Chalmers that the opinion under review here is in conflict with our prior holding in Allen Bradley Company v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 286 F.2d 442, 446 (1961). I do not agree.
The only question for decision in Allen Bradley was whether a contract provision under which the union agreed to waive its right to fine its members for exercising their statutory rights was within the area of mandatory bargaining under the Act. The court held that it was, and that the employer did not violate Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by insisting upon such clause in its negotiations with the union. The question here is whether a union violates Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by imposing such a fine. We see no inconsistency in the holdings in the two cases. Any gratuitous statements in *665286 F.2d at page 446 must be considered as dicta and not controlling here. If they are not to be considered as dicta and are controlling here, this being a rehearing en banc, I would reject such statements, but not the decision in Allen Bradley.
I finally conclude that the imposition of the fines in question are not only free from proscribed restraint and coercion but are within the protected area of permissible internal union regulation.
In conclusion, to say that this court has bent a sympathetic ear to the frequent claims of employers to be kept secure from restraint or interference in their right to manage their own affairs, as a proper prerogative of management, requires no citation of authorities. I have joined in the recognition of such right claimed by employers.
That same concern for freedom of management to regulate the internal affairs of its own business, in all fairness, dictates my view that unions should have the same freedom of internal control. And, contrary to the insistent claims of Allis-Chalmers, I can only conclude that any other disposition of this case than indicated herein would be contrary to law and would adversely affect the orderly establishment and maintenance of good management-labor relations.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the result reached by the division of this court in its judgment rendered on September 13, 1965.

. Locals 248 and 401 of International Union, UAW-AFL-OIO.

. “It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—

. “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a) (3) of this title.” 29 U.S. C.A. § 157.

. Cox, Internal Affairs of Labor Unions, 58 MichX.Rev. 819 (1960); Summers, Legal Limitations on Union Discipline, 64 Harv.L.Itev. 1049 (1951); Gregory, Labor and the Law p. 106.

. “Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment * * 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(a).