Resignation from the Union and Checkoff of Dues
Case 35
Resignation from the Union and Checkoff of Dues
Company The Hearst Corporation Capital Newspaper Division Union Newspaper Guild of Albany, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO. CLC
BACKGROUND Section 13 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement provides for the voluntary checkoff of union dues. Section 13 of the contract permits an employee to revoke the checkoff on the first anniversary of its execution. After that date, the employee may revoke the checkoff between 30 and 15 days before the expiration of the annual anniversary of the execution of the checkoff authorization, or upon the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Ms. O’Toole is a permanent employee of the company who has worked in the bargaining unit since 1985. Ms. O’Toole exercised an authorization for the checkoff of union dues shortly after she was employed by the company. Section 2 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement makes provision for procedures for employees to resign from the union by appealing to the Job Classification and Compensation Committee. The same section of the agreement states that employees could also apply to be relieved of any financial obligations imposed upon them by the contract. By a letter dated April 14, 1999, Ms. O’Toole informed the union of her desire to resign from the union and willingness to discuss the matter with the appropriate union officials. Ms. O’Toole met with union officials on April 16, 1999. In that discussion Ms. O’Toole indicated that she would resign from the union and become an agency-fee payer to the union. Subsequently, Ms. O’Toole changed her mind and asked that the union take up her request to resign from the union and cease being obliged to pay dues or agency fees to the union. Subsequently, a meeting was scheduled for the purposes suggested by Ms. O’Toole, but she failed to attend the meeting. In May 1999, the company ceased checking off Ms. O’Toole’s union dues. The union noticed that the last fee accounting that Ms. O’Toole’s dues were deducted was in May. In June the union filed a grievance protesting the company’s failure to checkoff Ms. O’Toole’s dues. At about this time a second bargaining unit employee made the same requests as Ms. O’Toole. The company subsequently ceased deducting this second employee’s dues and remitting them to the union. The union scheduled another meeting for Ms. O’Toole and the second employee to meet with the union and discuss what was necessary to resign from the union and for them to make application to be relieved from financial obligations to the union. Again, neither employee attended the meeting. At no time did either employee revoke their checkoff authorizations as specified by Section 13 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Neither employee paid union dues or fees once the company ceased checkoff. The union did not request that either employee be discharged for their failures to tender dues and fees.
POSITION OF THE UNION It is the position of the union that both employees have resigned from the union, however, both employees are agency employees and must pay the equivalent of dues and fees. Neither employee attended either of the two meetings scheduled with the appropriate committee for them to make application to be relieved of financial obligations to the union. Further, neither employee revoked their dues checkoff authorizations as provided for in Section 13 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The company simply took it upon itself to cease deducting and remitting these two employees’ dues in direct contravention to Articles 2 and 13 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Clearly this is a violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, and the Board should order the company to cease and desist its violation of the Act and remit the dues owing.
POSITION OF THE COMPANY The company denies any wrongdoing in this case. The company relies on Section 2 language in the collective bargaining agreement. Section 2 permits employees to resign from the union and this is what the two subject employees did. Further, the two employees made applications to the union to be relieved from financial obligations to the union. When the company was informed of the employees’ resignation from the union it was clear to the company that they no longer wished to have any relations with the union. It is at that point that the obligation to checkoff dues is no longer binding on the employee, and by implication the company. Therefore, it is the company’s position that there is no violation of the Act, and these charges should be dismissed
This can only be half a page, in Times New Roman double spaced size 12. Please do not summarize this case only give the response on who you think should win the union or management and why. Please be sure to include the Legal basis in Section 8(a) of the NLRA – prohibits employers from interfering with concerted activity to support your response.
Things to consider when answering:
The union is saying they have a contract that specifies a procedure for union members to resign and stop paying dues. The company interfered with their right to process the requests for these two employees by automatically stopping the dues checkoff.
In this case, the two employees did not pay any union dues or fees once they resigned. The union says the company is required to deduct the dues from their pay since the employees signed the dues checkoff back in 1985.
The company is saying that the two employees voluntarily agreed to dues checkoff in 1985 when they first started working at the company. Obviously, they do not want to be part of the union anymore, so their agreement in 1985 has been rescinded.
The checkoff provision is “voluntary” meaning that union members can either pay dues directly to the union or can have dues automatically deducted from their pay.
It is the union’s problem to collect money from these two employees – not the company’s.
Answer preview to resignation from the Union and Checkoff of Dues
APA
197 words
