Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
— by Ted Ted
"While the only specific provision requiring the payment of dues and assessments appears in the ITU's Bylaws, 21 the relevant sections must be consulted in order to interpret the above-quoted provisions of the General Laws which require that only "members", "members in good standing", or members entitled to all benefits be employed.

"Examination of the pertinent sections of the bylaws quoted in footnote 21, supra, leaves no doubt that the payment of dues and assessments is essential to be a Union member, to maintain membership in good standing, and to be entitled to the benefits of membership.Hence, the payment of dues and assessments has been made a condition of employment".

"The payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment, and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirements of section 8(a)(3) of the Act"......

anon -The exact portion of the case is quoted above. Take a deep breath and read the entire paragraph in its entirety.

The first two paragraph's relate entirely to the redundant commentary & summary of the ALJ's review of pertinent case facts; whereas, the third one....the line in question relates entirely to the NLRB Boards conclusion as to the totality of the facts as related to the NLRA & the effect to interstate commerce on a national level.

ALJ's & their D & O's when left unchallenged or tested at the Board in DC typically do one of the following - go for or against the individual, go for or against the company or go for or against the union. What they do not do is become part & parcel to Federal Labor Law. That is, while they may justify one of the 6-positions above in a particular matter, they only effect the parties involved directly.

This is where you misconstrue the purpose and intent of the NLRA (the Act) and the purpose & intent of NLRB Board decisions and orders. Again, par. 1 & 2 above, as directly quoted are a direct quote (reprint) of the ALJ's viewpoint & specific writings in the case.


Paragraph 3 is the NLRB Boards clarification of the dues & assessments by the ALJ; and they state - quite clearly I might add:

"The payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment", [See how they diposed of the obvious immediately? That they addressed this first obviously confused this in your mind, but all Courts do it this way in the USA.].......,"and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirements of section 8(a)(3) of the Act"......

assessments: may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment

while -

dues: "and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirement of section 8(a)(3)"...

So, as to FEDERAL LABOR LAW, meaning the NLRA, a Board decision & order which has not been appealed, reversed/overturned becomes part of the the NLRA via precedent.

The Board clearly addressed two issues & they disposed of the first one, "ASSESSMENTS" in short order & matter of factly with the qualifying statement shown above in 9-WORDS!

The UBC intersperses the words "dues assessment" as a legal tactic to end run the known caselaw. Why do you think they hire slick attorneys?

Again, per the NLRB Board the terms "DUES" and "ASSESSMENTS" have two seperate and distinct Legal Meanings and progenies of Caselaw behind them. The Board here, in this case seperated the two and made individual D& O's as to their meaning as defined under the NLRA.

Anon, the UBC Corporate Counsel (International Level) regularly engages with all Council Attorneys for each & every case that comes down the pike, whether directly from Union Carpenters and/or other trades with similar interests as our own. When they deal with issues that adversely impact the way they see the world, or the way McCarron wants to operate things....guess what the first thing they do is?

Simple - Find me a fucking way around it (not being rude, that is how it is and how they think). "Dues Assessment" is their end run around it, it is what they came up with, but it is still illegal. "Work Assessment" confuses it further and that is what attorneys all do when they are not lying - obfuscating issues, using semantics, talking in circles, verbal masturbation (sorry, another lawyer funny, bit it is what it is).

The NLRB Board then proceeded to the second & final issues "DUES", the validity of which requires a union shop agreement meeting the requirements of 8(a)(3). By valid union shop agreement, they are referring to a valid union security clause. The proviso to section 8(a)(3) and the appropriate caselaw on that issue was posted elsewhere on this blog & you were referred to it so you could read it/follow the paper trail.

I have not disputed the UBC's ability to collect dues. All Unions have that right. However, I have disputed when they can and cannot collect them as per NLRB Board precedent and posted the caselaw, as written/authored by the NLRB Board for others to absorb and digest.

Any problem you have with their decision & order should be directed to them in Washington DC.

You have to read these cases more carefully. The Board and it's attorneys & legal aides who prep these cases for them regularly parrot and directly quote the ALJ's cases ver batim. What the Board does in its review is two-fold, predicated upon briefs and their aides direct review....that is - they seek out & find errors in law or fact as related to the NLRA and to Judicial error in citations or ALJ's interpretations of past Board or Appellate decisions.

When they find such errors in the ALJ's decision & order(s), they correct them to conform to the NLRA & for the Judicial error.

This is exactly what they did here. They corrected the ALJ on the issue of "ASSESSMENTS" and they let stand the portion of the decision for "DUES" with minor modification/qualification.

Anon - you opened the door on this by asking good questions. What you forget, as you note how difficult the legalese is [it's not a bad thing], the Board may hear & review and write opinions on many of these cases at once, so words get mashed, the crap gets long & tedious and can therefore lead to confusion. This is especially true if your are reading & reviewing thousands of cases, it's the nature of the beast.

You have to learn to seperate what the ALJ stated in his or her opinion via direct quote, when it is interspersed directly in the NLRB Boards decision & order and read it in its full context, knowing who (which actor) is stating what and for what reason. This is where you misread the case.

Subject - "the payment of assessments"......4-words, was disposed of by 9-words....

"may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment".

Because the NLRB Board made this pronouncement, and the case is not overturned - it is embedded into precedent and thus Federal Labor Law. It stands until challenged and the Board, an Appeals Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be.

Your mistake is in reading this in the context of an ALJ Case which is never appealed and which only effect the direct actors involved, thus never impacting the Federal landscape of what the NLRA & Federal Labor Law protect.

When the Board says it, no one can do it...not the printing company, not a UBC GC or Sub, not an Electrical Contractor etc.

Even when you are insulting, I am still teaching you...the only thing you have to decide is this (you still did not answer my question):

Are you for the rank & file, or are you for the UBC Corporatism? I believe I know the answer to that, I just want to hear you state it one way or another, for clarity's sake...