Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramsey v. National Labor Relations Board

February 12, 1964

THOMAS D. RAMSEY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT.



Author: Hastings

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, DUFFY and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.

HASTINGS, Ch. J.: Petitioner, Thomas D. Ramsey, seeks review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued September 25, 1962. This order dismissed petitioner's unfair labor practice complaint which charged discrimination, restraint and coercion in violation of sections 8(b)(1)(A), 8(b)(2), 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq . The Board's decision is reported in International Harvester Co., Indianapolis Works, 138 NLRB 923 (1962).

Petitioner began employment with International Harvester Company at Indianapolis, Indiana on February 10, 1942.

On September 16, 1955, the company executed a collective bargaining agreement with Local Union 98 of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,*fn1 for a term which expired August 1, 1958. The agreement contained a union security provision which required employees, as a condition of employment, to join the union and pay an initiation fee and periodic dues. There was a provision for checkoff of dues.

Petitioner joined the union "under protest" and authorized the company in writing to deduct periodic dues from his wages.

In 1957, the Indiana General Assembly enacted a Right to Work Law, Ind. Ann. Stat, §§ 40-2701 through 2706 (Burns Supp.), which made it unlawful to condition employment upon membership in a labor organization.

On April 29, 1958, petitioner sent a letter by registered mail to the company and the union. The second paragraph of this letter stated, "I request, no deduction be made from my pay except that which is a condition of employment. If at any time such condition ceases to exist, by law or otherwise, I request my release from membership in Local No. 98."

The company interpreted this letter as a request to cancel petitioner's checkoff authorization. Copies of a memorandum to this effect were sent by the company to petitioner and the union. The company did not deduct petitioner's union dues from his wages in May, 1958, and thereafter.

On July 1, 1958, the union certified to the company that petitioner was more than sixty days in arrears in payment of his dues and requested "that the appropriate action be taken against" petitioner.

Under the contract, no action could be taken against petitioner if he paid his dues within ten working days after the union certified him as delinquent. Petitioner was not informed of the union's certification of delinquency and did not pay the delinquent dues within the ten-day period or thereafter.

On July 21, 1958, the union filed a grievance with the company, charging that the company had violated the contract by not discharging petitioner.

On August 6, 1958, five days after expiration of the collective bargaining contract, the company rejected the union's grievance on two grounds. The company stated that due to expiration of the contract, the union security provisions were inoperative under the Indiana Right to Work Law. Also, that an Indiana circuit court order prohibited it from enforcing the union security provisions of the contract.*fn2

On August 22, 1958, the union certified its grievance of July 21, 1958, to formal arbitration pursuant to the provisions of its labor agreement with the company. Petitioner was not given notice of the arbitration proceeding and did not participate therein. The arbitrator found that the company should have discharged petitioner. However, due to the Indiana Right to Work Law, the arbitrator, with the union's consent, determined petitioner should be regarded as having been re-employed on August 1, 1958, the date the contract expired.

As a result of the arbitrator's decision, petitioner's seniority was reduced and he was laid off work from August 22, 1960 until April 17, 1961, as a result of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.