TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

126 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
the union's conduct was actually motivated by the fact that the employee
continued to work during the union's strike and by his contemptuous
attitude toward the union " The Board also held that,
regardless of the union's motivation, the union's demand was unlawful
because it was made before the expiration of the 30-day grace period
for joining the union, and the employee had made a full tender of
dues and fees on the 30th day of his employment In this connection,
the Board pointed out that the first day of a period within which an
act is to be performed is excluded from the computation of the period
In another case,8° a panel majority affirmed a trial examiner's finding
that a union violated section 8(b) (2) by causing an employer to
threaten employees with discharge if they did not pay strike assessments
levied by the union, and to check off such assessments as a
condition of their continued employment The majority noted that
the proviso to section 8(a) (3) does not include such assessments Si
In the Bradley Plumbing case,82 a panel majority held that a union,
at the time of an employee's discharge, attempted to cause and did
cause such discharge for discriminatory reasons—and thereby violated
section 8(b) (2)—even though the chain of events leading to the discharge
started prior to the so-called 10(b) period 33 The majority
stated:
In terms of the frame of reference supplied us by the Supreme Court's Bryan
[footnote omitted] decision, we may look to events outside the limitation period
for the purpose of shedding light upon the true character of occurrences within
the period only when such occurrences, as a substantive matter, may constitute
an unfair labor practice Thus, within the pertinent 6-month period preceding
November 24, 1959, we have the discharge of Hall by Bradley for what could
be a discriminatory reason, namely, that Hall had failed to join the Union at a
time when he was not/Ibligated to do so There is also the fact that Bradley
was faced with disciplinary action because he had been working with Hall, and
the fact that the Respondent refused to refer any union members to Bradley
until it had held a hearing on its charges We are satisfied that the above
occurrences within the 6-month limitation period tend to establish that the
Respondent, at the time of the discharge, was attempting to cause and did cause
Hall's discharge for discriminatory reasons Therefore, Kraiss' earlier remarks,
21 American Bakery tt Confectionery Workers, Local 173 (Continental Balking (Jo), 123
NLRB 937, Chairman Leedom and Member Jenkins dissenting on another point See also
Miami Valley Carpenters' District Council (B 0 Dania Go), 129 NLRB 517
so Florence Brooks, 131 NLRB No 97, Member Leedom dissenting with respect to those
employees who had executed checkoff authorizations specifically authorizing deductions
of "any assessments"
al The majority also held that an order directing reimbursement of these exactions was
proper in view of the actual coercion of the employees involved See above, pp 105-106,
on remedial orders as to reimbursement
= Plumbers d Pipe Fitters Local 214 (D L Bradley Plumbing it Heating Co ), 131 NLRB
No 122 Members Rodgers and Fanning signed the majority opinion • Member Leedom
dissented
= Sec 10(b) Precludes a complaint based on an unfair labor practice occurring more
than 6 months prior to the tiling and service of the charge Here, the discharge took
place the day after the 6-month period began Compare with Local Lodge No 1484,
14M v NLRB (Bryan Mfg 00 ), 862 11 S 411 (1960)