Custom Wood Specialties, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Custom Wood Specialties, Inc. and Carpenters' Dis-
trict Council of Greater St. Louis, AFL-CIO and
Employees Group, Party in Interest. Case 14-CA-
11914
August 1, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On March 19, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decisions in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conculsions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Custom Wood Specialties,
Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me on December 11, 1978, pursuant
to a charge filed on October 20, 1978; an amended charge
filed on November 15, 1978; a complaint issued on Novem-
ber 17, 1978; and an amended complaint issued on Novem-
ber 22, 1978. The issues are whether Respondent, Custom
Wood Specialties, Inc.:
1. Violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (hereinafter the Act), by refus-
ing to abide by a collective-bargaining agreement agreed to
by Associated Cabinet Shops and Laminating Industry of
St. Louis (hereinafter the Association) and Carpenters' Dis-
trict Council of Greater St. Louis, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
the Union), and by refusing to give the Union information
relevant to the Union's administration of that agreement.
2. Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling an em-
ployee that Respondent would not sign that agreement.
3. Violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by recog-
nizing and bargaining with the Employees Group.
4. Violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act by
negotiating directly with an employee who represented the
Employees Group; and by agreeing to, executing, and hon-
oring a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employ-
ees Group.
Upon the entire record, including the demeanor of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
Respondent, the Union, and counsel for the General Coun-
sel (the General Counsel). I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FA(I
I. JRISI)I(IION
Respondent is a Missouri corporation with its principal
office and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it
is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
woodwork and formica cabinets and related products. Dur-
ing the 12-month period ending October 31. 1978, a repre-
sentative period, Respondent manufactured products of
which more than $50,000 worth were shipped from its St.
Louis facility directly to points outside Missouri. Until at
least May 24, 1978, Respondent was a member of the Asso-
ciation, which is a bargaining association of Missouri em-
ployers who manufacture, sell, and distribute kitchen cabi-
nets and related products. During the 12-month period
ending September 30, 1978, a representative period, Associ-
ation members purchased materials valued at more than
$50,000 directly from points outside Missouri. I find that, as
Respondent concedes, Respondent and the Association are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that exercise of jurisdiction over their operations
and over Respondent's operations individually will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA(TI(LES
A. Background
At all times material herein, the Union has represented
employees of association members in an admittedly appro-
priate unit consisting of all employees of the employers
within the Association wherever the same are situated in
the territorial jurisdiction of the St. Louis Carpenters' Dis-
trict Council, excluding office employees, clerical employ-
ees, employees covered by written contracts with other
unions and supervisory employees. The Association, includ-
ing Respondent, and the Union agreed to a series of five
collective-bargaining contracts covering such employees,
which were effective between May 1. 1963, and April 30,
1978. The contracts effective between May 1, 1966, and
April 30, 1978, contained union-shop clauses and were ex-
ecuted on the Association's behalf by, inter alia, Respon-
dent's president, Bobby Shy.'
I In view of this bargaining history, for purposes of this case it is immate-
rial whether Respondent or the association members are engaged in the
building and construction industry within the meaning of Sec. 8(1) of the
Act. Peter Kiewil Sons' Co. and South Prairie Construction Co., 206 NlRB
562, 568 569 (1973). (The subsequent history of this case is immaterial to the
point for which it is cited here See 518 F.2d 1040 (D.C. Cir. 19751: 425 I.S.
800 (1976): 231 NLRB 76 (1977): 595 F.2d 844 (D.C Cir. 1979).)
243 NLRB No. 164
920
CUSTOM WOOD SPECIALTIES. INC.
The Union has a rule or policy which forbids its members
to work for an employer not under a subsisting contract
with the Union. At the time the 1972 75 agreement expired
by its terms on April 30, 1975, the Union and the Associ-
ation had not yet reached an agreement regarding the terms
of the succeeding contract. Before that agreement was
reached, a number of association members agreed with the
Union to give effect as of May 1, 1975, to whatever contract
was eventually agreed to between the Union and the Asso-
ciation, whether or not the May I date was the effective
date of that association contract. The effect of these individ-
ual agreements was to enable these individual employers to
continue operations during negotiations. The record fails to
show which employers were afforded or took advantage of
the option of becoming parties to these individual agree-
ments. The contract eventually agreed to by the Associ-
ation and the Union was effective as of May 1, 1975, the
day after the expiration of the prior association agreement.
B. The 1978 Negotiations
By letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978, the
Union gave notice of its desire to amend the contract in
certain respects, such changes to become effective May 1.
1978. Thereafter, Company President Shy executed a docu-
ment, dated March 10, 1978, which authorized the Associ-
ation to represent Respondent "in the negotiations with the
Union for a new labor contract. I fully understand that I
am bound by the conditions set forth in that contract. This
contract will begin May 1, 1978 and continue for the dura-
tion of the contract." Shy was selected as the recording
secretary of the negotiating committee representing the As-
sociation. He participated in all of parties' seven or eight
bargaining sessions between March 28 and May 24, 1978.
No agreement was reached prior to the April 30, 1978,
expiration date of the 1975-78 agreement. On an undis-
closed date prior to May 1, 1978, the Union got in touch
with each of the approximately 65 shops which had been
covered by the 1975-78 agreement, except the approxi-
mately 7 shops whose executives were on the Association's
bargaining committee, and said that an interim agreement
was available which would permit the signatories to work.
More than 40 shops eventually signed this interim agree-
ment, but an undisclosed number may have signed May 1.
All of the shops which signed this agreement had been affir-
matively contacted by the Union about the matter. The
interim agreement further provided:
[I]f the (Union] ultimately negotiates a lesser total
monetary package with the [Association], that same
monetary package will be extended to the undersigned
employer effective as of the date the new agreement is
ratified by the Union membership. However, no em-
ployee will be required to refund any wages paid in
excess of the final settlement for that period from May
I, 1978 to the date of ratification of the new agreement.
[l]n the event the [Union and the Association negoti-
ate] additional terms or conditions, these same terms
and conditions shall be applicable to the undersigned
employer. In all other respects all the terms and condi-
tions incorporated in the 1975 78 labor agreement will
also be incorporated in the new 1978 [blank in origi-
nal] agreement.
As a shop whose president was on the negotiating com-
mittee, Respondent was not contacted by the Union about
this interim agreement: nor did Respondent sign it. The
record fails to show whether Respondent wanted to sign it.
or whether any shop which wanted to sign it was denied the
opportunity to sign, or whether either the Association or
any nonsignatory employer ever complained to either the
Union or any signatory employer about the interim agree-
ments. or whether any nonsignatory employer ever com-
plained to the Association about them. The Union struck
the nonsignatory employers, including Respondent, on May
I. Between the April 30, 1978, expiration of the 1975 agree-
ment and the August 8, 1978, execution of the succeeding
agreement between the Union and the Association, the As-
sociation members who had signed the interim agreement
continued operations. However, because the signatory
shops were mostly smaller than the struck shops. more em-
ployees struck than worked. The record fails to show
whether any of the employees in the struck shops worked
during the strike for the signatory shops. Union business
representative Fred C. Redell testified that as to the un-
signed association members. the execution of the interim
agreements put the Union in a more favorable bargaining
position than it would otherwise have been, because these
agreements enabled more of the Union's members to work
during the strike.
Between March 28 and August 8. 1978, the Association
and the Union engaged in 16 negotiatiing sessions, about 9
of them after Respondent's May 24 attempt to withdraw
from the Association (see infra). On August 8, 1978. a col-
lective-bargaining agreement effective by its terms between
May 1., 1978, and April 30, 1981, was physically signed on
the Association's behalf by five of the persons who had
participated in the negotiating sessions in which Shy had
participated. The contract contains the typewritten entry,
"Additional Management Committeemen: Bobby Shy.
William Luhmann." Luhmann had also participated with
Shy in all such sessions except his last one, on April 28. The
record fails to show why Luhmann did not physically sign
the agreement, or whether the shop of which Luhmann was
an official (apparently, Loughman Cabinet Company) was
considered to be bound by the agreement.
C. The Decertification Petitions, Respondent's Resignation
From the Association
On May 22, 1978, company employee Saverio Cirami
filed with the Board's regional office a decertification peti-
tion naming Respondent as the employer, describing the
unit as limited to "employees of the Employer" and as con-
taining 15 employees (the approximate number of employ-
ees in Respondent's shop). and further stating that the
Union was striking or picketing Respondent's shop. This
petition was docketed as Case 14-RD-630 and was sup-
ported by a document signed by nine employees. There-
after, Association President Jay Rovak telephoned Com-
pany President Shy that Rovak and the other association
members did not think that Shy "should be negotiating on a
contract, that [he had] nobody to negotiate for. and [he]
921
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wouldn't have their best interest in it, that didn't involve
[him], so [heJ should get away or get out." By letter to Shy
dated May 23. Rovak said:
It has come to our attention from several sources
that your shop employees have started proceeds [sic]
toward decertification as a Union Shop and intend to
withdraw from membership in the Union].
Under these circumstances we must ask for your im-
mediate resignation as a member of the Associated
Cabinet Shops of St. Louis and as Secretary of their
negotiating committee. We cannot in good conscience
continue to negotiate for you as a member of the asso-
ciation or with your employees thru the negotiating
committee for [the Union], when they are taking action
to withdraw from that bargaining unit.
You will have to negotiate wage rates and benefits
on a [sic] individual basis with your employees.
Further, be advised that we will notify the represen-
tatives of Ithe Union] that we no longer represent [Re-
spondent] in the current contract negotiations effective
this date.
By letter to the Association dated May 24. 1978, Shy
stated, the part:
We do agree, with the contents of your [May 23] letter
that I would be unable, in good faith, to continue to be
a member of the Associated Cabinet Shops of St. Louis
and also my position of Secretary of the negotiating
committee.
Therefore as of this date May 24, 1978. I tender my
resignation as a member of the Associated Cabinet
Shops of St. Louis and as Secretary of the negotiating
committee.
It has been my privilege working with the Association
in the past but due to the decision of Custom Wood
Specialties, Inc. employees this resignation becomes
mandatory.
Neither Rovak's nor Shy's letter referred to the interim
agreements.
By letter to Rovak dated May 25, Union Attorney Mor-
ris J. Levin acknowledged receipt of a copy of Rovak's May
23 letter to Shy. Levin's letter further stated:
As we have already advised the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, Region 14, any purported decertification
of the production and maintenance workers of [Re-
spondent] of the Carpenter's District Council or Local
1596 of that Union is untimely and any petition there-
fore must be dismissed.
As you are well aware. [Respondent] has for some
years, together with other employers in the metropoli-
tan area, authorized Associated Cabinet Shops of St.
Louis to bargain with the Union regarding the wages,
hours. benefits and working conditions of its employees
as part of a multi-employer bargaining unit. Moreover.
as late as March 10. 1978. Bobby Shy on behalf of
[Respondent] gave written authorization to your asso-
ciation to represent his company in negotiations with
the Union for a new labor contract to supplant the
agreement that expired on May 1. 1978, and Bobby
Shy actively participated in the ongoing negotiations
for that new agreement.
Under the circumstances, that company cannot at this
late date withdraw from your association nor negate its
authority to act for and on behalf of that company and
other employers in the multi-company bargaining unit.
nor can the employees of' [Respondent] at this time be
heard to deauthorize the companywide unit that has
been established and is in existence.
A courtesy copy of this letter was sent to Shy.
On June 6, 1978. the Regional irector for Region 14
administratively dismissed the decertification petition on
the following grounds:
As a result of the investigation, because it appears the
unit set forth in the petition is inappropriate for the
purpose of collective-bargaining further proceedings
are not warranted at this time. The investigation dis-
closed that the Employer has been a member of the
Associated Cabinet Shops of St. Louis which bargains
on its behalf' regarding wages, hours, benefits and
working conditions of certain of its employees repre-
sented for purposes of collective-bargaining by Car-
penters District Council of Greater St. Louis. AFL-
CIO. and that the most recent collective-bargaining
agreement in effect between the parties expired on
May 1, 1978. The investigation further disclosed that
at that time, when no new agreement was reached be-
tween Associated Cabinet Shops of St. Louis on behalf
of the Employer and other Association members, and
the Union, the Union commenced a strike. The investi-
gation disclosed that on May 23. 1978. the date follow-
ing the filing of the instant petition, the Association
requested that the Employer resign as a member of the
Association since the Employer's employees had
started proceedings towards decertification of the
Union: that on May 24. 1978. the Employer tendered
its resignation as a member of the Association: but
that the Union did not consent to such withdrawal. In
these circumstances, inasmuch as the Employer did
not withdraw in a timely manner from the multi-em-
ployer collective-bargaining unit and inasmuch as the
unit in which decertification is sought by the Petitioner
is not coextensive with the bargaining unit. I am, there-
fore, dismissing the petition in this matter.
The Regional Director's dismissal letter does not refer to
the interim agreements.
Cirami appealed this dismissal action to the Board by
letter dated June 14. 1978. His appeal letter, which appears
in official Board records and of whose contents I take judi-
cial notice, states as follows:
On May 16. 1978 almost all of the employees of ('us-
tom Wood Specialties. Inc. signed a paper that they
wanted to take a decertification vote from the Carpen-
ter's District Council of(reater St. Louis. AFI. ('10. I
went to the Regional Office and signed a petition be-
cause I thought that we had a right to an election un-
der the labor laws. or at least to a hearing.
922
'(?96 I
i) 4g18) 9L1 P I P!poW '(f961) 919 '19 I1N 1It 'JI l '' SJDd
/8 gOl vMoJ 'Jel s!ql O s mupxaJid peog q punoq wu I 'JaA;oH
Joj pO0A aq >I!Jls e uunp uo!un woij seJpql!m oi s! Jaqtwau uo!un e
se Dlun Ja(oldwllnw e ARl ol aoJJ se aq pnots Ja(oldtw us iql uwnl!p
Jo (Km q plls lino3 Jql '(L61 '!3 s[) L05 '81'L PZr'4 -9 -'J"l 'uoS
PUV pljda 'A '8gN7 uIUl so!jJ kIledt3uud uapuodsa q!qm uo '(gL61 J!D
PE) Ift-08' 'Lt P': Z 'Ul '"o gu8o . u3 J.~ 'n 'A '' 7TN :PJ03:7V .
-le uapuodsa- aoJaq saam uel aow paJllnao sluam
-aaJe u!alu! 8L61 aql ql!M uol3auuom u! fnpuom s,uo!unf
aql jo I
e
sdeqJad pue qnw 'aAOaloW 'I!un aql moJj Su!
-MLlpqI!nM JOj uo!levy!lsnf yi§ads se lanpuo qns 01 lu!od
IOU P!P ja!Jq 6L61 fJenurf s! fuIy [!un pue peoI aql Jo
uo!ufn aql laql!a ol flnpuo3 qans uo!luaw ou pp uueaq
8L61 aqwUsaal aql !)un allew aql lnoqe uo!le!oss v
aql o uo!ufn aql q!M suo!leu3unlwo0 sl! Js oj uU U! lnp
-uo3 qans ol palJJlaJ JaAau luapuodsat soqs pJo3aJ aql
se JeJ OS 'sJalJo qns paldaneU q!qAM sdoqs aql a!Jls ol gui
-pltj pue sdoqs uo!le!aosse aqlo q1!M sIe3Jluoz m!wuau! ut
-JaJO u! lanpuoi s,uo!ufn aql (q palA!lou1 Iou seM l!un aql
WOJJ lAUMUJpq!iM paldlualle s luapuodsi leq sMoqs plJo3a
luelsu! aql paapu l le MLjpql!im aql puy ol pleo aq41
pal aIeq lq2!w luapaaaJd pog lapun 'q!qM pue uo!l!lad
uo!let:y!ljaxap aql JO pasods!p 1! aoJaq uo!lu)lle spJreof
aql l uMALp Iou aaM q4!qm lnq aw ajoJaq uileaq aql !
paqs!lqelsa aaM q!q4M seJ ue aAla3lad I op lo N sluaAa
asaql ol paJajaal (l[ey!zads leadde aql lnq :sJaqwaw 4aqlo
>lnJls pue uo!lue!ossV aql JO sJaqwaw aql Jo Isou ql!AM
slateJuo u!lalu! aleJudas olu! paJalua uo!ul aql '8L61
Arh lnoqe lql SMOqs osle pJoaj luulsU! aql u! auap!^a
aA!lqoJd aql 'sluaa asaq o palJaJ legy!jads sJallal
iess!Ws!p sJolal!a(] leuo!a{ aql lnq ':u!saJ ol 'uo!l!lad
uo!l.gmyla3ap sJy aql uo pasuq 'lsanhba suo!!.uossV aql
paJouoq luapuodsal eql sM04oqs po.-aa uelusu! aq u! auap
-A)a A!ltqoJd aq41 uo!llu!lalap uaaa!p e 0l lu!od q4!q4M
s1r 1uo!l!ppU OU SMo4S pup paseq sAM uo!leu!wialap leql
q3!q4M UO slaJp aql saqs!lqelsa a aJoaq apew po3al aq41
j! pau1a3uo we? I s J.J S '!s!.V)p radtnls se uo!IEu[!UJaap
8L61 X[nf s pro"l aql praJ I 'ssalaqlauoN aJaq uapuods
-a1 ol adsJ q!M vli!pnfpn st aJe ImeJpqlM (la[w!l
-un jo suo!lu!mWJalap ase.3-uo!lLyll.aiap aql 11eql apuw
st UO!lualUo.3 oN (anpao1d JO sluawalelS s pJlo0 aql
j. (3)81'101 uo-3aS aas) JoaJqa4 Ma!iaJ peofl u!lqo lou
plno )! t auoi!llad aql lou sM luapuodsadl asneaq aJow
-Jaq4Jnl 'pue :u!Jaiq Jie!luap!va u Ilno4q!i pue laAlI
-pJls!u!iupV uaael aJaM suo!13 less!ws!p asaqL !Hun u
-UIniJpq-aA!lallo0 aaoldwa!llnnw aql tuoJJ Jauuw .Ilaw!l
r u ,AxeJpq4!M Iou pip luapuodsa3d leql u!puty suAM SlJU
-s!ws!p q1oq ol I!luass3 'uo!l!lad uo!IYy!lIjaiap puo3as aq4
pass!us!p olpaJ!l rpuo!§al al4 XL61 IsnnV u! pur :uo!l!l
-ad LuolrKy1!l3a.ap IsJy aql4 .O lUSS!LUs!p Jol01aJl(] [uo!a0 l
al1 p[aUJUltJ pJo'U al41 8L61 Ilnf u! 'punoj .isnol!aiJd sV
f8: 8b 1i 'dn rlv u!addXuuj Yag U! ..lJno) aq
Jo SfIu!plo q pUt sald!3!mid a1 u!iql!m AKl![qIIA s.uoIlt!3ossV
41 palru!iwJal pq uoliltlossV a41 Jo saqwaw l np!!pu!
41 .ll4 JaAO ql!M uoUn aql .q pal!loo3u luaulaal W!Jal
-U! al4, leql pue 'pJllof a4l qll M uoI!lad uo!ltJ1Y!llaap
Pall p4q saaoldwa s uapuodsa) asnmaq uo!pI!aossV al4
\q p1a)snbaJ sUM I.ItJpqli.m slupuodsat 1rq4 ',[latulu
aJaq pals5Xa sa3urlstunu3J! ilnsnun iqns 11 l spual
-uo3 luapuods l v'(S61) XX t }'IN 071 '"3UI 's';'IIH)sfV
'oura2h p!q
saou!il o0l papjojj IOU 1a0 q!qm sliqul 13Jluo00 8L-;L61 aql JO uo!i"dwa
oql aojaq poi!q saau!vlJ ol ppJjoyj asnla s4!ql usSu!l Jaqlo uouv y
I!Dlaj -saouelsWnlJ1! lnsnun Jo u!iAoqs B UO d3xa3 1run
.aoldwa!llnw u WOIJ muepql!ASm l3A!lajO IOUUO J0[old
-wua ue 'leAMJp41! 4 aql o0 palusuo3 Iou seq uorunf aql
pue uniaq peaalei aeq suot!lloau aolduall1nw 'Jaq
se 'aJaqM 'l!un p!Muo!le!oUssV 41 oaql J maJpql!AM XIA!l
-a3JJa uapuodsaX Jaqlaq m s! aJaq uo!lsanb le3!lua aL
suo!rnluoo puv sls/U f 'J
·alep le jo JO allal s,uorunl aql (q
palsanbal uo!lemiOJU! aql m!aM uo!ufl ql qs!uJnJ o0 pasnJ
-aJ pue pal!eJ '8L61 'tZ JaqolaD0 JaUJe sw!l Ip le' seq pue
131jluo0 leql Xq ap!qu ol pasnJ2l pue pal!eJ saw!l Ile ;e seq
1uapuodsa l4eql paleind!ls asve luelsu! aql ol sa!lled qLL
luamaaJle uo!leposse al Iq punoq JO o1 (1Jed e iou saM
luapuodsad leql punoJ aql uo spuemwap suo!uf aql qlM
zIdwmo o1 pasnJaJ (qs luap!saJd uedwo '8L61 'LZ Jaq
-o010 palep J3lla[l a8 (asnel. aau!eJl Mau e jo asneuaq pue
:sluamWed uo!suad pue 'aJeJlaM 'q1[eaq z)aq4 ol ! papaau
uo!ufn aql asne3aq :asnela lunas-uo!un al4 Jo asnea
-aq palsanbaJ seM uo!lemJoJu! s!qi 11eq pay!lsal 1[apaI a D
-uluasaid2 ssau!snq uo!un uo!ufn aql pue uo!le!aossV aql
uammlaq 131Jluo3 aq41 als!u!mpe o0l eUssaau seUM uo!IUW
-JoJU! q4ns 11e4l pale[nd!ls sa!lled IV , d!qsaaqwaw uo!un
2u!pJeSa laelJuo3 aq41 Jo suo!s!AoJd aq luamaldW! ua
am os 'XuedmuoaJ noX JoJ u!Joao uueaq Waq1 jo qea uaqM
salep aql pue saaoldwa aau!lJ1 a 'ue J! 'sauo q!qAM
Su!lea!pu! 'udwoo a no,( Xq paol[duWa lun u!u!e2Jeq aql
U!4!M sJaaom Ie Jo saqmnu 1u0JnaS le!
3 oS pue sassaJp
-pe 'saeuu aql ql!A ao s!ql qsuInJ [almpe!pau no(
1ql sanbaJ MA,, palels uaql pue '1aeuJluo sql Jo sasnela
doqs-uo!un pue uo!l!uo3aj al o uo!lualle s luapuods
-al maip Jal I aq4 . 'saaolduja Jno, Jo auwos Aq palnl!ls
-u su! paaaoJd u! pJeoig suo!lelal Joqel euo!leN aql (q
pau!mJalap seUM un Slu!ueSJeq-a^!laallo13 1aoldwa-!llnw
leq4l u! uo!snlau! panu!luoa sfueddwo no ' · liuo!le!ossV
aql q paluasaJdaJ l!un uu!eiJeq-a^!laall03 aXoldwa!l
-InW aq moIJ auuew 3ula!l U! MeJpl!im lou pip pue
suo!lPe!lo2au al u! paled!a!lJed la^laae ueduoo noA,,
asne.aaq uo!le!:,ossV a4l put uo!ufl aql uaamlaq luawaaJe
18-8L61 aql q paJ3aA SUM luapuodsa-l lq41 palJassu
U!^3a lasuno uo!Un '8L61 t'P laqolo1 palep Jalal A'
uo!un
,LqI ol uoittWUJiJoul !IoJ d °L /tInsn/i s; l.,puodsa, ]
asnelp do4 s
-ulIUn sU!eoU3 13r1JlU03 s!qL Uo!lUl al4 q4l!M 13l oU03
aql u!s o01 3UoS IOU stlM aq lel4 pa!ldaJ AqS uoufl a4q
qlKm 13eJluoa a4ql u!s ol papualui aq J! pabse pue uaw aq)
jol dn UMpJp ptq aq luawaaJt aql4J AqS papu!waJ !iWUJ!
'qofr sq asol plnoM a4 uo!Ufl al41 u!of IOU p!p 3a4.! lU41 4!q
,u!llal uo!ufl aql WOJJ lallal r paA!a3)aJ pe4q !WUJk) lq4l 4qs
ol palJodaJ !WU-l) '8L61 '6 sninv JalJe [llJo04s o uo
(INVOH SNOII.VIN OHV'I 'lVNOIJVN :10 SNOISI) I(I Pv6
'luuaaJe uall!JM aql ol dn paf!l luap
-uodsa 'Su!ea4 '8L61 '11 JiaqumaW a aql I!lun 1seal IV
'1! ol paJ2 I aq l pue
';aJA0.o Sql noqe saaXoldwa aql plol !mwe!,) auejnsu!
aJ! J 41.OM 000'S$ pue 'au!a!pa pup Sll!q sJolaop JoJ
alq!lanpap 001$ 'uo!lez!lelidsoq luaoiad 001 sM aJlql lql
pue 'peq q leql p!es qI.S a3oupinsu! aql noqu uedwo3
aueinsu! aql q3lM luamaaJw e u 31q pa e q 4jaqlaq
XqS palse !mw!3) 61 Isnanv Inoqe Jo uo saa(oldlwa sluap
-uodsa-d Jo j1 oj suo!!puo0 SU!J0OM pup 'sJnoq 'sae1M
Su![UAOI luawuaaJe alalduwo aql aq luamwnop sql leq
papualu! aq lPql pag!lsal qS ,au,, p!lda qS s!JJH
pue '!tWure! 'XqS q dn uvp u3waaJa aql ol pa1S
peq uaw ql Weql qiS plol uql twue!D !i q!M pays!ies
ajaM aql4 leql w!q plol woqM Jo IIe 'saao l duwa laqlo ql
lip Suowe sa!do3 asaoq plnqls!p !uwe!3 Jalel os o X1ep
V lu3woldwa Jo siep 09 JlJe saaoludwua oJ aujnsu!
uo!lz!ilel!dso q qs!uJnJ o Su!ieJapun IjoauaS e pau!eluo
pup luawaaJse L-eL61 aql j.pun pa4s!1qelsa asoql uql
suo!lee1 A pu s1ePp!loq luaJaJ!p JOj plle3 luauwn3op s!l1
'XqS '(q pJ1yo alnpaqs aSeM aql ql4oJ u!11as ol uo!I!ppe
u I saaoldwa ql lie ol a)lnq!ls!p ol sa!do. qnoua !wjel!
ae pu pq aq lql p!es qS dn p3adKl uuaaaJe aql
peq peq 3q laqlaqM •AS paJse !WJ!3) '01 1sn2]nV lnoqv
1luowaaij2e 1Jup aql aos
ol l!ei plnoM aql leql p!es s!1JeH pup IWuJIJ) s!IJJH pue
!wJ!3 o1 1! 3A!s puP 'OMI J1o JaaiM u! dn ! adhl A`JelaJa3s
s!4q 3a^Aq 'laaJ leql 01 Oluaw3laaj2 Ue dn Mejp plnom aq
leql p!es X(qS jl3jeaaJql sqluo 9 13Jaa aJoW sluoa3 § put'
'l 1*qu1AON UO aJ0o SlUDO 3 'l11le!paWtu! slua33 § saa
-,(oldw3 a 3Aql! plnoM 3q leql p!es Xqs 'sSulaaw saql Jo
auo Su!iJnl luawaJ2e ue Jo selop aql Ino liom ol suo s
-eJo oM1 J1 auo uO s!1J H pupe W!mJ! q41M loaW 4S 'J3UlJ
-aaq41 suo!lV,3A pue si(ep!loq u!ls!xa ql!i paysles aq
plnoM sa,?oldwa aql 'asi!J lUa3-0 34ql ql!M q41 p!s pup
'slsanbail ae, ,saooldw aql paelai !iew!3D aJ ueJnsui
pue 'suoylTeaeA s,(:p1lo q 'sa SeM u!pJeaJ aq plnoM (a!lod
Sluapuods3 Ieq1Im Mouj ol ao!i plnoM aql4 ,,uo!ufn aql
u! I,uaJaM Isa A0oldua aql] 1Su!q,, p!es u1Wsa3jods se 2uile
*'!mw1! ) a o s,£q1 s olu! luaM uodnajaql s11JeH pu !tueJ!1
'SUol!1?31?A pU? s(?p!loq Ui1S!ia alnu!Iuo. ol aJp oI pu (8
lsnnlV uo UO!lri?3ossV 41l pup uoIUf aql ua3MlAq pqazeai
luaUIaaJi , u!u!iui4Jq-a^!lallo ?ql apun '6L61 'IC
X'enur p 'L61 'I Ai uaM1aq oj palle? lunowe 1aql)
asiJ lua3-(;S : luaql aA! ol '(4S luap!saJd u1dmo) se
0o s!
1
JJel U!^IA') pup !UiW!3) saa`oldwm ps s'aaoldwa
,(uedwuoa Jnol Jo aajql 1 IlsnnV Inoqe Jo uo 'al!qIMuual
.1th0ou.) ,AdtO/(4q3 l., l fqI4 I/Tt VXll(a S; 11,l,')0d. ,t a(J
'14qlnos s:?M laddl? lns N pog aq31 l lrss!Wu
-sip 4ql Ir3dd o lq42! s!q j. !1uJI,) pas!Apl? 1al1al s!q
1alluW s!ql u! uo!l!l.d 3aql u!ss!iusip
'aJO(laJql 't I '
u
IUn U!U!ilJTq aql qllAM 3A!SUa)X3
lOU ! J3uo!ilI)d )ql q lqSnos s! UtO!le0)!lJ3oaap qJ!qM
u! uin 341 sl? qm Iltusu! pup? lIun ulu!iUiJq-^A!l.3allo0
J3(XoldW3-!illntu qU 41 Uo JU t W laMUW!l p? u! MIJpql}M
1ou P!P jlAoldu-1i aq s q.nwseu! 'sa-uelswn.J!v
3as3tl l p'"!Up SIM I1ss!lWS!p aql O ma!5AaJ J1 lsfnb
-aJ s3aulO!lan1d '8L61 61 XInf uO aluldolddu! S ?M
qans se Uweu e Aeq ou pip lql s(oildw
jo dnoA e ql!(A uo!seJ)o auo ueql Jow uo luw a4q )lql pyJ!lsl !WJ!UD
uoililad ql u! q4JoJ las I!un ql 'aoJaJaql 'pue uo!le
-!3OSSV aql WOJJ uMejpql!IM (laW!l Iou peq jaoilduIw
aql 1141 punoJ2 aql uo '8L61 '9 aunf uo pass!tus!p lnq
'8L61 'ZZ pellN uo Paly se 09- -t-I1 'oN as3D U!
uo!leJy!iJaxap .OJ uo!l!lad V lamJpql!m qans ol luas
-u03 OU p!ip uo!unf aql leql nq 'uoqie!3ossy al Jo 1aq
-waw e se uo0!euS!sai sl! paJapual Jaoldm aq41 '8L61
'tZ i'e13,J UO 141 :uo!ufl a4q J uol1y!lJa3ap spleM
-o su!paa3oJd palels peq saa'(oldwa saAo`old 3 aq41
au!s uo!le!iossV 3ql JO aquawm e se uS!saJ Ja'(oldu3
4ql le4l palsanba- uole!possV aql 'pauauuWo3 suo!l
-e!l02au Jle '8L61 'Z 3IN UO leql pasols!p uo!le$
-!lsaAu! aql '3!Jls e pauamUWo3 uo!ufn aql 'uoufl a4q
pue 'sjaqwaw uo!le!ossv jaqlo pupe jaolduw aql JO
Jleqaq uo s!noq IS JO sdoqS lau!qeD palu!3ossV uaaml
-aq paqr3eaJ seM luaW3uaaJ. Mau ou uoqm 'am!l 11q4 le3
lq41 psolzS!p a4ql1nJ uo!leS!lsaAu! aq4 '8L61 'I ftmq
uo paJ!dx sa!led aql uaaiMaq 13oaa u! luawaoJSe u!
-u!e3.%eq aAIl3allO lua3aJ Isow aqlI le1q pue' 'OID-1j
'(lI!u!T!A pue sino -IS Jalear3 Jo l!3unoD lo!Jis!i ,s3al
-uacdJe D '(q Suiu!eq A!la3ll30 Jo sasodJnd o paluas
-aJdai saa'(oldwa sl! Jo u!elJa3 Jo suoil!puo Su!(J0om
pute slyou3q 'sJnoq saSeM Su!pJeSal Jleqaq slI uo
su!eSJeq q4q4M s!nol S JO sdoqs lau!qe D pale!aossV
aql JO jaqmwa e ua3q se4q Jaioldu3 aql l4ql pasolo
-sip uo!leS3lsaAu! aq4l am!l s!ql le plueijeM Iou aJe
s~u ipavoJd JalqlJnJ Su!u!eSJeq aA!l33llo1 Jo asodind
3ql o ale!idoJddeu! s! uo!lilad aql u! qljoJ ls !un
aql seadde 1! asneaq 'Uo!leIS!lsau! ql Jo linsaJ e sV
:spunoBi U!MOllOJ
aql uo uo!l!lad !ql pass!us!p 1laA!eJIs!u!Wpe tpl uo0!a}{
tJ 1o033la leuo!IaJ a41 '8L61 ' Ilsnlnv p3lep jalal (g
doqs supuods H le u!olao!d Jo U!l11s seM uo!u N aql
leqI paIlle jaqlJnJ put l!un aql u! saa'(oldwa ql Jo ao10
Jo lualajd o0£ q plJoddns seM uo!ilad aql leql paSalle
'saa(oldwa fl Jo u!s!suosU se pue saaoldwa s,luapuodsa-t
oI pal!w!l se H!un aql paq!-sap 'Ja'olduwa aql se luapuods
-a3 t paweu uo!lilad uo!le3y!lJaa3p aqi ,,dnolrt saaXold
-wU,, aql s! upwuu au!lolad Jo Jleqaq uo
uo!l!lad uolevJy!liaap e paly !J!3 '8L6 1 '1£ Klnf uo
m!4q U!SJa5aJ Joj ,,po~alle uaaq Aeq spunoiJ ua!
-yWnsu!,, leq) punoj a4l uo uo!l!lod aql J less!mus!p s5,0l
-aaCI leuo!Sa) a3ql pa.wjye peo aql 31'8L61 '61 Ilnf uo
',ul 'sa!ll!3ads Poo°
wolsn,) pup? 1!uno) oi3!Js!(l sJlUadJ D3 sinlo1 'IS
ol palanJlSU! S Sm!dO) til!e?1 WI? I pup palnJlsu! se
'pjeoq aql ol leddr aJolaJaq4 I 'si.eJ 3sa4l nlo u!uq
o1 u!JT?3,q I? U4;q Alq plnoqs a5iql '1s3l e '11 lq41 la I
GJs3 4ql ql!M iou pup? UO!lp
-!3ossV aql .l sJqltU a tU awos 41!M q .i 1aUlluo pup seM
qloq I! 3A4q UO!ufl q341 UT?) 'SJ3qWW JJ 1ql1O lsu!ee
3l!JlS u! l!lS SM pue uoyle!aossV aql Jo sqwtaw a3ql
j)O lSoW q!M sl).1. luoI al1JI?:das Olu! pa1ua peq uo!ufl
a41 le1 l 13rl aq341 ioqe ps stM 'Ui41OU 'JIA3MOH
'sdoqS lou!qr?) uo!le!i
-oSSV at1. jo 1 aqUl3U I? SuM iaOldwa no lqi41 spunoAJ
a41 uo pass!ius!p slM uo!ll.3d aql 8L61 '9 3unf UO
.)NI 'Sll Il VI.)-dS (I()()M INA()I.S1)
ClUSTOM WOOl) SPECIAI.TIES. INC(.
tempted to withdraw from the unit on the sole ground that
its employees had filed a decertification petition. The fact
that Respondent's attempted withdrawal was not motivated
by the interim-agreement matter undercuts, at least argu-
ably, its later reliance thereon as a basis for validating that
withdrawal. Acrme Wire Works. Inc., 229 NlRB 333. 336
(1977), enfd. 582 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1978).
For the foregoing reasons. I find that Respondent's pur-
ported withdrawal from the multiemployer unit in late May
1978 was ineffective and that at all material times Respon-
dent's employees were included in that unit. Accordingly,
Respondent cannot justify its withdrawal of recognition
from the Union on the basis of a good-faith belief (or even
a showing) that a majority of Respondent's own employees
no longer wanted representation by the Union. Sheridan
Creations, Inc., 148 NLRB 1503, 1505 1506 (1964), enfd.
357 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1966). cert. denied 385 U.S. 1005
(1967). Furthermore, the continued appropriateness of the
multiemployer unit establishes that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act by refusing to honor the
contract between the Union and the Association and by
refusing to give the Union information regarding Respon-
dent's unit employees which was necessary to administer
that contract. Acme Wire, supra, 229 NLRB at 336 337:
Joseph McDaniel dbla Custom Colors Contractors, 226
NLRB 851 (1976), enfd. sub nom. N.L.R.B. v. Beckham,
Inc., 564 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1977); N.L.R.B. v. Acme Indus-
trial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). Moreover, because Section
8(d) required Respondent to sign that contract on request,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) by telling employee
Cirami that Respondent would not sign it. Further, because
Respondent's duty to bargain with the Union exacted the
negative duty to refrain from negotiating with individual
employees in the bargaining unit,5 Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by negotiating directly
with employee Cirami. Finally, the employees who asked
fellow employees Cirami and Harris to ask Respondent for
a wage increase and for continued observance of holidays
and vacations, and who later approved the agreements
reached between Cirami and Respondent regarding wages
and insurance, constituted (with Cirami and Harris) a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company and Cabot Shops, Inc.,
360 U.S. 203 (1959); S. & W. Motor Lines, Inc., 236 NLRB
938, 942 (1978). Accordingly, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by recognizing and bargaining
with it, and Section 8 (aXl), (2), and (5) by agreeing to,
executing, and honoring a collective-bargaining agreement
with it, at a time when the Union was the statutory repre-
sentative of a unit which included Respondent's employees.
Ben Corson Manufacturing Co., et al., 112 NLRB 323
(1955).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 678, 683-684
(1944).
2. The Union and the Employees Group are each labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material, the Union has been the repre-
sentative. within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. of'
the following unit which is appropriate for collective-bar-
gaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9hb) of the
Act:
All employees of the employers within the Associ-
ation, including Respondent, wherever the same are
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the St.
Louis Carpenter's District Council, excluding office
employees, clerical employees, employees covered by a
written contract with other unions, and supervisory
employees.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by
telling an employee that it would not sign the contract be-
tween the Union and the Association effective May 1, 1978.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act by recognizing and bargaining with the Employees
Group.
6. Respondent has violated Section 8(a) 1) and (5) of the
Act by failing and refusing to abide by the contract negoti-
ated by the Association effective May 1., 1978. and by refus-
ing to furnish the Union with information which is neces-
sary to administer the foregoing contract.
7. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1). (2). and (5) of
the Act by negotiating directly with an employee in the
appropriate unit who represented the Employees Group.
and by negotiating, agreeing to, executing, and honoring a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employees
Group.
8. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
TtIE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated the Act in
certain respects, I shall recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and from like and re-
lated conduct. Having found that Respondent unlawfully
failed to abide by the contract between the Union and the
Association, I shall recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to honor that agreement and make its employees
whole for any losses they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's failure to honor that agreement, with interest
as called for in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).6 Backpay, if any, in consequence of separations
shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth
in F. W. Woolworth, Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). Hav-
ing found that Respondent has unlawfully bargained and
contracted with the Employees Group, I shall recommend
that Respondent be required to withdraw and withhold rec-
ognition from that organization and to cease giving effect to
Respondent's contract with that organization. In addition,
Respondent will be required to post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
6 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NL RB 716 ( 1962).
92s
DI):(fISIO)NS ()1 NAII()NAI. I.AB()R RII.A I IONS B()ARI)
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 1(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the fllowing recomlmended ()rder:
ORI)ER 7
The Respondent, (ustom Wood Specialties, Inc., St.
Louis, Missouri, its ollicers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Telling employees that it will not sign the agreement
between the Associated Cabinet Shops and Laminating In-
dustry of St. Louis and Carpenters' I)istrict (ouncil ol
Greater St. Louis, AFI ('10.
(b) Recognizing and bargaining with the Employees
Group.
(c) Failing and refusing to abide by the contract negoti-
ated by the Association effective May 1, 1978, and refusing
to furnish the Union with information which is necessary to
administer the foregoing contract.
(d) Negotiating directly with employees in the contract
unit.
(e) Negotiating, agreeing to, executing, or honoring col-
lective-bargaining agreements with the Employees G(roup.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with the
Union's effects to bargain collectively; contributing support
to the Employees Group; or interfering with, restraining. or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights gu;ararteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Em-
ployees Group, and cease giving effect to any agreements
with it.
(b) Honor the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Union and the Association effective May I. 1978.
(c) Make its employees whole for any losses they may
have suffered by Respondent's refusal to honor that agree-
ment, in the manner set forth in that part of this I)ecision
entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Provide the Union with the names, addresses, and
social security numbers of all of Respondent's employees
within the appropriate bargaining unit, indicating which
ones, if any, are trainee employees, and the dates when each
of them began working for Respondent.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(f) Post at its St. Louis, Missouri, operation copies of the
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 herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
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.
attached notice lmarked "Appendix.l" ( opics ol slad noltice
on forms provided by the Regional )lreclor or Region 14
alter being signed by Respondelit's repe-csentaltiscs, shall he
posted by Respondent inmicdiately iipol receipt thereof,
and be maintained bh it for 6() coIsec CItive days therealtcr,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Rea;sonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are Inot
altered, defaced, or covered bhy an other material.
(g) Notifyl the Regional D)irector lo Rcgion 14 i writ-
ing, within 20 days from the (date of this ()rder. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply' here ilh.
i n Ic' 't cn trlat this ()r cer ni cilnrt ed Sl ;a Jdlsg nilclt ot | t ilei I l Itc,
( ouIr It Appeals, the w ird, il the oice reading "',ste d t bs, ( )rdcr the
Nali eonal I ihior Rcl.tions Board" 'shall rd " Plosted Pt il tll.i tai Judignlnt
if Ihc mt n d S ial, ('our of App eal i i s nhilciring an () ietel It iic N Itisil
L.aIhor Rel.llns li1 id "
A PPIN 1)1 X
NoltI 1 I [IMPI ()'I i S
P)silll) BVY OR)ER ()l 11It
NAII)NAI LABOR RiI AI IO()NS BI(IARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
Af'tcr a Hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present evidence, the National abor Relations Board has
found that sve violated the law, and has ordered us to post
this notice. We intend to abide by the following:
WE Wn Nt tell you that we will not sign the
agreement between the Associated Cabinet Shops and
Laminating Industry of St. ouis and Carpenters' Dis-
trict ('ouncil of Greater St. ouis, A FL CIO.
Wi Wll.t NOt fail and refuse to abide by that con-
tract.
Wli Wll.l NOt negotiate directly with employees in
the contract unit.
WE wIIJll Not recognize or bargain with the Employ-
ees Group.
Wt ( wll1 N negotiate, agree to, execute, or honor
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employees
Group.
WI w.LL NOI in any like or related manner interfere
with the Carpenters' efforts to bargain collectively:
contribute support to the Employees Group; or in-
fringe on employees' rights under the Act.
W, wltl.i withdraw and withhold all recognition
from the Employees Group, and cease giving effect to
any agreements with it.
Wt. wil.. honor the collective-bargaining agreement
between the Carpenters and the Association effective
May I. 1978; provide the Carpenters with information
necessary to administer that agreement; and make em-
ployees whole, with interest, for any losses they may
have suffered by reason of our refusal to honor that
agreement.
CUSroM WOOD SPECIAIIES, IN(.
926