Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

124 Fffty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board5. Reimbursement of Union Initiation FeeIn Mode O'Day Co., 113 the Board reconsidered its prior decision'74 in this case and reached the same conclusion on themerits of the unfair labor practice issue, but revised its earlierremedy.The employer was found to have violated Section 8(a)(2) and(1) by requiring an employee to sign a union dues-checkoff authorizationform on her first day of employment, despite the 30-day grace period permitted under the contract for new employeesto join the union. The employer deducted $25 per week fromher pay towards the union's initiation fee. No part of the deductionswas applied towards dues. Despite the employee's protests,the deductions continued for 5 weeks, then stopped. The employeevoluntarily left the respondent's employ after 6 weeks on thejob.In its original decision, the Board affirmed the administrativelaw judge's recommended Order that the employer restore to theemployee the total amount deducted under the coerced checkoff—$125.The judge cited General Instrument Corp.,'" in supportof this remedy.In its supplemental decision, a panel majority of Chairman Stephensand Member Cracraft disavowed the remedial approach ofGeneral Instrument and applied instead the long-established ruleespoused in Campbell Soup Co.,'" that reimbursement of initiationfees, as opposed to union dues, is not appropriate once anemployee has worked a sufficient period of time to become liablefor the payment of such fees. Here, once an employee workedpast the 30-day grace period, he or she was liable for the full feepayment regardless of how long after the grace period the employeeworked. Thus, the employee was not entitled to the reimbursementof the $125 because she would have been required topay the initiation fee in any event because she worked beyond 30days. This formula allowed the restoration of the status quo ante,i.e., it placed the parties in the position they would have been inhad no unfair labor practice taken place. There was neitherunjust enrichment for the employee who would have owed thefee, nor was there any unauthorized punitive effect on the employer.The majority noted that the General Instrument formulais at odds with these well-recognized remedial policies.Member Johansen, in dissent regarding the remedy, wouldhave required the employer to reimburse the employee $100—theamount that was improperly deducted during the grace period.In his view, because the installment deductions began prematurely(due to the coerced checkoff), the employee was entitled to175 290 NLRB No. 162 (Chairman Stephens and Member Cracraft; Member Johansen dissenting inParr).174 280 NLRB 253 (1986).175 262 NLRB 1178 (1982).175 152 NLRB 1645 (1965).