FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 2, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL 578,
Petitioner/Cross-Respondent,
v. Nos. 08-9564, 08-9569
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,
Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(NLRB-1:27-CB-4935)
Terrence A. Johnson, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner/Cross-
Respondent.
Milakshmi V. Rajapakse (Meredith L. Jason, Supervisory Attorney, Ronald
Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John
H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate
General Counsel, with her on the brief), National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) held that
the Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 578, engaged in unfair
labor practices when it persuaded Shaw Stone & Webster Construction, Inc. to
fire Sebedeo Lopez for failing to pay his union dues. In support of its holding,
the NLRB found that the union failed to provide Mr. Lopez with legally sufficient
notice about his delinquent dues or a reasonable opportunity to cure the
delinquency before it threatened, and then successfully sought, his dismissal.
Before us, the union challenges the factual findings on which the NLRB
pinned its decision, arguing that a better reading of the record suggests it behaved
appropriately toward Mr. Lopez. The problem is that we must affirm the NLRB’s
decision so long as “substantial evidence” exists in the record to support its
findings. Our job isn’t to make the call ourselves, but only to ask whether a
reasonable mind could have made the call the NLRB made. And our review of
the record of this case reveals ample, if not incontestable, evidence to support the
NLRB’s factual findings. So it is that we are obliged to deny the union’s petition
for review and grant the NLRB’s cross-petition seeking enforcement of its order.
I
A
The Laborers’ International Union and Shaw Stone & Webster are parties to
a collective bargaining agreement. Under the agreement, the union serves as the
exclusive collective bargaining agent for all laborers, journeymen laborers, and
-2-
apprentice-laborers at the company’s Pueblo, Colorado work site. Like many
collective bargaining agreements, this one contains a “union-security” provision
requiring all employees represented by the union to join the union. If an
employee fails to join the union, or fails to keep current on his union dues, the
union-security provision permits the union to seek and obtain the employee’s
dismissal from the company.
Mr. Lopez started work at Shaw Stone & Webster on July 17, 2006. No
one disputes that he was and is represented by the union in collective bargaining
and so bound to join the union. In early October 2006, however, the union
noticed that Mr. Lopez had not paid his initiation fee or certain dues. As a result,
the union prepared a letter on October 12, 2006 addressed to Shaw Stone &
Webster that “request[ed] the dismissal of” Mr. Lopez. The letter represented
that Mr. Lopez owed the union $120 in late dues and $25 for reinstatement, but it
did not explain how these amounts were calculated or provide Mr. Lopez any
grace period in which to make payments. Instead, the letter purported to demand
Mr. Lopez’s immediate dismissal.
Still, not everything was quite as it appeared. Though the letter was
addressed to the company, and though it spoke of Mr. Lopez in the third person,
the union never sent the letter to Shaw Stone & Webster and the union did not
actually seek Mr. Lopez’s dismissal at that time. Instead, the union mailed the
letter only to Mr. Lopez in an effort to coax him into paying up quickly.
-3-
But even still, not everything was as it appeared. Mr. Lopez insists he
never received the letter or otherwise heard from the union about his overdue
account. For its part, the union says that Mr. Lopez must have received the letter
because it sent the correspondence to the right address, with sufficient postage,
and the letter was never returned. The union also insists that it instructed Mr.
Lopez’s shop steward, Dave Lucero, to discuss the overdue dues problem with
Mr. Lopez in person. In any event, the parties agree Mr. Lopez didn’t respond
with any immediate payment.
When nothing happened, the union prepared another letter, this one dated
November 1, 2006. Like the first letter, this one was addressed to Shaw Stone &
Webster and sought “the dismissal of” Mr. Lopez. This letter represented that
Mr. Lopez’s unpaid dues now totaled $415. But again like its predecessor, this
letter provided no explanation about how the overdue amount was calculated, let
alone why the amount nearly tripled in three weeks, and no deadline for payment.
Unlike the first letter, though, the union made sure Mr. Lopez and the company
received this one, hand-delivering copies of the document to both on November 1.
The parties disagree about what happened next. Mr. Lopez says he spoke
with Mr. Lucero and that Mr. Lucero told him to contact the union’s office
manager, Patricia Martinez, to make arrangements for payment. Mr. Lopez insists
that Mr. Lucero did not explain how the union calculated the amount due or
provide a specific deadline for payment. For its part, the union says that Mr.
-4-
Lopez spoke over the phone to the union’s Secretary Treasurer, Rudy Ortiz, who
told him he had to pay $150 that week and another $150 the next week, or else
he’d be fired.
It is undisputed, however, that Mr. Lopez did contact Ms. Martinez
sometime between November 1 and November 5, and told her that he was able to
pay $200 toward his past-due account. Ms. Martinez replied that this was “okay,”
and the following Friday, November 10, Mr. Lopez purchased a money order for
$200. On Monday, November 13, Mr. Lopez called Ms. Martinez to tell her that
he was planning on bringing the $200 money order to the union’s main office in
Colorado Springs that day. Ms. Martinez volunteered that Mr. Lopez “didn’t have
to go all the way to Colorado Springs” because Mr. Ortiz would be at the Pueblo
office and Mr. Lopez could simply drop off the payment with him.
According to Mr. Lopez, when he arrived at the Pueblo office later that day
it was locked and appeared unstaffed. So Mr. Lopez called Ms. Martinez to ask
what he should do. Ms. Martinez told him to “go ahead and fill out the money
order and throw it in the slot in the door.” Mr. Lopez claims he did just that,
though the union insists it never found the money order. Mr. Lopez also claims
that he asked Ms. Martinez if he could have until Friday, November 17, to pay the
remaining $215 sought by the union in its November 1 letter. According to Mr.
Lopez, Ms. Martinez replied that he could have until Thursday, November 16,
something Ms. Martinez does not dispute.
-5-
But the union didn’t wait that long. Instead, on Tuesday, November 14, it
contacted the company, and this time it unmistakably demanded Mr. Lopez’s
immediate discharge. Later the same day, Randy Espinoza, the company’s
General Foreman, walked Mr. Lopez off the job site. Mr. Espinoza explained to
Mr. Lopez that he was acting on “strict orders from Rudy Ortiz to walk [Mr.
Lopez] off the job because of [his] union dues.” Despite having been fired, Mr.
Lopez claims he paid the remaining $215 on Thursday, November 16, just as he
and Ms. Martinez had agreed.
B
Upset with his firing and how it unfolded, Mr. Lopez complained to the
union, the company, and the NLRB. Eventually, the union and company agreed
to reinstate Mr. Lopez and the NLRB decided to press unfair labor practice
charges against the union. The case was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ), who accepted Mr. Lopez’s testimony that he never received the October 12
letter, as well as Mr. Lopez’s account of the events following his receipt of the
November 1 letter. With those facts in hand, the ALJ proceeded to hold that the
union violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on both November 1 and
November 14.
First, the ALJ concluded that the union’s November 1 letter violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA. Section 8(b)(1)(A) makes it an unfair labor
practice for a union to “restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
-6-
rights guaranteed in [Section 7 of the Act],” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1); Section 7, in
turn, affords employees the right to “refrain from any or all [union] activities,” 29
U.S.C. § 157. The ALJ reasoned that the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
threatening Mr. Lopez with immediate discharge without first explaining to him
how it calculated his delinquency or offering him a reasonable period of time to
cure that delinquency.
Second, the ALJ concluded that the union’s actions on November 14, when
it secured Mr. Lopez’s discharge, likewise violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). The ALJ
stressed that, even by this time, the union still had not explained to Mr. Lopez
how it calculated the amounts it claimed were overdue. The ALJ also emphasized
that, while the union had by then agreed to a payment plan with Mr. Lopez, it
denied Mr. Lopez the chance to complete that payment plan, even though he was
on track to do so. Separately, but relatedly, the ALJ found that the union’s
actions on November 14 violated Section 8(b)(2) of the NLRA, which makes it an
unfair labor practice for a union “to cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee,” 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(2), in a manner aimed at
“encourag[ing] or discourag[ing] membership in any labor organization,” 29
U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). The ALJ reasoned that the union violated this provision by
asking and persuading the company to fire Mr. Lopez without explaining to him
-7-
how it calculated the overdue amounts or affording him the chance to complete
the agreed payment plan. 1
The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s decision and ordered the union to undertake
certain remedial measures. Among other things, the NLRB ordered the union to
make Mr. Lopez whole for any loss of pay or benefits, to remove from its files
any reference to Mr. Lopez’s unlawful discharge, and to take steps to avoid
similar problems with other employees in the future. In response, the union filed
a timely petition for review with this court, and the NLRB filed a cross-petition
for enforcement of its order. 2
1
The ALJ declined to find that the union violated Section 8(b)(2) on
November 1. Though the union’s November 1 letter purported to ask the
company to dismiss Mr. Lopez immediately, the union insists that it never sent
the letter to the company or took any other steps at that time to secure Mr.
Lopez’s dismissal. The ALJ also found that the company knew the union had a
practice of sending threatening letters to its members in order to coax them into
paying, without really intending to seek their discharge. According to the ALJ,
the company knew that the union would seek an employee’s discharge only at a
later time, as in this case, if its threatening letters failed to convince the employee
to pay. This aspect of the ALJ’s decision was not challenged before the NLRB
and is not before us. Accordingly, we have no reason to pass on its propriety.
2
At the time of its decision in this case, the NLRB enjoyed only two
members, though it is statutorily entitled to five. Before us, the union has not
questioned the NLRB’s authority to issue decisions with only two serving
members, though others have raised the question in other cases and obtained
competing rulings from our sister circuits. Compare Narricot Indus., L.P. v.
NLRB, 587 F.3d 654, 659 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that two-member NLRB can
issue decisions), Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d 410, 423-24 (2d Cir.
2009) (same), New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840, 845-46 (7th Cir.
2009) (same), and Ne. Land Servs., Ltd. v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2009)
(same), with Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469,
(continued...)
-8-
II
The Board has long read the NLRA as imposing certain fiduciary duties on
unions that benefit from union-security agreements. The union in this case does
not contest the NLRB’s interpretation of the NLRA, but instead insists as a
factual matter that it discharged all of its statutorily deduced fiduciary
obligations. Before turning to assess that factual claim, we first necessarily pause
to outline the nature of the fiduciary duties the union admits to owe and claims to
have met.
A
The NLRA seeks to secure for employees the liberty to join unions — and
not to join unions. In seeking to balance these sometimes competing objectives,
Congress provided in Section 8(b)(1)(A) that unions may not restrain or coerce
employees into engaging in union activities. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). In
Section 8(b)(2), Congress further prohibited unions from, among other things,
seeking an employee’s dismissal for lack of union membership. 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(b)(2).
2
(...continued)
472-73 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that two-member NLRB cannot issue decisions).
During the pendency of this appeal, two things have happened on this front: our
court has joined those courts holding that two-member decisions are permissible,
see Teamsters Local Union No. 523 v. NLRB, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 4912300
(10th Cir. 2009), and the Supreme Court has indicated its intent to address the
question, see New Process Steel, L.P., 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted,
130 S. Ct. 488 (Nov. 2, 2009) (No. 08-1457). At least for now, we are of course
bound by our governing circuit precedent approving two-member decisions.
-9-
At the same time, Congress provided an “exception” to these rules in
Section 8(a)(3). NLRB v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees’ Union, Local 568, 320
F.2d 254, 257-58 (3d Cir. 1963). Under that provision, a union representing
employees in collective bargaining may negotiate and enter into a union-security
agreement with the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Union-security agreements
require represented employees to join the union and authorize the union to seek
an employee’s dismissal if he fails to keep current on his dues. Congress’s reason
for allowing these agreements, the Supreme Court has explained, is “that in the
absence of a union-security provision many employees sharing the benefits of
what unions are able to accomplish by collective bargaining will refuse to pay
their share of the cost,” essentially free-riding on the work of, and benefits
provided by, the union and its paying members. NLRB v. Gen. Motors Corp., 373
U.S. 734, 740-41 (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Still, because union-security agreements afford the “union the formidable
power to compel an employee’s discharge,” their enforcement is “strictly
regulated.” Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 99 v. NLRB, 61 F.3d
41, 43 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Radio-Electronics Officers Union v. NLRB, 16
F.3d 1280, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1994)); see also Gen. Motors Corp., 373 U.S. at 742.
Relevant for our purposes, the Board has long interpreted Section 8(a)(3) to
embrace a fiduciary duty on the part of the union, requiring it to “deal[] fairly
with the employee” when enforcing its rights under a union-security agreement.
- 10 -
Local 545, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 161 NLRB 1114, 1121 (1966); see
also Philadelphia Sheraton Corp., 136 NLRB 888, 896 (1962), enforced 320 F.2d
254 (3d Cir. 1963). When a union adheres to this fiduciary duty, it lawfully
operates within Section 8(a)(3)’s “carefully circumscribed” exception to Sections
8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). Hotel, Motel & Club Employees’ Union, 320 F.2d at 258.
When it fails to fulfill this obligation, however, it operates outside of the
exception, and thus violates Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2).
Among other things, before invoking the union-security clause against an
employee, the union’s obligation to deal fairly with employees requires it to: (1)
provide the employee with actual notice of the precise amount due, including the
months for which dues are owed; (2) explain how it computed the amount due; (3)
give the employee a reasonable deadline for payment; and, (4) explain to the
employee that failure to pay will result in discharge. See, e.g., Coopers NIU
(Blue Grass), 299 NLRB 720, 723 (1990) (citing Western Publishing Co., 263
NLRB 1110 (1982)); Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 61 F.3d at 43; NLRB v. Local
1445, United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 647 F.2d 214, 217 (1st
Cir. 1981). Seeking an employee’s discharge without first providing this sort of
notice, the NLRB has held, violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA, because
such behavior tends to “restrain or coerce” the employee from exercising his right
to refrain from union membership. And it violates Section 8(b)(2) because such a
- 11 -
request amounts to an “attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee” in violation of his right to refrain from union membership.
While violations of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) often come in pairs, the
NLRB has noted that they can come singly. For example, a union might threaten
an employee with immediate discharge without first providing him with adequate
notice of his delinquency or a reasonable opportunity to cure it, but then take no
action toward carrying out its threat. Even assuming such conduct falls beyond
Section 8(b)(2)’s ambit because it doesn’t constitute an “attempt to cause an
employer to discriminate against an employee,” the NLRB has held it still
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) because of its tendency to “restrain or coerce”
employees in union activity. See Operating Eng’rs, Local Union No. 3, 313
NLRB 25, 33 (1993).
Put differently, the union cannot threaten to do under Section 8(b)(1)(A)
what it cannot actually do under Section 8(b)(2). See Teamsters Local Union No.
122, 203 NLRB 1041, 1041 (1973), enforced, 502 F.2d 1160 (1st Cir. 1974)
(union’s unlawful demand for termination constituted an 8(b)(1)(A) violation,
while union’s unlawful causing of termination constituted an 8(b)(2) violation).
Thus, before it may threaten an employee with an adverse employment action, the
union must afford him notice meeting all four requirements identified above.
Neither does it make a difference whether the employee subjectively feels
restrained or coerced by the union’s threatening conduct: a violation occurs
- 12 -
whenever the union’s conduct “reasonably tends to have a coercive effect.”
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 990 (Troy Textiles,
Inc.), 174 NLRB 1148, 1151 (1969), enforced, 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970). The
relevant test, then, is an objective, not subjective, one. 3
B
On appeal to us, the union does not challenge these legal principles, but
instead disputes the Board’s factual finding that it engaged in conduct
contravening them. In assessing such a challenge, we may ask only whether
substantial, not uncontested or incontestable, evidence exists in the record to
support the result the NLRB reached. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S.
474, 477 (1951). Under this standard of review, it is not our job to find facts
afresh. Instead, we ask only whether the record contains “such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support” the NLRB’s decision.
Id.; see also Energy West Mining Co. v. Oliver, 555 F.3d 1211, 1217 (10th Cir.
2009). In this respect, our job is something like the role of the instant-replay
booth in football: the call on the field presumptively stands and we may overturn
it only if we can fairly say that no reasonable mind could, looking at the facts
3
The NLRB has suggested that the duty of fair dealing may be less
rigorous when a union is seeking termination of a worker who has “willfully and
deliberately sought to evade his union-security obligations.” Western Publishing,
263 NLRB at 1113. In the proceedings before the ALJ and NLRB, the Union
unsuccessfully argued that Mr. Lopez fit under this exception, but it does not
raise the argument in this appeal, so we have no occasion to address the question.
- 13 -
again, stand by that call. So it is that we, like the instant-replay official, often
affirm decisions that we might not have made ourselves. See NLRB v. Interstate
Builders, Inc., 351 F.3d 1020, 1028 (10th Cir. 2003).
1
Viewed in this light, we have no difficulty concluding that the NLRB’s
decision in this case should be sustained. The union’s November 1 letter violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A), as the NLRB held, because the union claimed the right and
intent to seek Mr. Lopez’s immediate dismissal without first discharging its
fiduciary duties. The record unmistakably reveals that the November 1 letter (1)
did not explain how the union calculated the amount owed, (2) did not purport to
afford Mr. Lopez any (let alone a reasonable) deadline for payment, (3) yet,
threatened Mr. Lopez with immediate discharge. Whether or not the union sent
the letter to the company, and whether or not the company understood the letter to
be a request to fire Mr. Lopez immediately, see supra note 1, there is no question
that the letter had the reasonable tendency to cause an employee to fear that
possibility. And a Section 8(b)(1)(A) violation arises whenever a union engages
in conduct that would reasonably tend to coerce an employee into complying with
its demands, without first discharging its fiduciary obligations toward that
employee.
A similar story can be told of the union’s conduct on November 14, when it
arranged to have Mr. Lopez fired. The record contains ample evidence that, even
- 14 -
by this point, the union still had not explained to Mr. Lopez how it calculated his
dues, or provided him a reasonable time period in which to make payment. In
fact, there is evidence suggesting the union did just the opposite — first agreeing
to a payment schedule with Mr. Lopez on November 13, and then having him
fired the next day, before he could complete the agreed schedule and while he was
on track to do so. Though some of this evidence is disputed, we cannot say that a
“reasonable mind” had to reject it. And accepting this evidence leads
unavoidably to the conclusion that the union violated both Section 8(b)(1)(A)’s
prohibition against unduly restraining or coercing employees, as well as Section
8(b)(2)’s prohibition against causing an employer to fire an employee.
2
The union seeks to avoid these conclusions primarily by arguing that it
discharged its fiduciary duties in its October 12 letter to Mr. Lopez. At least two
problems attend this line of argument, however.
a
First, the ALJ credited Mr. Lopez’s testimony that he did not receive the
October 12 letter and, the ALJ held, the union could not have discharged its
fiduciary duties to him by means of a letter he never received. The union asks us
to overturn the ALJ’s factual finding, insisting that Mr. Lopez must have received
the October 12 letter because it affixed appropriate postage to the letter, properly
addressed it to Mr. Lopez, and placed it in the United States mail. These facts,
- 15 -
the union urges us, should be enough for us to invoke the “mailbox rule” and
presume that Mr. Lopez received the document.
The difficulty is that, even assuming without deciding that the NLRB was
obliged to follow the common law “mailbox rule” in the course of its work (an
issue the parties haven’t explored), that “rule” is not the sort of immutable legal
command the union suggests. Rather, it is simply an evidentiary presumption —
a presumption that items placed in the United States mail normally arrive where
they are directed because of the “probability that the officers of the [postal
service] will do their duty.” Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884).
Even in 1884, when the Supreme Court decided Rosenthal, no one claimed
perfection for the post office and the “mailbox rule” was and never has been more
than a presumption that may be rebutted by other evidence suggesting that the
addressee did not receive the letter. See id. at 193-94.
In fact, we have explained that, after a party makes a presumptive showing
of receipt using the “mailbox rule,” an opposing party’s sworn denial of receipt
can “create[] a credibility issue that must be resolved by the trier of fact.” Witt v.
Roadway Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1430 (10th Cir. 1998); see also S. Frederick
Sansone, 127 NLRB 1301, 1302 n.4 (1960). And that’s exactly what occurred
here. In this case, the ALJ, as trier of fact, received extensive and conflicting
sworn testimony from both sides about the letter’s mailing and receipt.
Ultimately, he credited Mr. Lopez’s testimony that he hadn’t received the letter,
- 16 -
explained his reasons for doing so, and the Board adopted the ALJ’s
determination as its own. The record, moreover, contains other evidence
supporting Mr. Lopez’s sworn testimony that he didn’t receive the October 12
letter — perhaps most notably that he took no action after the October 12 letter
but acted immediately after receiving the substantially similar November 1 letter.
Under the substantial evidence standard governing our review of this case,
we can insist on no more. We are required to look only for the existence of some
evidence from which a reasonable mind could conclude as the NLRB did, and in
doing so we take special care to remember that we “do not weigh the credibility
of one witness against another nor do we search for contradictory inferences.”
Osteopathic Hosp. Founders Ass’n v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 633, 636 (10th Cir. 1980)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ heard live testimony from the
various competing witnesses, found Mr. Lopez credible, explained his bases for
doing so, and other record evidence tends to confirm that finding. Unavoidably,
we must conclude substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s finding as
adopted by the Board.
b
Second, even supposing that Mr. Lopez did receive the October 12 letter as
the union insists, it would make no difference. The deficiencies of the November
1 letter were equally present in, not cured by, the October 12 correspondence.
Take for example the question of how the union calculated the amount Mr. Lopez
- 17 -
owed. The October 12 letter claimed that Mr. Lopez owed $145, but offered no
explanation of how that amount was calculated, other than to say that $120 of the
amount was attributable to “late dues” and $25 was attributable to “reinstatement
fees.” No explanation how the union calculated these numbers was included, nor
any information about which months’ dues were past due, as the NLRB requires.
Compounding the problem, the October 12 letter claimed Mr. Lopez owed $145,
but less than three weeks later the union sent its November 1 letter claiming Mr.
Lopez owed $415 dollars. Though the digits in the two letters were the same,
they were reshuffled and the amount due nearly tripled — with no explanation
given to Mr. Lopez for the difference. Equally problematic, the October 12 letter
did no better job than the November 1 letter in affording Mr. Lopez a reasonable
deadline for payment: to the contrary, just like the November 1 letter, the
October 12 letter purported to seek Mr. Lopez’s immediate discharge. Far from
fulfilling the union’s fiduciary obligations, then, the October 12 letter failed those
obligations, just as the November 1 letter had.
3
Even if the October 12 letter doesn’t help its cause, the union argues that it
told Mr. Lopez how his fees, dues, and any penalties would be calculated when he
first joined the union in June 2006. From this information, the union submits, Mr.
Lopez could have “figured out” how it arrived at the $415 figure mentioned in the
- 18 -
November 1 letter. And, the union says, the NLRB has never required more than
this for unions to discharge their fiduciary obligations.
The problem is that it has. The NLRB has long held that, in addition to any
duties the union owes to employees at the time of hiring, the union owes and must
discharge the fiduciary obligations set forth above, see supra Part II.A, when it
sets out to threaten, or take any action toward seeking, an employee’s discharge
under a union-security agreement. Claims that the employee knew or could have
gleaned information from other sources or earlier communications will not suffice
to discharge these obligations. As our sister circuit has explained, whether an
employee already knows the information the union’s fiduciary duties obliges it to
provide “is irrelevant. The Board has articulated a prophylactic rule that obviates
the need to inquire into [the employee’s] subjective knowledge” and focuses
instead on the “bright-line” question whether the union itself has discharged its
fiduciary functions. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 61 F.3d at 44. See also Blue
Grass, 299 NLRB at 723; NLRB v. Local 1445, United Food & Commercial
Workers, 647 F.2d at 217; NLRB v. Constr. & Bldg. Material Teamsters Local No.
291, 633 F.2d 1295, 1298-99 (9th Cir. 1980). Neither has the union challenged
the Board’s substantial body of precedent on this score as an impermissible or
unreasonable interpretation of the NLRA. Accordingly, it is our duty to apply
- 19 -
those precedents faithfully, and doing so we cannot help but agree with the NLRB
that the union failed to abide them in this case. 4
***
The union’s petition for review is denied and the NLRB’s cross-petition for
enforcement is granted.
4
Even if Mr. Lopez’s subjective knowledge were somehow relevant, the
union claims only that he had knowledge sufficient to allow him to calculate and
understand his past due amounts. It does not point to any record evidence that
Mr. Lopez was ever told, at the time of hiring or otherwise, that he was entitled to
a reasonable period to pay these overdue dues. Meanwhile, on both November 1
and 14, the union purported to claim the authority to seek Mr. Lopez’s immediate
termination without affording him any reasonable opportunity to pay the overdue
amounts. That deficiency alone would suffice to support the NLRB’s conclusion
that the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) on November 1, and Sections
8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) on November 14. See Blue Grass, 299 NLRB at 724;
Teamsters Local Union No. 122, 203 NLRB at 1042.
- 20 -