United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worke

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2015

362 NLRB No. 187 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 187
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufac-
turing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, Local 1192, AFL–
CIO, CLC (Buckeye Florida Corporation, a
subsidiary of Buckeye Technologies, Inc. and
Georgia Pacific, LLC) and Jimmie Ray Williams
and Buckeye Florida Corporation, a subsidiary
of Buckeye Technologies, Inc. and Georgia Pa-
cific, LLC, Party in Interest. Case 12–CB–
109654
August 27, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA,
HIROZAWA, JOHNSON, AND MCFERRAN
On March 24, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam Nelson Cates issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief, and an answering brief to the Respondent’s excep-
tions. The Respondent filed a reply brief to the General
Counsel’s answering brief.
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by (1) maintaining a policy under
which the Respondent charges nonmembers in the bar-
gaining unit a fee for processing a grievance, and (2)
implementing this policy by telling Charging Party Jim-
mie Ray Williams that it would process his grievance
regarding working overtime only if he paid the fee.1
On July 2, 2015, the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed with the Board a joint motion to withdraw
their respective exceptions and cross-exceptions.2 The
joint motion states that the Respondent has agreed to
make Charging Party Williams whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits he suffered as a result of the Em-
ployer’s refusal to permit him to work overtime. The
parties’ joint motion requests the Board to issue an Order
adopting the findings, conclusions, and Order set forth in
the administrative law judge’s decision, as modified by
the Respondent’s agreement to make the Charging Party
whole. We find that it will effectuate the policies of the

1 On April 15, 2015, the Board issued a notice and invitation to file
briefs in this case, in which it asked the parties and interested amici to
address certain questions, including whether the Board should adhere to
or overrule Machinists, Local 697 (H.O. Canfield Rubber Co.), 223
NLRB 832 (1976), and its progeny.
2 In light of the joint motion, on July 7, 2015, the Board issued an
Order suspending the April 15 notice and invitation to file briefs.
Act to give effect to the agreement reached between the
Respondent and the General Counsel. Accordingly, the
Respondent’s and the General Counsel’s joint motion to
withdraw their respective exceptions is granted.3
In the absence of exceptions, the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions are adopted, and we adopt the
judge’s recommended Order, as modified.4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge, as
modified below, and orders that the Respondent, United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Ener-
gy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
Union, Local 1192, AFL–CIO, CLC, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
“(c) Make Jimmie Ray Williams whole, with interest,
for any loss of earnings and benefits he suffered as a re-
sult of Buckeye Florida Corporation, a subsidiary of
Buckeye Technologies, Inc., and Georgia Pacific, LLC’s
refusal to allow him to work overtime.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member

3 We therefore withdraw the Board’s April 15 notice and invitation
to file briefs.
4 We are modifying the judge’s recommended Order to reflect the
Respondent’s agreement to make Charging Party Williams whole for
any loss of earnings or benefits he suffered as a result of the Employ-
er’s refusal to permit him to work overtime. The judge ordered the
Respondent to process Williams’ grievance without charging him a fee
and seek to have the Employer consider the grievance timely filed. In
light of the make-whole remedy to be provided to Williams, processing
of his grievance is unnecessary. We shall substitute a new Notice to
conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT enforce our current Fair Share Policy.
WE WILL NOT refuse to process any grievance because
a grievant is not a union member.
WE WILL NOT charge any nonmember a fee for pro-
cessing a grievance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL rescind our current Fair Share Policy.
WE WILL make Jimmie Ray Williams whole, with in-
terest, for any loss of earnings or benefits suffered as a
result of Buckeye Steel’s refusal to allow him to work
overtime.
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1192, AFL–
CIO, CLC
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12–CB–109654 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Mark G. Eskenazi, Esq. and Christopher Zerby, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Brad J. Manzolillo, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM NELSON CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on February 4, 2014, in Tallahassee,
Florida. Charging Party Jimmie Ray Williams (Charging Party
Williams or Williams) filed the charge initiating this matter on
July 19, 2013, and the General Counsel issued a compliant and
notice of hearing on November 29, 2013. The Government
alleges the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) by, maintaining a “Fair Share
Policy” which requires bargaining unit employees who are not
members of the Union to pay a fair share of the cost of pro-
cessing a grievance. The complaint further alleges the Union
refused to process a grievance request of Charging Party Wil-
liams because he failed to pay the cost of representation as set
out in the Union’s Fair Share Policy. The Union, in its answer
to the complaint, admits it had the Fair Share Policy specified
in the complaint. However, it denies it refused to process Wil-
liams’ grievance, but only declined representation if Williams
refused to pay. As affirmative defenses, the Union alleges it
neither made payment under the Fair Share Policy a condition
of employment nor applied a fee to non-members for represen-
tation that it does not apply to members.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to in-
troduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the demeanor of
the witnesses as they testified and I rely on those observations
here. I have studied the whole record, and based on the de-
tailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and find the Un-
ion violated the Act essentially as alleged in the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Union admits and I find, at all material times, the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
Local 1192, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Union) is and has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. I further find the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rub-
ber, Energy, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Internation-
al) is and has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. At all material times, Howard B. Pick-
els (Union President Pickels or Pickels) has been the president
SERVICE WORKERS LOCAL 1192 (BUCKEYE FLORIDA CORP.) 3
of the Union and has been an agent of the Union within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
The Union admits and I find, at all material times, Buckeye
Florida Corporation, a subsidiary of Buckeye Technologies,
Inc., which in turn is a subsidiary of Georgia Pacific, LLC (the
Company), is a Delaware corporation with an office and place
of business in Perry, Florida. The Company’s Perry, Florida
plant (the Perry plant or Foley, Florida plant) is a cellulose
chemical and paper pulp mill. In the past 12 months, a repre-
sentative period, the Company purchased and received at its
Perry, Florida plant goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the State of Florida. Thus, I find
the Company is and has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union and the International are jointly the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees at the Perry plant. Un-
der the collective-bargaining agreement in effect from April 1,
2012, through April 1, 2016, the Company recognized the Un-
ion and the International as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the following unit:
All persons employed by the Employer at its Foley, Florida
plant operation in production and maintenance work, but ex-
cluding all persons employed by the Employer as office cler-
ical, administrative, professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Florida is a “right to work” state1 and the collective-
bargaining agreement does not contain a union-security provi-
sion.
The collective-bargaining agreement contains a grievance
and arbitration procedure. (GC Exh. 2 pp. 6–11.) Under this
procedure a grievant must first address his or her dispute with
his or her immediate supervisor. (GC Exh. 2 p. 6.) If the
grievance is not satisfactorily resolved at this first step, the
procedure specifies the grievance is to be reduced to writing
and presented to progressively higher ranking managers by the
grievant and the “Grievance Representative.” To proceed to
arbitration, the International must provide its consent.
Pickels testified an employee may process a grievance with-
out the assistance or intervention of the Union. However, he
could only identify one instance in which a nonmember em-
ployee (Cruz) had, approximately 10 years ago, gone “out on
his own and tried to present his grievance without the Union’s
representation.” Pickels conceded, however, that an employee
cannot proceed past the third step to arbitration without the
approval of the International. Charging Party Williams was not
aware of any employee having filed a grievance on his or her
own behalf.

1 I take judicial notice that the Constitution of the State of Florida
contains a “right to work” provision. F.S.A. Const. Art. 1 sec. 6
(1968).
B. The Union’s Fair Share Policy
Since May of 2013, the Union has maintained a Fair Share
Policy. That policy applies to unit employees who are not
members of the Union and requires they pay a fee to the Union
if they wish to be represented by the Union when filing a griev-
ance under the collective-bargaining agreement. Members of
the Union approved the policy during a meeting on May 20,
2013. (USW Exh. 1.)
Within a day or so of the May 20, 2013 meeting, Pickels dis-
tributed copies of a “Notice to Employees for Fair Share Poli-
cy” to various union members who posted the notices in the 10
to 12 break areas throughout the Perry facility as well as on the
four union bulletin boards at the facility. The notice read as
follows:
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights as
an employee covered by the Collective Bargaining Agree-
ment (“CBA”) for Buckeye Florida and USW Local 1192.
Recently, Local 1192 of the United Steelworkers, with the
support of the International Union, has established a Fair
Share Policy for all employees covered by the CBA.
It is the policy of the United Steelworkers (“Union”) to repre-
sent all bargaining unit employees in a professional, diligent
manner and non-discriminatory manner, regardless of their
membership status in the Union. At the same time, the Un-
ion’s policy is that, as a matter of fairness and equity, non-
members should pay their fair share of the costs of the Union
representation on the same basis as regular members of the
Union.
In the event that the non-member of the Union (“Fair Share
Employee”) employed in the bargaining unit covered by the
USW Local 1192 wishes to be represented by the Union for a
grievance, s/he will be required to pay a Fair Share Represen-
tation Fee, which shall be:
“The equivalent of the USW’s dues less appli-
cable deductions under Communications Work-
ers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
The Fair Share representative Fee shall be pay-
able for the remainder of the term of the collec-
tive bargaining agreement in effect at the time
the grievance is filed. Such Fee shall also be
payable through the portion for the term of any
new collective-bargaining agreement(s) in ef-
fect subsequent to the filing of the grievance, if
the grievance is still being processed by the Un-
ion during the life of such new collective bar-
gaining agreement(s) until the processing and
complete resolution of the grievance had been
completed.”
The Union and the non-member shall make suitable arrange-
ments for the non-member to pay the Fair Share Representa-
tion Fee. If an employee refuses or fails to make payment of
the Fair Share Representation fee as described above for a pe-
riod of 30 days or longer, the Union may cease its representa-
tion of the employee in the grievance. (GC Exh. 2.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
This policy remained in effect until August of 2013, when
Williams filed his charge with the Board. (USW Exhs. 3 and
4.) At that time, the Union notified unit employees by posting
and hand delivery it was suspending the Fair Share Policy.
Since that time, the Union has not charged a unit employee a
fee for grievance processing.
C. Williams’ Grievance
Charging Party Williams had been a maintenance worker in
the Company’s preventative maintenance department at its
Perry facility since 1997. As such, he was a member of the unit
represented by the Union and the International. Until early
2013, Williams had been a member of the Union. However, in
early 2013, Williams resigned his membership and stopped
paying union dues. His employment with the Company ended
in July of 2013. The circumstances of Williams’ departure
from the Company are not before me.
Some time in May or June of 2013, Williams became aware
the Company had hired contractors to perform unit work which
he believed he could have performed on overtime. He initially
spoke with his immediate supervisor, Rico Jordan, but was
dissatisfied with the response. He next contacted Union Presi-
dent Pickels in the maintenance shop and made a verbal request
to file a grievance. Williams testified Pickels told him he had
to pay the equivalent of union dues for the remainder of the
term of the collective-bargaining agreement if he wanted the
Union to represent him in his grievance. Williams admitted
Pickels response upset him. And, he could not recall the re-
mainder of their conversation. Williams explained, “I don’t
remember what I said. It made me mad and honestly I have no
idea—there’s no telling what I told him—and I walked off.”
Following this conversation, Williams took no other action to
pursue his grievance and was unaware an employee could file a
grievance without the assistance of the Union. Williams testi-
fied he never paid union dues or fees to the Union and the Un-
ion never filed an overtime grievance for him.
On July 26, 2013, Union President Pickels emailed Charging
Party Williams a copy of the Union’s Fair Share Policy. Wil-
liams could not recall ever seeing a copy of the Fair Shop Poli-
cy prior to Pickels July 26 email.
Pickels was equally uncertain of the exact date Williams ap-
proached him but agreed Williams verbally raised an overtime
issue with him sometime in May or June of 2013. Pickels testi-
fied he informed Williams he would process the grievance, but
Williams would have to comply with the Fair Share Policy.
Pickels testified Williams responded “screw it, don’t worry
about it” and “stormed off.” On June 17, 2013, Pickels sent an
email to Union Attorney Brad Manzolillo with the International
in which he wrote, “A non member by the name of Jimmie Ray
Williams approached me about filing a grievance. . . . I advised
him of the fair share policy that the Local had recently voted in
and informed he [sic] that he would be expected to pay the
equivalent of the Union Dues in order for us to process the
grievance.” (USW Exh. 8.) Pickels testified, as far as he was
aware, Williams never pursued the grievance.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits an exclusive bargain-
ing representative from restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights, which includes the right to
refrain from joining a union. The Board has long held that a
union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it makes union mem-
bership a condition to processing a grievance. See, e.g., Auto
Workers Local 1303 (Jervis Corp. Bolivar), 192 NLRB 966
(1971). In Machinists Local 697 (H.O. Canfield Rubber Co.),
223 NLRB 832 (1976), the Board extended that holding to a
case in which the union had made payment of fees by non-
members a condition of grievance processing. The Board held
doing so discriminated against nonmembers and that to “dis-
criminate against nonmembers by charging them for what is
due them by right restrains them in the exercise of their statuto-
ry rights.” Id. at 835, relying on Hughs Tool Co., 104 NLRB
318 (1953) (in which the Board held that demanding nonmem-
bers pay a fee for grievance and arbitration processing violated
the union’s obligations under Section 9(a) of the Act warranting
revocation of the union’s certification). Thereafter, the Board
has consistently held, absent a valid union-security clause, or in
a “right to work” state, a union may not charge nonmembers for
processing of grievances or other related services because do-
ing so coerces employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right
to refrain from joining a union. Furniture Workers Local 282
(Davis Co.), 291 NLRB 182 (1988); and American Postal
Workers (Postal Service), 277 NLRB 541 (1985).
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends in maintaining and imple-
menting its Fair Share Policy, the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A). In addition to the policy being unlawful on its face,
the General Counsel contends the Union violated its fiduciary
duty to Williams, a unit employee, when it refused to represent
him in processing a grievance.
The Union concedes it both maintained and implemented the
Fair Share Policy. However, it contends its policy is not unlaw-
ful because it does not make payment of the fee a condition of
employment. In addition, the Union contends it did not apply a
fee for representation to nonmembers that does not apply to
members. In support of this latter argument, the Union relies
on Chairman Murphy’s dissent in Machinists Local 697, 233
NLRB at 836–837. Finally, the Union contends it did not re-
fuse to provide Williams with representation, rather, upon be-
ing informed of the Fair Share Policy, Williams chose not to
pursue his grievance.
C. Analysis
Applicable Board law is well settled and unambiguous in this
case. This matter arose in the State of Florida, a “right to
work” state, and the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Union and the employer contains no union-security clause.
The Union, via its Fair Share Policy charges nonmember em-
ployees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement a fee
for processing a grievance. Under these circumstances and
current Board precedent, this Fair Share Policy violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
SERVICE WORKERS LOCAL 1192 (BUCKEYE FLORIDA CORP.) 5
Moreover, the Union’s defenses are without merit. The Un-
ion contends its policy does not coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights because it does not make payment
of the fee a condition of employment. However, in none of the
cases in which the Board has addressed this issue did the policy
make payment of the grievance processing fee a condition of
employment. Rather the Board looked to whether the policy
coerced the employee in his or her right to refrain from joining
the union. In each and every case, the Board held that such
policies do so.
Equally without merit is the Union’s contention its policy is
not discriminatory because it charges nonmembers the same fee
it charges members. In Machinist Local 697, supra, Chairman
Murphy dissented from the majority’s remedial order, noting
that Board precedent did not prohibit some “sharing of costs.”
She wrote she would have found a violation only to the extent
nonmembers paid fees in excess of those paid by members and
she would have ordered the union to handle any grievances
upon a nonmember’s offer “to pay an amount equal to the
monthly dues paid by members for the remainder of the con-
tract.” Id. at 837. However, the Board has subsequently de-
clined to follow Chairman’s Murphy’s dissent when presented
with a case involving such “equal” sharing of costs. Specifical-
ly, in Furniture Workers Local 282 (Davis Co.), supra, the
union sought to charge a grievance processing fee equal to the
lesser of either the actual cost of processing the grievance or the
“dues left to be paid under the contract.” Implicitly declining
to follow Chairman Murphy, the Board held the union could
not charge any fee for “vital collective-bargaining services.”
Id. at 183. Therefore, under current Board precedent the Un-
ion’s Fair Share Policy violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act,
regardless of whether the fee is the equivalent of dues paid by
members.
The Union appears to attach significance to its contention an
employee can pursue a grievance without the assistance of the
Union. However, there is no evidence of this practice occur-
ring during any relevant time period. Furthermore, the Union
concedes even if an employee could proceed without the Union
through some steps, a grievance cannot be successfully pursued
beyond the third step without the consent of the International.
Therefore, I conclude this contention lacks merit.
The Union also relies on a decision by the Supreme Court of
the State of Nevada finding valid a similar policy promulgated
by a union representing certain State Government employees
citing Cone v. Nevada Service Employees Local 1107, et al.,
116 Nev. 473 (2000). Cone involved interpretation of a State
statute covering State Government employees with provisions
similar to those provisions of the Act at issue in the instant
case. The court considered the Board precedent cited herein
interpreting these similar provisions and rejected it, disagreeing
with the Board’s holding because it leads to, in the court’s
opinion, an “inequitable” result. Cone, 116 Nev. at 616. The
Board was well aware of these equitable concerns when, inter-
preting the Act, it reached its contrary conclusion. See Ameri-
can Postal Workers, supra at 543; Machinist Local 697, supra
at 835; and Hughes Tool Co., supra at 328–329 (holding charg-
ing fees for grievance representation is not a “permissible solu-
tion” to the “free rider” problem). Even if the cases were simi-
lar in all other regards, I am bound by Board precedent. Iowa
Beef Packer, Inc., 144 NLRB 615, 616 (1963). Therefore, I
find the Union’s reliance on the Nevada Supreme Court’s hold-
ing in Cone misplaced.
Accordingly, I find the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by maintaining and implementing a policy under which
the Union charged nonmember unit employees a grievance
processing fee.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The International is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
4. By maintaining and implementing a policy under which
the Union charges nonmembers who are represented by the
Union a fee for processing a grievance, the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by maintaining a policy under which the Union will
charge nonmembers who are represented by the Union a fee for
processing a grievance, I order the Union to cease and desist
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including rescinding its unlawful Fair Share
Policy.
Having found the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by implementing a policy under which it sought to
charge Jimmie Ray Williams a fee for processing a grievance, I
order the Union to process the grievance Jimmie Ray Williams
sought to file in 2013, without charging a fee of any type, and
seek to have the Company consider the grievance timely filed.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Union, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manu-
facturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Inter-
national Union, Local 1192, AFL–CIO, CLC and United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Energy, Manufacturing, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO,
CLC its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and/or implementing its Fair Share Policy or
any like policy pursuant to which nonmember unit employees
are charged a fee for grievance processing.
(b) Refusing to process any grievance because a unit em-
ployee is not a member of the Union and has not paid a fee for
processing the grievance.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind its current Fair Share Policy and so notify all unit
employees at the Company’s Perry, Florida facility.
(b) Process grievances filed by nonmember unit employees
without charging a fee.
(c) Process the grievance filed by Jimmie Ray Williams in
2013, without charging him a fee, and seek to have the Compa-
ny consider the grievance timely filed.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the
Buckeye Florida Corporation’s facility in Perry, Florida, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12,
after being signed by the Union’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Union and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Union customarily
communicates with employees whom it represents by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Company has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Union shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Company at
any time since May 20, 2013.

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Union has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 24, 2014
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND
NONMEMBER UNIT EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT enforce our current Fair Share Policy.
WE WILL NOT refuse to process any grievance because a
grievant is not a union member.
WE WILL NOT charge any nonmember a fee for processing a
grievance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind our current Fair Share Policy.
WE WILL process an overtime grievance for Jimmie Ray Wil-
liams without charging him a fee or union dues.
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND
SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
1192, AFL–CIO, CLC