Clothing Workers Local 187

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 831 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187 831
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CI-
O, CLC and Local 187, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC and Shutzer
Manufacturing Co., Inc . Case 1-CB-2345
May 23, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On January 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
John G. Gregg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Section 8(b)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat. 136); and upon
an answer timely filed by Respondents denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices and further
asserting that the complaint herein is barred by the
limitation period prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act.
All parties appeared by counsel, and were afforded full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Timely briefs
were filed by all parties.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observations of the witnesses and their demeanor on the
witness stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, it is admitted, and I find that
Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation,
with principal office and place of business in Lawrence,
Massachusetts , is and has been at all times material herein
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, the parties admit, and I find that
Respondents herein, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, are each a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents , Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC and
Local 187, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC, their officers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
I While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondents
unlawfully refused to sign the agreed-upon contract , we find that the initial
refusal to sign the contract occurred on February 5, 1973, rather than on
June 15, 1973, as found by him In any event, whether the refusal occurred
on February 5 or June 15, or both of those dates, it took place within the
10(b) period, and, therefore, we find it unnecessary to consider the
"continuing obligation" theory set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision
DECISION
JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me on October 16 and 17, 1973, at Boston,
Massachusetts, and is based upon a charge filed by
Lawrence Shutzer on June 28, 1973, and complaint issued
on August 8, 1973, by the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as
the Board, against Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187 Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, hereinaft-
er referred to as the Respondents, alleging violations of
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges essentially that since June 15,
1973, the Respondents have refused to execute a written
collective-bargaining agreement which was concluded on
September 7, 1972, between the Respondents and Shutzer,
thereby violating Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. For the
reasons explicated more fully hereinafter I am convinced
and find that the Respondents did indeed refuse to execute
a written collective-bargaining agreement as charged in the
complaint and did thereby violate Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act.
A. Background Facts
On or about May 1, 1953, the Company then doing
business as William Barry Inc., recognized the Respondent
Local as the collective-bargaining agent for certain of its
employees.
The record establishes and I find that at all times
material herein the Respondents have been the recognized
collective-bargaining agent of all the production employees
of Shutzer employed at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, plant,
including stitchers, pressers, cutters, thread pullers, perma-
nent shippers, cutting room assemblers, examiners, and
repair girls but excluding repair machinists, floor boys,
floor girls, office and clerical employees and all supervisors
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constituting a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, and that the Respondents have at
all times material herein been the representatives for the
210 NLRB No. 135
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purpose of collective bargaining of a majority of the
employees in the aforesaid unit.
The record also discloses that on May 1, 1953, the parties
signed a basic collective-bargaining agreement with the
stated purpose of providing for wages , hours of work and
conditions of employment of the employees of the
employer.
The foregoing basic collective- bargaining agreement was
supplemented by two separate written and executed
supplemental agreements covering contributions to the
union trust fund for retirement benefits and one for
insurance benefits.
Article 17 of the agreement provides in part:
Modification of Contract
17. The standards of wages, hours and other condi-
tions of employment established by this agreement
shall not be changed during the life of this agreement,
except as provided in this clause.
The Union and the Employer hereby agree that
during the life of this agreement (and any renewal
thereof) whatever increase or decrease in wages the
Union will negotiate with Employers in contractual
relations on a nation-wide scale in this branch of the
industry, a similar increase or decrease shall be applied
to the employees covered by this agreement effective
on the same date . This also applies to health insurance
benefits, old age pension benefits, vacations with pay,
holidays with pay and other fringe benefits as well as
wages .. .
On April 7,1955, the basic collective-bargaining agree-
ment of 1953 was extended for 3 years with provision that
it be self-renewing from year to year thereafter unless
sooner terminated , and the basic agreement was amended
in several regards, all this written and executed by the
Union.
Subsequently on June 27, 1956, the basic agreement of
May 1, 1953, and of April 7, 1955, was supplemented to
uncorporate increases in pay and other benefits, reduced to
writing and executed.
The record then discloses an undated subsequent
Memorandum of Agreement between Barry and the Union
"in order to promote a better understanding between labor
and management in the plant in addition to the now
existing union contract." The agreement encompassed
several conditions of employment and procedures to be
followed in the settlement of grievances in the plant.
There are additional items of requests by the Union for
modification of the basic agreement followed by written,
executed supplemental agreements embodying the terms of
such agreement.
B. The Negotiations
By letter of August 21, 1972, the Respondent Amalga-
mated requested Shutzer to come to "Collective bargaining
negotiations between the Outerwear Manufacturers and
our Union on Thursday, August 24, 1972 at 2 p.m. at the
ACWA Headquarters, 15 Union Square , New York City,
New York. Enclosed please find copy of our union
demands to the industry."
The demands listed encompassed a variety of subjects
including wages, vacation pay, holiday pay, jury duty pay,
health insurance, and retirement benefits, pensions, and
such subjects as imports, right to strike and use of the
union label.
Lawrence Shutzer, vice president and general manager of
Shutzer testified that he personally participated in negotia-
tions which resulted in collective-bargaining agreements
with the Respondents. He stated that earlier the method by
which those agreements were arrived at was that Mr.
Salerno, a vice president of the Amalgamated Union, would
come to Shutzer when the existing contract was about to
expire, would inform Shutzer that agreement had been
reached in New York and that "here is what you are going
to pay, so much an hour, extra vacations, or whatever,
extra holidays or any extra percent here or an extra percent
there. And here is the agreement all made out, sign it and
that would be the end of it." According to Shutzer this
method had been followed on each occasion leading to
collective-bargaining agreements over a period starting
from May 1953, with the Respondents presenting Shutzer
with a complete agreement for signature.
Lawrence Shutzer testified that pursuant to the letter of
August 21 inviting him to a meeting of the Outerware
Manufacturers to be held at the Respondents office in New
York, he attended the first two negotiating sessions and his
brother Sidney Shutzer attended the third. At the first
session attended by about 40 manufacturers and about 15
union representatives, Finley, the president of the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers outlined the union demands.
There were questions by some of the individual manufac-
turers. Following this meeting, the manufacturers decided
that rather then negotiating as individuals they would hire
a lawyer to represent them. An executive committee was
formed, including Lawrence Shutzer and others from
various geographic areas. Subsequently Bernard Ferster an
attorney was retained. Ferster also represented another
industry group known as the shirt workers which was also
engaged in negotiations with the Respondent Amalgamat-
ed at that time.
At the second meeting the manufacturers were represent-
ed by Ferster who indicated that these negotiations would
not be completed until the shirt workers' negotiations were
finalized. According to Shutzer, at this meeting Finley
indicated approval of dealing with one representative for
the group and they went on to discuss the demands back
and forth.
According to Shutzer at no time during the two meetings
did any of the Respondents' representatives communicate
to him an intention to present any other issues which were
not the subject of the discussions at these meetings and
which were included as an enclosure to the invitation to
negotiate dated August 21, 1972, as the Union demands.
According to Lawrence Shutzer the third meeting took
place in September 7, 1972, and was attended by Sidney
Shutzer as Lawrence was unable to attend. According to
Sidney Shutzer, Finley went over the bargaining demands
for the Union with Ferster representing the manufacturers.
Sidney Shutzer testified that reports were coming to the
CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187 833
meeting that some manufacturers who were not at the
session were concluding negotiations out in the field while
the negotiations were being concluded in New York.
Finally , after deliberations by the manufacturers in
attendance it was decided to have Ferster advise Finley
that the manufacturers felt that they were entitled to the
same terms that were given to the shirt industry . Finley
would not agree to this and the possibility of a strike was
raised . Subsequently , Finley was advised that the manufac-
turers would go along with the terms presented by Finley.
According to Sidney Shutzer at no time during the
session did any representative of the Respondents commu-
nicate to him an intention to present to Shutzer any other
issues for negotiation other than those discussed and
agreed to at the meeting.
Lawrence Shutzer testified further that subsequent to the
foregoing negotiations , the Respondent Amalgamated by
letter dated September 19, 1972, requested that he
implement the terms of the agreement that had been
reached "by the union and the industry."
Subsequently , on or about October 4, 1972, Frank
Luongo , business agent for the Union , and Diana Nunes,
national vice president and New England director for the
Respondent Amalgamated , came to the Shutzer factory
and requested Shutzer to implement the terms of the
agreement that had been reached in New York in
September . According to Lawrence Shutzer they told him
that the other manufacturers were implementing the
agreement . He then called two manufacturers who had
been in attendance at the negotiations and was advised
that they had not implemented the terms of the contract at
that time . Shutzer did not comply . Subsequently, on
October 11 , Luongo again sought to have Shutzer
implement the contract terms . Shutzer asked Luongo
where the contract was, and was informed that the Union
had internal problems, was swamped with paperwork, but
that agreement had been reached . Shutzer then told
Luongo that it was not his fault if increases in pay were
being delayed , to which Luongo responded that it was the
fault of the Union.
Lawrence Shutzer testified further that he asked Luongo
to notify the workers in the factory that agreement had
been reached , and that the only thing holding up the
signing of the contract was the Union's delay in completing
its paperwork . According to Shutzer , 2 weeks later Luongo
came to the factory and addressed a meeting of the
employees telling thr m that the Union and Company were
on "wonderful" terms , that agreement had been reached in
New York early in September on all the terms of the
agreement and that the only thing delaying the actual
signing of the contract was the fact that the Union had not
been able to overcome the mountain of paperwork; and
that the Company would now on the basis of this talk start
implementing the terms of the agreement.
Shutzer testified further that subsequently he, Luongo,
and Nunes had another meeting at which time they
discussed the method of converting the retroactive pay raise
to so many cents an hour . The rate was converted into
piece work and discussion was had as to when the workers
would receive their increase . The workers were subsequent-
ly paid the increases retroactively to September 1, 1972.
On November 15, 1972 , according to Shutzer , Ferster,
the attorney representing the manufacturers, forwarded
printed copies of the agreement with a covering letter
asking Shutzer to sign four or five copies and return them
to him, and that he would take them over to the Union for
their signature . Shutzer signed and returned the agree-
ments to Ferster.
Shutzer testified that subsequently , when he did not
receive an executed contract he called Ferster many times
but was advised that Ferster had not received the excuted
contracts from the Union.
Finally , according to Shutzer , he became aware that the
Union was taking a position that the negotiations in New
York had not resulted in a final and binding contract, and
that the Amalgamated would not execute the supplemental
and extension agreement when he received a letter from
Ferster dated February 6, 1973 , forwarding a letter from
Finley of the Amalgamated to Ferster reading in part as
follows:
While the Outerwear agreements were negotiated on
a National basis you are aware that these agreements
are between the employers and the local markets.
Accordingly , the international union is not in a position
to execute local agreements.
We have executed the enclosed agreement with the
understanding that it embodies only the National
Agreement which was reached in negotiation between
the National Outerwear Bargaining Committee and the
National officers of the Amalgamated . There may be
additional items of negotiation on local matters which
are subject to agreement between the individual firm
and the local Joint Board Manager.
Subsequently by letter dated June 15, 1973, to the
Respondent Amalgamated, Shutzer requested
that the appropriate authorized representatives (local,
regional - or national) of the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, sign and return
to said Company a copy of the Supplemental and
Extension Agreement both of which are dated Septem-
ber I, 1972.
This request was not complied with.
Subsequently by letter dated August 6, 1973 , Shutzer
received another letter from the Respondent Amalgamated
reminding it to pay the increase in contributions to the
Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries
Fund "in accordance with the Supplemental Agreement
dated 9/ l/72."
Diana Nunes testified that she took office as vice
president of the Respondent Amalgamated, on November
1, 1972, and that she administered some of the cotton
garment contracts as business agent and New England
director , later as vice president . Diana Nunes testified that
she was present at the three meetings encompassing the
negotiations with the Outerwear Manufacturer group at
the end of August and the beginning of September 1972.
According to Nunes , at the afternoon meeting of the last
day Ferster spoke at length about the fact that certain
employers who were supposed to have been with the
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization were not there that day, but were out making
what he called their own private deals, and he felt that the
Union was to blame for this.
According to Nunes, Finley was very sympathetic about
this problem feeling that the manufacturers were not well
organized to present their plans and their demands.
According to Nunes, Ferster did not know who he was
representing so the final agreement that day, after two
caucuses by the manufacturers, was to go along with the
60-cent rate rather than 55 cents because it was announced
at that meeting that some of the manufacturers had already
signed in their individual areas. Because of this, according
to Nunes, these negotiations were adjourned very abruptly
with nothing actually being settled but that.
Nunes testified that she had a conversation with Sidney
Shutzer during the lunch period that day. At that time
according to Nunes, Shutzer was going back into the
conference room. Nunes testified that she said to Shutzer,
"I believe this will be over sometime today." Shutzer said,
"Yes, I think so." Nunes said, "When this is through, we
will have to get together because we have local things to
talk about and by the way, Sidney, I am a little disturbed
today about some of the reports that I have gotten from the
South about remarks that were made by the company."
Shutzer replied, "Don't talk about it here. We will talk
about it back in Lawrence."
Nunes testified further that about a week afterward, she
had a call from Luongo, the business agent, who was upset
because Shutzer had told him that he was not going to go
along with the national negotiations on the economic
package that had been agreed on the previous week.
Shutzer's reason for being disturbed was because he had
read an article in the paper that London Fog had given 55
cents that had been granted to the Cotton Garment
workers and not the 60 cents agreed to at the national
negotiations. Nunes then proceeded to Lawrence, Massa-
chusetts, to meet with Shutzer and Luongo on Wednesday,
a week after the negotiations were over. Nunes told Shutzer
that in New York at the national negotiations the
economic package was adopted, and that Shutzer was a
party to it, "so we are not going to talk about this at all. We
have enough local things to talk about on local demands."
Nunes stated that she told Shutzer that as far as New
England was concerned, "everyone who is under Outer
Wear is going to pay the 60 cents. This was the agreement
that was made." Nunes stated that at that meeting, she also
told Shutzer that she was concerned about other matters
such as the shops in the south and inadequacies in
insurance payments.
According to Nunes, the next meeting she had with
Shutzer at the plant was November 6 where she met with
Larry Shutzer, Luongo, and Attorney Reznicek in Shut-
zer's office. Nunes stated that she thought she was starting
to negotiate, that Shutzer asked for the agreements, but she
said, "We have local things to discuss." Shutzer discussed
his need for additional workers. Nunes reminded Shutzer
that a plant had closed in Leomister, Massachusetts, "and
let's not have one here." Nunes told Shutzer she was
concerned because the plant was working full force on
leather work and what would happen if there was no
leather work. Nunes wanted some assurance that work
would continue even if the demand for leather garments or
leather itself fell off.
According to Nunes , there was further discussion in
regard to the minimums , wages and fringes that had been
negotiated in New York.
Q. Can you tell us about that discussion and what
was said?
A. Every-Mr. Shutzer was told that day too, that
the contracts had not been completed in New York
because for some reason or other they left in such a
hurry that those that didn't stay with the association
ended up with some kinds of contracts with minimums
and others not and this is what is holding all this up.
This was the confusion , mostly to blame by their
Attorney. These minimums have not been completed.
It is not anything against the Shutzer Company. We
have contracts that are not signed, that are in fact
.... some of these with the association have not been
signed because their minimums have not come down
and they have to be negotiated. Others have not been
signed because we are still negotiating certain issues
and this is . . . . as long as the national and economic
part of the contract has been given out, we are not
questioning the signing of the contract until we get
through with all these things . So, it is not dust one
contract that isn't signed.
According to Nunes , there was no specific discussion
about the minimums at that meeting on November 6.
Nunes stated that the contracts had come into her
possession and she sent them back, the simple reason being
that the minimums were not included in the contract.
According to Nunes, they were both in agreement that
there was agreement on the wages and fringes in New
York, and Shutzer asked for some time to calculate the
retroactive pay and to put it into effect.
According to Nunes, she returned to the plant on
November 1 with Mr. Wachtel of the Union, strictly on the
insurance matter and nothing else. Subsequently in
January, she attended a meeting for all of the shops in
Lawrence to explain to the employees that the contracts
had not been signed because local negotiations still
remained to take place although the economics had been
agreed on at the New York meeting, what remained to be
negotiated were local issues plus minimums.
Nunes testified further to a meeting on April 18 or 19 at
the plant where she met with Larry Shutzer, Frank
Luongo, and Ronald Ax, attorney for the Respondent.
According to Nunes, at that meeting two documents were
presented by Ax to Shutzer. One a request for information
and the other a request for information and for certain
language to be put into the contract for job protection.
According to Nunes, Shutzer said he could not comment
on anything, he would look into it, and call his lawyer, and
get back to them. Subsequently sometime in June,
according to Nunes, she met at the office of the attorney
for Shutzer together with Luongo and the Shutzers. At this
meeting Nunes requested some information.
Nunes testified that there are still employers in the
Lawrence area, members of the Outerwear group who have
not yet completed their negotiations , and with whom local
CLOThING WORKERS LOCAL 187 835
issues continue to be negotiated and there are other plants
where all signed and all the issues have been resolved
When queried, Mrs. Nunes stated that she did not know
whether or not at any time in 1972 Shutzer received any
written demands from the Union other than the demands
which are attached to the letter of August " t, 1972, other
than the ones she made herself which '.i , re not in writing.
In her testimony Mrs. Nunes refe, ed to the demands at
the New York meeting as economic demands. When asked
to refer to the demands which were listed in connection
with the New York meetings. Mrs. Nunes agreed that some
of the demands were not "economic" demands.
According to Nunes, it was at the meeting with Shutzer
on November 6 that she indicated to Shutzer that there had
to be some resolution of the minimum question. According
to Nunes she had no proposal at that time because "we
already have existing minimums. They were left out of the
negotiations between the manufacturers and the Union in
New York. They didn't take care of that, that is the only
things I was-I said I was waiting until the association got
together in New York and brought down-set down the
minimums . This is the only explanation I gave. We weren't
going to negotiate the minimums. The minimums have
been negotiated as a National agreement that modified our
local levels because everyone has different minimums."
According to Mrs. Nunes in addition to the minimum
issue thi i c were two other issues which had to be
negotiated with Shutzer, specifically those were the
classification of which workers were under the union
agreement , and language that would protect the workers of
the Lawrence giant. After some testimony Mrs. Nunes
agreed that her discussions relevant to classification were
considered a step in the grievance procedure rather than
contract negotiations but what was to be negotiated was
overall language which would clarify who was in and out
of the unit When querried as to whether she ever
submitted a written proposal to amend the contract she
answered "no."
Nunes stated that the reason she did not serve notice on
Shutzer that the s.,-ning of the agreement in New York
would not take -,:ace until local matteis were negotiated,
was because of the past practice. Mrs. Nunes stated that
she did r: !.now whether her predecessor had told Shutzer
that the agreement reached in New York 0 would not be
signed until local issues were resolved.
Analysis, Findings and Conclusions
It is well settled that a refusal on request to execute a
written contract incorporating agreement concerning
wages, hours, and working conditions reached as a result of
collective bargaining constitutes a refusal to bargain in
violation of the Act. H. J. Heinz Co. v. N L. R B, 311 U.S.
514.
The record herein clearly establishes such request by
Shutzer and a refusal by the Respondent to execute a
written agreement. The question for determination is
whether or not the parties had in fact reached a collective-
bargaining agreement. I am convinced on this record and I
find that they did.
The Respondent contends it should not be compelled to
sign the New York master agreement because it was an
incomplete document requiring further local negotiations,
contingent on the negotiation of local issues, that the
pattern of bargaining which existed prior to the 1972
negotiations between the Company and the Union was
that master agreements were negotiated subject to modifi-
cation in order to conform them to the Company' s local
operations and that such pattern was applicable to the 1972
negotiations between the Outerwear Association and the
ACWA, that is that although an agreement was negotiated
it was a national economic package, subject to further local
bargaining, and further that the Company was cognizant of
this based not only on past bargaining history with the
Union but also based on communications made to the
Outerwear Association at the commencement of the
negotiating session by Fuller, president of the Union and
to Shutzer by Nunes.
Turning directly to the resolution of conflicting testimo-
ny, Diana Nunes testified that during the lunch period on
September 7, 1972, she a had conversation with Sidney
Shutzer in which she notified him they had local matters to
discuss. Sidney Shutzer denied that this conversation
included such notification. Based on my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I credit the
version of Sidney Shutzer who testified in a direct and
sincere manner and I do not credit the version of Nunes
whose testimony at times convinced me that it was
contrived to achieve accommodation between fact and
legal requirement. I am convinced that Nunes did not
notify Sidney Shutzer that the negotiations completed that
morning with the acceptance by the industry of the
Respondent's demands were to be continued subsequently
at the local level, or that such agreement was contingent on
additional and further negotiations at the local level. In
any event assuming, arguendo, that Nunes' testimony was
to be credited, in my view it simply would not form a valid
basis for notice to Shutzer that the negotiations at that time
were incomplete and that they would be completed only at
such time as local matters were further negotiated to
.1 nreement.
Lawrence Shutzer testified in a direct, uncontrived and
straightforward manner. His responses on cross-examina-
tion were prompt and I was impressed with his sincerity. I
credit his version of the negotiations and his subsequent
discussions with Nunes and Luongo relative to the
implementation of the agreement reached in New York on
September 7, 1972.
There was much testimony of record by Diana Nunes
concerning her meetings with the Shutzers subsequent to
September 7, 1972, which in effect she characterized as
negotiations of local issues presumably requiring resolution
prior to the completion and execution of the national
supplemental and extension agreement. In the course of
her testimony Nunes adverted to discussions with Shutzer
over such matters as minimums, the scope of the
bargaining unit, and job security. In her testimony relative
to the matter of minimums Nunes' testimony had an
unmistakable flavor of contrivance and inconsistency.
While asserting that she was negotiating minimums locally
with Shutzer she also testified that the minimums were to
be set nationally, that she had no proposal for Shutzer
locally, that the Respondents already had existing mini-
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABO `t RELATIONS BOARD
mums but that "they were left out of the negotiations
between the manufacturers and the Union in New York,
They didn't take care of that." Similarly with respect to the
local negotiations on the scope of the bargaining unit no
proposal was submitted to Shutzer on this matter but
discussions as to specific individuals were conducted as a
step in the grievance procedure under the basic contract.
As for the issue of job security this matter had been the
subject of discussions for a period of several years and
according to Nunes what was involved was a requirement
to modify the language of the contract. However the issue
of job security appears from the record to have finally
become the subject of a written demand to Shutzer on
April 18, 1973, nearly 8 months after the negotiations took
place. The foregoing would indicate a pattern of continu-
ing discussion and negotiation without clear definition in
terms of time over matters relating to the contract and do
not convince me that the national agreement was in any
way contingent on the resolution of such matters.
In this regard the record clearly establishes that the
negotiations in New York were initiated by the Respon-
dent with a clearly defined broad set of demands. The
record establishes that these demands were negotiated, and
that agreement was reached on a basic economic package.
In my view the record establishes that the parties had
entered on and concluded collective-bargaining negotia-
tions and had reached agreement on September 7, 1972,
and that at no time did the Respondents advise or notify
Shutzer that no agreement had been concluded at that time
or that the agreement so concluded was incomplete and
contingent on further local negotiations.
This conclusion is bolstered by the acts of Respondents
subsequent to September 7, 1972. The record is replete with
ample evidence to establish the fact that the Respondents
viewed and openly treated the negotiations in New York as
having resulted in a collective-bargaining agreement, a
completed supplemental and extension agreement. Iii thi-
regard the record establishes a prior pattern of executiii
nationally negotiated supplemental and extension ag'
ments aside from complete resolution of local issues wh,,,.
could if the parties so desired then be further negotiated
and reduced to writing and executed at the local level. The
record discloses numerous supplemental and extension
agreements entered into by various manufacturers as the
employer and executed for both Respondents as the Union
by Joseph Salerno, representative of the Respondent
Amalgamated.
Finally, both the letters of the Respondents to Shutzer on
this record, and the actions of the Respondents' represent-
atives as portrayed on this record in seeking implementa-
tions of the terms agreed on at the national negotiations in
New York, together with a speech by the Respondents'
representative Luongo to Shutzer's employees make it
crystal clear that the Respondents considered the national
negotiations to have resulted in a collective-bargaining
agreement binding on Shutzer. At no time until the belated
letter of February 5, 1973, from the Respondent Amalga-
mated to Ferster was notice given that the Respondents
considered the agreement incomplete or contingent on
additional negotiations. The Respondents are in the
position on the one hand of insisting on the implementa-
tion of an agreement , while on the other hand insisting that
no final agreement has been consummated.
Finally, he Respondent herein contends that the
Company should be dismissed because the alleged conduct
forming the basis of the disputed unfair labor practice
herein occurwvi moie than 6 months prior to the filing of
the charge hem. !, by Shutzer on June 28 , 1973. The
Respondent contends that Shutzer filed the charges on
June 28 , 1973, almost 10 months after the Respondent's
initial refusal to execute an agreement , basing this on their
contention that Diana Nunes had testified that the
Company had knowledge of the Union 's refusal to execute
the agreement reached in New York as early as September
7, 1972. 1 reject this contention as I have rejected the
version of her conversation with Shutzer by Mrs . Nunes as
explicated herein above . While there were undoubtedly
discussions at the local level between Shutzer and Mrs.
Nunes, in my view these do not provide sufficient clear
evidence of notification to Shutzer that the Union
considered the negotiations in New York as having been
contingent on local agreements and that no written
agreement was to be executed until such local agreements
had been concluded . As for the Respondent 's contention
that the Union frequently requested information from the
Company relative to an intelligent discussion of such
issues, again such request began sometime after the
agreement in New York had been concluded in December
1972 and in January and April 1973.
In any event the statute of limitations bep s ax i un from
the date that an unfair labor practice i ,ommitted. Since
the record discloses that an agre;iaient was reached
between the Charging Party and the Respondent on
September 7, 1972 , and since there is no dispute that the
Respondent refused to execute the agreement on June 15,
1973, I conclude that the 10(b) period herein began to run
from the time of the initial refusal to execute the contract
which would be June 15 , 1973. Therefore I am convinced
and I find that Se-tion 10(b) does not bar the proceeding
herein, as there was a demanu by Shutzer and a refusal to
execute on June 15, 1972 and the charge was filed well
within the 6-month period.
Under present Board law, the Board has consistently
utilized the "continuing obligation " theory with respect to
applying th ; atute of limitations to a complaint alleging a
refusal to execute a written collective -bargaining agree-
ment . Therefore while the agreement was entered into
herein on September 7, 1972, the obligation to enter into
and execute a written contract continued until the
Respondent 's refusal to execute on June 15 , 1973, and it is
at that time the statute begins to run . Serv-All Company,
Inc., 199 NLRB 1131 (1972); Joseph T. Strong, 152 NLRB
9 (1965 ). Accordingly the contention of the Respondents
herein that the complaint is barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act is rejected.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing on June 15, 1973, to sign and execute the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondents
and the representative of Shutzer concluded on September
7, 1972, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act,
CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187
which affect commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The complaint herein is not barred by the 6-month
limitation period prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that they be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act.
Having found that the Respondents have unlawfully
refused to sign and execute the September 7, 1972,
agreement between Respondents and Shutzer, it will be
recommended that Respondents be directed to forthwith
sign said agreement; and to forward to Shutzer a copy or
copies thereof signed by an appropriate official or officials
of Respondents authorized to execute collective agree-
ments on their behalf.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER'
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC and Local 187 ACWA, AFL-CIO, CLC, their
officers, representatives, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to sign and execute
the September 7, 1972, collective agreement, embodying all
the terms and conditions reached at that time between
Respondent and Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Forthwith sign the above-mentioned collective
agreement of September 7, 1972.
(b) Forthwith forward to Shutzer Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., a duly executed copy or copies of said agreement.
(c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached Notice marked "Appendix.."2 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of
the aforesaid notice for posting if desired by Shutzer
Manufacturing Co., Inc., at places where it customarily
posts notices to employees.
837
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order which follows shall , as provided in
Sec. 10248 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
2 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence before an Administrative Law Judge
of the National Labor Relations Board, it has been found
that we have violated the law and we have been ordered to
post this notice and abide by its terms.
WE WILL without delay have an appropriate official
or officials sign and deliver to Shutzer Manufacturing
Company, Inc., the collective agreement negotiated
and concluded on September 7, 1972.
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO, CLC AND
LOCAL 187 AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's office, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch
Building, 15 New Chardon Street , Boston, Massachusetts
02114. Telephone 617-223-3300.