1 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 97
in a work stoppage. In one case 68 the Board concluded that a
union violated section 8(b) (1) (A) by imposing fines on its members
who crossed a picket line of a sister local at the plant where
each union represented a separate unit of employees. The Board
noted that although the picket line was lawful as to the local
establishing it, the other local in fining its members for crossing
the line was in effect enforcing a work stoppage or partial strike
by its members in violation of the no-strike provision of its
contract with the employer. It found that the union could not
take action in advancing another union's cause which it could
not take on its own behalf and that the immunity of the proviso
was not available to it because of the assertedly internal nature
of the dispute, in view of its breach of the basic statutory policy
of encouraging adherence to collective-bargaining contracts. A
similar result was reached in another case 68 where the union
threatened disciplinary action and fined two of its members
for refusing to join a work stoppage which was in violation of
the no-strike provision of its contract with the employer. The
work stoppage was in support of the union's claims concerning
wage rates payable for work at certain locations, a matter resolvable
under contract procedures which the union made no
effort to utilize to resolve the dispute. In holding that the imposition
of the fines was in violation of section 8 (b) (1) (A), the
Board emphasized that the public policy of enforcement of collective-bargaining
agreements overrides and outweighs the union's
right to discipline its members for violating rules enforced to
compel their participation in a strike in breach of a contract.
2. Fines Imposed on Employer Representatives
Section 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act, which prohibits a labor organization
from "restraining or coercing . . . an employer in the
selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances," was also found by
the Board in several cases to constitute a limitation upon a
union's right to fine its members for actions deemed contrary
to union policy and interest. In the San Francisco-Oakland
Mailers case, 7° the union had imposed fines upon the employer's
foreman and assistant foreman, both required by the contract
to be members of the union, because of alleged contract violation
they had permitted while supervising operations, and had
"Loc. 12419, Intl. Union of Est. 50 (Natl. Grinding Wheel Co.), 176 NLRB No. 89.
"Glaziers Loc. 1162 (Tusco Glass), 177 NLRB No. 37.
7° Son Francisco-Oakland Mailer's Union 18 (Northwest Publicattons), 172 NLRB No. 252.