# NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 05-CB-229670 (Laborers' Local 980 (Tutor-Perini)): Laborers' Local 980 (Tutor-Perini) (05-CB-229670)

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_05-CB-229670

## Section

- **Citation:** NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 05-CB-229670 (Laborers' Local 980 (Tutor-Perini))
- **Heading:** Laborers' Local 980 (Tutor-Perini) (05-CB-229670)
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** NLRB Division of Advice Memoranda (rolling 10-year window) / Laborers' Local 980 (Tutor-Perini) (05-CB-229670)

## Text

Case 05-CB-229670
- 2 -
bargaining agreement between my Employer and the Union,
whichever occur s sooner. For the effective period of this checkoff
authorization and assignment, I hereby waive any right I may have to
resign my union membership. Furthermore, this checkoff authorization
shall continue in accordance with the above renewal and revocation
provisions irrespective of my membership in the Union.1

Virginia has a right-to-work statute that prohibits the inclusion of a union-security
clause in collective-bargaining agreements.2

On October 4, 2018, the Charging Party sent the Union a letter to resign
membership in the Union and to revoke
dues authorization form.3 The Union
promptly accepted the Charging Party’s timely resignation and notified the Employer
to stop deducting and remitting dues. Beginning October 7, 2018, the Employer no
longer deducted dues from the Charging Party’s paycheck.

ACTION

We conclude that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining the
provision because it unlawfully requires unit employees to agree to an undue
restriction on their right to resign membership, and imposes the restriction when they
may only want to waive their distinct right to cease dues checkoff.4

Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides that a union commits an unfair labor practice if it
“restrain[s] or coerce[s] employees in the exercise” of their Section 7 rights, which

1 Emphasis added.

2 See generally Va. Code Ann. §40.1-58 (2019).

3 The Region should determine whether the Union provides an alternative means,
other than its dues checkoff authorization form, for employees to become Union
members, and whether the Charging Party became a member through means other
than by signing this form
n the exercise” of their Section 7 rights, which

1 Emphasis added.

2 See generally Va. Code Ann. §40.1-58 (2019).

3 The Region should determine whether the Union provides an alternative means,
other than its dues checkoff authorization form, for employees to become Union
members, and whether the Charging Party became a member through means other
than by signing this form.

4 If the Region determines that the Union applied the challenged provision in its dues
checkoff authorizations to establish the Charging Party’s Union membership in the
first place, and/or that it routinely uses the form for that purpose, the Region should
allege that as an independent violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). See cases cited in note
18, below.

(b) (6), (b) (7)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(

Case 05-CB-229670
- 3 -
include the right to refrain from joining or assisting labor organizations.5 In
interpreting that statutory provision, the Board has held that unions cannot
unilaterally place any meaningful restrictions on the right of their members to resign
from union membership because, among other reasons, “when a union seeks to delay
or impede a member’s resignation, it directly impairs the employees’ Section 7 right to
resign or otherwise refrain from union or other concerted activities.”6 In Pattern
Makers’ League v. NLRB, the Supreme Court upheld the Board’s interpretation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and agreed that the policy of “voluntary unionism” underlying the
Act prohibits internal union rules restricting a member’s right to resign.7
Subsequently, the Board consistently has found that unions violate Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by maintaining constitutional provisions, bylaws, and other internal rules impeding
employees’ right to resign because they unlawfully coerce employee support for a
union.8

Although the Board has consistently held that a union may not lawfully impose
unilateral restrictions on employees’ Section 7 right to resign their union

5 See, e.g., Pa
s violate Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by maintaining constitutional provisions, bylaws, and other internal rules impeding
employees’ right to resign because they unlawfully coerce employee support for a
union.8

Although the Board has consistently held that a union may not lawfully impose
unilateral restrictions on employees’ Section 7 right to resign their union

5 See, e.g., Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95, 100–01 (1985) (upholding
Board’s decision that employees have a fundamental right under Section 7 to resign
their union membership at any time, and that Section 8(b)(1)(A) prohibits unions
from unilaterally placing any substantive restrictions on that right).

6 Electrical Workers IBEW Local 58 (Paramount Industries), 365 NLRB No. 30, slip
op. at 2 (Feb. 10, 2017) (quoting Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Porsche-Audi), 270
NLRB 1330, 1333 (1984), approved by Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. at
103 & n.13, 104-05)), enforced, 888 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2018). See also Sheet Metal
Workers Local 73 (Safe Air), 274 NLRB 374, 375 (1985) (clarifying that Neufeld
Porsche-Audi was “not meant to be limited to restrictions on resignation during a
strike or lockout,” but applied to “any restrictions”), enforced, 840 F.2d 501 (7th Cir.
1988).

7 See Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. at 104–05.

8 See, e.g., Electrical Workers IBEW Local 58 (Paramount Industries), 365 NLRB
No. 30, slip op. at 2 (finding union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining newly-
announced resignation policy requiring members either to present written
resignations in-person with photo identification at the union’s hall or make other
arrangements to verify their identity because policy imposed an unlawful restriction
on their right to resign union membership). Cf
Industries), 365 NLRB
No. 30, slip op. at 2 (finding union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining newly-
announced resignation policy requiring members either to present written
resignations in-person with photo identification at the union’s hall or make other
arrangements to verify their identity because policy imposed an unlawful restriction
on their right to resign union membership). Cf. Auto Workers Local 148 (McDonnell-
Douglas), 296 NLRB 970, 971 (1989) (union may lawfully require a member who
wishes to resign to put the resignation in writing and send it to a designated union
officer)

Case 05-CB-229670
- 4 -
membership, it has not directly resolved whether employees may voluntarily waive
their right to resign from a union by individual agreement.9 Assuming that employees
may do so, the Act’s policy of “voluntary unionism” recognized in Pattern Makers’
directs that unions cannot place too great a restriction on the ability of employees to
revoke such waivers.10 The Union’s policy here, which waives an employee’s right to
resign in perpetuity subject to short window periods, represents an undue restriction
that is inconsistent with voluntary unionism. Indeed, the Board has held that unions
have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining constitutional provisions that permit
membership resignations only during a window period.11 It also has held that unions
violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining voluntary agreements of short duration that
do not permit employees to escape them and exercise their right to resign from union
membership.12

The Union here attempts to make its waiver policy appear reasonable by linking
it to the procedure for revoking dues checkoff authorizations. But the Board has made

9 Compare Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302
NLRB 322, 328 n.25 (1991) (“we need not, and do not, decide whether or not an
employee may . .
o resign from union
membership.12

The Union here attempts to make its waiver policy appear reasonable by linking
it to the procedure for revoking dues checkoff authorizations. But the Board has made

9 Compare Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302
NLRB 322, 328 n.25 (1991) (“we need not, and do not, decide whether or not an
employee may . . . agree to an enforceable waiver of the right to resign for a limited
period”), with Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 (Concord Metal), 297 NLRB 86, 89-90
(1989) (finding union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining and enforcing strike
support agreements that employees voluntarily entered because they restricted the
employees’ right to resign from the union and refrain from engaging in a strike; “even
a clear and unmistakable waiver will not be permitted, where the union has an
apparent self-interest in perpetuating itself” (quoting Sheet Metal Workers Local 29
(Metal-Fab), 222 NLRB 1156, 1160 (1976))).

10 See also Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 430 (1969) (stating unions may lawfully
enforce an internal rule only when, among other things, union members are “free to
leave the union and escape the rule”).

11 See, e.g., Auto Workers Local 449 (National Metalcrafters), 283 NLRB 182, 182 n.1
(1987) (finding, among other things, provision in international union’s constitution
restricting submission of membership resignations to a ten-day period to violate
Section 8(b)(1)(A)), enforced in relevant part, 865 F.2d 791, 796-97 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 818 (1989).

12 See Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 (Concord Metal), 297 NLRB at 90 (finding strike
support agreements that expired at end of year and were effective for only an eight-
week period unlawfully restricted the employees’ rights to resign and refrain from
engaging in a strike).
(A)), enforced in relevant part, 865 F.2d 791, 796-97 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 818 (1989).

12 See Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 (Concord Metal), 297 NLRB at 90 (finding strike
support agreements that expired at end of year and were effective for only an eight-
week period unlawfully restricted the employees’ rights to resign and refrain from
engaging in a strike).

Case 05-CB-229670
- 5 -
clear that “paying dues and remaining a union member can be two distinct actions.”13
Section 302(c)(4) of the Act expressly permits employees to enter dues checkoff
authorizations by which they irrevocably assign the payment of union dues from an
employee’s wages for a period not to exceed one year.14 In interpreting Section
302(c)(4), the Board has held that it is lawful for a union to impose window period
requirements (at the end of that one year period), and to reject checkoff revocation
requests initiated outside those window periods.15 However, the framework that
Section 302(c)(4) establishes for waiving the right to refrain from assisting a union
through checkoff, and revoking such a waiver, is specifically for dues checkoff
authorizations and is not applicable to other Section 7 rights. In short, although
unions may utilize dues checkoff authorizations that automatically renew each year
absent employees revoking them during a window period, it does not follow that
unions can use the same device to lock employees into the waiver of other Section 7
rights.

Moreover, a union’s intertwining of dues checkoff and waiver of membership
resignation results in the latter not being voluntary
lthough
unions may utilize dues checkoff authorizations that automatically renew each year
absent employees revoking them during a window period, it does not follow that
unions can use the same device to lock employees into the waiver of other Section 7
rights.

Moreover, a union’s intertwining of dues checkoff and waiver of membership
resignation results in the latter not being voluntary. The Board has held that the
policy of “voluntary unionism” underlying the Act should generally inform the right of
employees to refrain from union activities.16 For example, in Electrical Workers Local
2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), the Board confronted whether an employee’s union
resignation also revoked his dues checkoff authorization where there was no
applicable union-security clause. The Board found the union’s continued retention of

13 See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302 NLRB
at 328 (dues checkoff authorizations are not union-security devices because they do
not impose union membership or support as a condition required for continued
employment).

14 See 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(4) (2012) (stating that employees’ written dues checkoff
authorizations “shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year, or beyond
the termination date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs
sooner”).

15 See, e.g., Smith’s Food & Drug Centers d/b/a Fry’s Food Stores, 366 NLRB No. 138,
slip op. at 2 (July 24, 2018) (“Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4), a union can limit
revocability of checkoff authorizations to window periods (1) at least once every year,
for example, around the anniversary of their signing, and (2) prior to the expiration of
the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.”).

16 See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302 NLRB
at 328.
2018) (“Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4), a union can limit
revocability of checkoff authorizations to window periods (1) at least once every year,
for example, around the anniversary of their signing, and (2) prior to the expiration of
the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.”).

16 See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space Operations), 302 NLRB
at 328.

Case 05-CB-229670
- 6 -
dues violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) because the dues checkoff authorization the employee
had signed did not clearly indicate that dues would continue to be deducted from his
paycheck post-resignation. Thus, he had not clearly and unmistakably waived the
right to refrain from supporting the union when he was neither a member nor
otherwise required to pay dues.17 And, if an employee not subject to a union-security
requirement did not explicitly agree to have dues deducted post-resignation, “then the
employee’s continued financial support of the union is not clearly ‘voluntary’” after
resignation.18

Applying these principles here, even assuming employees could voluntarily waive
the right to resign membership for some period of time, the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by imposing such a waiver on employees who may only have wanted to avail
themselves of the Union’s dues checkoff process. Because the waiver is inextricably
part of the Union’s dues checkoff authorization, employees are not voluntarily
agreeing to that waiver, which violates the policy of “voluntary unionism” underlying
the Act. Thus, employees with no union-security requirement, as is the case here, may
nevertheless desire to financially assist the union representing them but not subject
themselves to all the obligations attendant with full union membership
Union’s dues checkoff authorization, employees are not voluntarily
agreeing to that waiver, which violates the policy of “voluntary unionism” underlying
the Act. Thus, employees with no union-security requirement, as is the case here, may
nevertheless desire to financially assist the union representing them but not subject
themselves to all the obligations attendant with full union membership. By including
language in its dues checkoff authorization that restricts the right of signatory
employees to resign, the Union does not allow those employees who may only want to
financially assist the Union for its representational services to opt out of the
restriction on resignation from membership. In short, the Union cannot bootstrap the
resignation waiver into its dues checkoff authorization, and thereby make resignation
subject to the checkoff’s revocation window period, without violating the voluntariness
principle regarding union membership. By doing so, the Union is unlawfully coercing
employees into a larger commitment to the Union than they may have desired, which
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A).

17 Id. at 329.

18 Id. at 328. See also Bellkey Maintenance Co., 270 NLRB 1049, 1056 (1984) (finding
union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by requiring users of its exclusive hiring hall to sign
dues checkoff authorization forms, which also served as the referral slips). Cf.
Communications Workers Local 1101 (New York Telephone Co.), 281 NLRB 413, 413,
417 (1986) (finding union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by using dual purpose
membership-dues checkoff card as sole method by which employees could comply with
union-security clause).
ts exclusive hiring hall to sign
dues checkoff authorization forms, which also served as the referral slips). Cf.
Communications Workers Local 1101 (New York Telephone Co.), 281 NLRB 413, 413,
417 (1986) (finding union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by using dual purpose
membership-dues checkoff card as sole method by which employees could comply with
union-security clause).

Case 05-CB-229670
- 7 -

Accordingly, the Region should issue complaint, absent settlement, alleging that
the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) based on the analysis above.19

/s/
J.L.S.

ADV.05-CB-229670.Response.LaborersLocal980.

19 The Region should also allege that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
maintaining dues checkoff authorizations that limit an employee’s right to revoke
that authorization at cessation of the contract term by imposing an earlier revocation
window period. See GC Memorandum 19-04, Unions’ Duty to Properly Notify
Employees of Their General Motors/Beck Rights and to Accept Dues Checkoff
Revocations after Contract Expiration, at Section II.A. (Feb. 22, 2019). With regard to
the alleged Section 8(b)(2) violation in the charge, because the Union granted the
Charging Party’s request to resign from the Union and revoke
dues checkoff
authorization and did not take any subsequent action to cause the Employer to
continue deducting dues from
paycheck, there is no basis for finding a
Section 8(b)(2) violation. See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2088 (Lockheed Space
Operations), 302 NLRB at 330.

(b) (6), (b) (7
(b) (6), (b) (7)
(b) (6), (b

## Nearby sections

- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CA-158125 (Handy Technologies) Handy Technologies (01-CA-158125)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CA-158125.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CA-219266 (University Emergency Medicine Foundation) University Emergency Medicine Foundation (01-CA-219266)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CA-219266.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CA-286131 (Grove Bay Hospitality Group) Grove Bay Hospitality Group (01-CA-286131)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CA-286131.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CA-300935 (Universal Automation and Mechanical Services Inc.) Universal Automation and Mechanical Services Inc. (01-CA-300935)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CA-300935.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CB-219943 (UNITE HERE Local 26 (Battery Wharf)) UNITE HERE Local 26 (Battery Wharf) (01-CB-219943)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CB-219943.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 01-CB-241548 (IBEW Local 103 (Encore Boston Harbor)) IBEW Local 103 (Encore Boston Harbor) (01-CB-241548)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_01-CB-241548.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-040028 (Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc.) Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc. (02-CA-040028)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-040028.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-182019 (Epiq Document Review) Epiq Document Review (02-CA-182019)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-182019.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-183801 (The Trump Corp.) The Trump Corp. (02-CA-183801)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-183801.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-199415 (Trade Off, LLC) Trade Off, LLC (02-CA-199415)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-199415.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-204176 (Libra Services) Libra Services (02-CA-204176)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-204176.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-231984 (Nusr-Et Steakhouse) Nusr-Et Steakhouse (02-CA-231984)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-231984.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CA-262630 (Fox Television Stations) Fox Television Stations (02-CA-262630)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CA-262630.md)
- [NLRB Division of Advice Memorandum, Case No. 02-CB-184756 (Electrical Workers Local 3 (Time Warner Cable New York)) Electrical Workers Local 3 (Time Warner Cable New York) (02-CB-184756)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_02-CB-184756.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_ADVICE_05-CB-229670. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.