Int'l Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1337 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INT'L UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC. 1337
pated . It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be orderd to cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights ' guaranteed its employees
by Section 7 of•the Act. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Herman O. Wunsch and William Smith t/a Atlantic Maintenance Co. are an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct.
2. Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union, Local • 125,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the 20
employees hereinabove named the Respondent has -engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and, Agricul-,
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and
its Amalgamated Local No. 453 and Maremont Automotive
Products, Inc., Charging Party. Case No. 13-CB--888. Decem-
ber 18, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 12, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and,
take certain affirmative, action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
'attached hereto. Thereafter, both Respondents' and ' the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made. at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, insofar as they are consistent with this
Decision and Order.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondents violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (3) of the Act but not for the reasons on which he relied.
On the facts, which are accurately set forth in the Intermediate
Report, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the unit 21 negotiat-
ing committee and its chairman, Hawkins, were; the negotiators and
agents for both Respondents, Local and International. However, we
disagree with the Trial Examiner's holding, that; the, International's
134 NLRB No. 128.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letter which Hawkins read to the company and union bargaining
committees on November 23, 1959, constituted a limitation on the au-
thority of the unit committee to act as agent for the Respondents, or
that its reading in the course of a bargaining session constituted notice
to the Company of a possible limitation. On its face, the letter dealt
with provisions which the International was anxious to have included
in the forthcoming agreement in order to forestall any potential
liability under the 1959 labor legislation. The letter may even be read,
not as a limitation but as an affirmation of the negotiating commit-
tee's authority, despite its insistence that the provisions suggested had
to be included.'
Additionally, International Representative Rebhan's failure on-
the one hand to speak of any intention to affect the apparent authority
of the unit 21 bargaining committee, and, on the other hand, his state-
ment to the company negotiators at the next bargaining session that
the three union parties (International, Local, and unit) could not be
separated one from the other, further weaken any inference that the
International had meant to withdraw or limit the authorization of its
negotiatiors to conclude an agreement.
Since the unit bargaining committee proceeded to negotiate and
settle on final terms, to obtain membership ratification, and to execute
the resulting document, with the apparent authority and in the man-
ner of previous negotiations, we find that it reached a binding agree-
ment with the Company on behalf of both Respondents .2 The Re-
spondents'were legally obligated to execute this agreement. Accord-
ingly, we find that by failing and refusing to execute the contract, the
Respondents have refused to bargain within the meaning of,the Act
and have thereby violated Section 8(b) (3).'
Under the circumstances of this case, we find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that Respondents may not be held to have refused to bar-
gain in good faith merely because of the failure of International Rep-
resentative Rebhan to attend the final bargaining session. .
'The imperative phrase "The following changes must be made in your present agree-
ment," on which the Trial Examiner relied, relates to the Respondents' objective of avoid-
ing potential liability under the contract rather than to the authority of the negotiators.
The letter also stated that a contract which did not contain the recommended changes
would not be approved unless there was "good and sufficient reason" for their omission,
but did not specify what would constitute such reason The letter then concludes with
an offer of assistance to the agent in securing the objectives stated, thereby emphasizing
the continuing authority of the agent, rather than indicating an intent to limit its
authority.
2Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local No 65 , AFL-CIO ( Inland Steel Products Company),
120 NLRB 1678; Operating Engineers Local No. 3, AFL-CIO (California Association of
Employers ), 123 NLRB 922, 929.
8 We reject the Respondents ' contention that subsequent attempts by the Company to
settle the dispute prove that no agreement had been reached Nor, in view of our holding
herein, do we find it necessary to pass upon whether the Respondents' subsequent
acceptance of the benefits of the contract constituted ratification of their agent's agreement.
INT'L UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC. 1339
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents, Local and International, as rep-
resentatives of the majority of the employees in the appropriate unit,
through their unit 21 bargaining committee, engaged in bargaining
with the representatives of the Company and agreed upon the terms of
a contract governing wages, hours, and conditions of employment of
the employees of the Company, and thereafter refused to execute the
formal document incorporating these terms, and having found that
the Respondents, Local and International, have thereby engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. We shall, therefore, order that the
Respondents, upon request, execute and sign, as the representative of
the Company's employees in the aforesaid unit, the labor agreement,
tendered to them by the Company on December 11, 1959, if the Com-
pany so desires; and upon the Company's request, at an appropriate
time, bargain with it for a new agreement, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such agreement in a signed contract.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Amalgamated Local
No. 453, their officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing upon the request of Maremont
Automotive Products, Inc., to execute the written agreement tendered
to them by the Company on December 11, 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) If requested to do so by the Company, forthwith sign the agree-
4'Concurrent with their exceptions to the Intermediate Report, Respondents moved for
the dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the execution of the contract involved
herein was moot, its term having expired by reason of the Company's timely notice there-
under and request for negotiations for a new agreement . We find no merit in this con-
tention as the Company is entitled to any legal protection which may have arisen under
the contract , if fully executed , and to obtain such execution if it so desires . To hold
otherwise would permit the unfair labor practice committed by Respondents to remain
without a remedy. Sheet Metal Workers, supra, footnote 2.
Member Rodgers agrees that the Respondent Unions should be ordered to bargain with
the Company, at an appropriate time and upon the Company 's request , for a new agree-
ment, and , if an understanding is reached , embody such agreement in a signed contract.
However , 'he finds it unnecessary to now order Respondent Unions to sign the already
expired 1959 contract.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment tendered to them by the, Company on December 11, 1959, and
upon request at an appropriate time bargain collectively with the
Company as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit for which it is the bargaining representative, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall
after being duly signed by their representatives, be posted by them
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to their members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by them to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed
copies of said notice for posting at the premises of Maremont Auto-
motive Products, Inc., the Company willing, for 60 consecutive days
in places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS FANNING and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
5In the event that this Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED LOCAL No. 453, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), AFL-CIO AND TO ALL
MEMBERS OF SAID INTERNATIONAL UNION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL, if requested to do so by Maremont Automotive Prod-
ucts, Inc., sign and execute the agreement tendered to us by said
Company on December 11, 1959, and we will, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with the aforesaid Company at an appropriate
time as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit for which we are the bargaining representative, and,
INT'L UNION, -UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT,! ETC. 1341
if an understanding is reached; embody such' understanding in a
signed agreement: . . , V ' .. - . I • . . -,
AMALGAMATED LOCAL No. 453, INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT W 0 R K'E R S OF
AMERICA (UAW), AFL-- IO,.
Labor-.Organization.
Dated------------------ B ---------
Representative ) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- BY-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 ( b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ( 61 Stat . 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Chicago, Illi-
nois, on June 28 and 29, 1959 , pursuant to due notice , with all parties represented
by Counsel . The complaint , issued by the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the - Board ) on April 29,
1960 , and based upon charges duly filed and served , alleged in substance that Inter-
national Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL-CIO and its Amalgamated Local No. 453, herein called
Respondents , had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign a written collective-bargaining
contract agreed upon between the two Respondents and the Charging Employer and
by bargaining in bad faith.
In their duly filed answers , both Respondents denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices and set up certain affirmative defenses.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF ' FACT
1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
Maremont Automotive Products , Inc., herein called the Employer or the Com-
pany, at all times material is and has been a corporation duly organized under and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois . The Employer maintains its
principal office and place of business at Chicago , Illinois, and various other facilities
in ,the States of New York , Georgia, Ohio , Michigan , California , and Illinois, and is,
and has been at all times material herein , engaged at said facilities in the manu-
facture, sale , and distribution of automotive replacement parts and related products.
The Employer 's facilities located in Harvey , Cicero, and Chicago, Illinois, are the
only facilities involved in , this proceeding. During the .12 months preceding the
issuance of the complaint , which is a representative period , the-Employer manu-
factured , sold, and shipped from its facilities located within the State of Illinois,
products valued in excess of $1,000 ,000• to points outside the State of Illinois. The
Employer is , and has been at all times material herein , engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent International and Respondent Local each are, and have been at all
times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and
8(b) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The facts are relatively simple and there is little material conflict in them. Since
1946, Respondent International and Respondent Local have been the collective-
bargaining representatives of the employees' in a unit composed of all production
and maintenance employees in Maremont's plants located in Harvey, Cicero, and
Chicago, Illinois, exclusive of office and plant clerical employees, nurses, watchmen,
plant guards, truckdrivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
-- Respondent Local is an amalgamated local comprised of various units of which
unit 21''involves the Maremont employees? Several of these employees are on the
negotiating committee which also includes the unit chairman, at all times material,
one Octavia Hawkins.
As background, allowed over vigorous objections by Respondents, the General
Counsel adduced evidence regarding the negotiation of contracts previous to the one
at issue-that of 1959.3 Generally in the past there was at least one representative
from Respondent International present at negotiation meetings with the Company.
Also generally there was no one present from Respondent Local as distinguished
from the unit at the negotiations.4 The usual practice when negotiations had been
completed was that the union committee would indicate that it was making a positive
recommendation to its membership which was tantamount to a firm contract .5
,Then followed a luncheon at which the contract was signed by all the members of
the Union's bargaining committee as well as by representatives of the International
and the Local either then or immediately thereafter.
In 1959 negotiations followed the general practice. After notices of desire to
enter into negotiations, November 5, 1959, was set as the date for its first meeting,
having been arranged over the telephone between Seymour J. Burrows, Mare-
mont's director of labor relations, and Ralph Robinson, assistant director of region
4 of the Respondent International. Pursuant to the arrangement, Burrows, besides
'confirming by letter to Robinson the arrangement reached with the latter, also gave
written notice of the date and place of the meeting to Hilliard Ellis, president of the
Local, and to Octavia Hawkins, the unit chairman
Following the November 5 meeting, additional meetings occurred on Novem-
ber 11, 23, 24, and 30.6 Unit Chairman Hawkins and various employee members
of the committee were present at all the meetings. Herman Rebhan, national rep-
resentative of the International assigned to the Local as a service representative, was
present at the first four meetings and Robinson of the International was present
at the first two meetings. No one from the Local as such appeared at any of the
meetings and no one from the Local or the International was present at the last or
November 30 meeting when final agreement was reached by the negotiators?
' Apparently representative status of the two Respondents was established by a Board
certification.
' It was stipulated that unit 21 is not a labor organization.
3 Contracts for 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959 were received in evidence In the 195(i
contract the parties were named as the Company, on the one hand, and Amalgamated
Local No 453, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, on the other. The subsequent contracts
designated the union parties as "International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America and Unit 21 of its Amalgamated Local 453,
AFL-CIO " As will be seen this Is the matter as it applied to the 1959 contract upon
which I believe the disposition of this case turns.
4 In the 15 meetings Involving the 1958 and 1959 negotiations only once did a repre-
sentative from the Local attend
s Never in its bargaining history here had the employees turned down the recommenda-
tions of its committee.
6 Testimony by one of the union officials indicates there may have been another meet-
ing on November 25.
•' One of the few conflicts in the testimony has to do with whether or not as of
November 5, or at anytime prior to November 29, Rebhan had told anyone on the negotiat-
ing, committee or in management of his expecting to absent himself from the negotiations
by the end of the month in order to take his vacation. I am inclined to believe and find
that no one on the management side or among the union negotiators had any such
information.
INT'L UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC . 1343
At the. November 23 meeting as reflected in a stenographer's report thereof,
Unit Chairman Hawkins made the following statement:
We have received a communication from the International. The Maremont
Unit as such has not met with their membership on it so we are not in a posi-
tion to say, what our positive position is going to be. We had already pre-
sented the Company withour demands so far as the Unit is concerned, but we
feel the Company should be aware of what some of the recommendations of
' ^ our' International Regional Office are. We are calling a special meeting with
our membership to see what happens. I will read this letter for informational
purpose s.8
'Re: 1959 Contract Negotiations
GREETINGS: This office is now in the process of reviewing all collective bar-
gaining . agreements except those negotiated on a national basis; such as, GM,
Ford etc., in order to make certain that no conflict exists between our present
• agreements and the punitive labor legislation recently enacted by Congress.
We have been concentrating on agreements that are now open for negotia-
tion and those that are expiring in the near future.
Since your Local Union is in negotiations with Maremont Automotive Prod-
ucts, composed of members of Unit 21, I want to advise you of the changes
this office recommends in order that the Local Union as well as the Interna-
tional Union is fully protected. As you well know, the new law places the
Local Union and the International Union in a position of 'being sued in the
courts as well as cited by the injunctive procedures of the NLRB. In Order to
avoid such possibilities and in order to lessen the liabilities to our members,
should such an occasion arise, the following changes must be made in your
present agreement:
1) Articles of Agreement should read as follows: (changes are under-
lined)
This agreement entered into this_______________________
between Maremont Automotive Products, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as
the "Company") and the International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and its affiliated
Local Union No. 453, on behalf of Unit 21, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (hereinafter
referred to as the Union).
2) Duration of Agreement:
In the past you have been negotiating a one (1) year agreement. Due
to the uncertainty, of the economic situation and the political attacks that
have already been levelled against the UAW and will intensify in the
future, this office recommends that you time your agreement so that it
expires shortly after our major auto contracts; namely October 1961.
We recommend December 1; 1961, as a logical date.
The agreement should contain a cost of living clause as well as an auto-
matic increase on the first anniversary date.
Your Unit, being in the automotive parts business, is obviously unable
to set patterns. It will, also, stabilize the activities of the Unit and will
make it possible. to devote more time in processing all types of grievances
and carry out the program of our Union instead of being in perpetual
negotiations.
3) This office has scrutinized your Fourth Step of the Grievance Pro-
cedure, which is the terminal step dealing with arbitration. We fail to find
any provision that makes the Local Union a party to arbitration proceed-
ings. This should be corrected since the new legislation makes the Local
Union responsible in suits, unfair labor practice charges, etc. The Local
must, therefore, not only have ultimate responsibility but must be a
party to the arbitration proceedings.
In conclusion, I want to again impress upon you the seriousness of incorpo-
rating these recommendations into your Local 453 Unit 21 collective bargain-
ing agreement.
Article 13, Section 28, of the International Constitution makes it obligatory
upon this office to recommend contracts for approval. Unless there is good
and sufficient reason for the inability to incorporate these proposed changes,
s This letter from the International was directed to Hilliard Ellis, president of the
Local, and Octavia Hawkins, chairman of the unit, and is dated November 16.
1344 'DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS` BOARD
this office cannot' recommend approval of any future collective" bargaining
agreements. This office, through 'the International ' Representative assigned to
servicing and•'myself,-personally; are available to assist you in securing these
changes. -1 . , •-t, . - i <
If you have any questions, please feel free to consult with this office.
With best wishes, I-remain,
Fraternally yours; iG - '
ROBERT 7OHNSTON,-Director,
Region•#4, UAW
After Hawkins had read the letter some discussion of the matters" therein took
place. Regarding the question of the designation of the parties, the following col-
loquy occurred as reflected in the minutes taken at the time:
Bum As I see it, as, to who -the contract is with and how it is worded, NLRB
somewhere along the line certified someone to represent these people. You
know you are dealing with Maremont Automotive Products-who we are
dealing with is sometimes slightly in doubt, but when you get it settled, let
us know so we will know whether we are negotiating with (the) International
after negotiations are started or representatives of our workers.
REBHAN: I am sure the certification points out who the parties to the
agreement are. I think that should settle the question.
Shortly after this it was decided to adjourn. In the next meeting , held on Novem-
ber 24, the third and fourth steps of the arbitration procedure were discussed and
Rebhan proposed the following:
We are asking that the following language be added to the 3rd Step. In line
10 after, "A grievance reaching this stage may be tabled by either party for
further study or investigation" that the following be added-"and may be
tabled twice by either party." The President of the Local Union or his desig-
nated representative shall receive a copy of all Grievance Meeting minutes and
shall be advised of all grievances tabled at the "Third Step." Balance same.
And at the 4th Step we would say-
A grievance that has not been satisfactorily settled under the foregoing
procedure may be submitted by either party to arbitration by notice to
the other in writing on the grievance form. The President of Local 453
or his designated representative shall within thirty (30) days of submis-
sion of a grievance to arbitration propose in writing a list of three (3)
arbitrators. Balance same.
In discussing Rebhan's proposals it was made clear that the Company objected to
being legally bound to furnish the Local with minutes of the grievance meetings-
something that it had nevertheless been doing "on a unilateral basis. As for the step
4 proposal, that notice of the submission of a grievance come through the president
of the Local, the Company indicated:
We have no objection as to who notifies us. You are talking now as a com-
bined Union and as such you have a right to say who will notify us of
arbitrations, but we are not assuming the responsibility of keeping the three
parties notified. As I said, we have no objection as to who is going to notify
us as long as we know who is going to do it.
After the November 24 meeting, a general meeting of the membership of unit
21 was called on November 29. Rebhan was present. Among other things, the
proposals made by the International in the letter Hawkins had read in the negotia-
tion session of ' November 23 were discussed "pro and con." After this a vote
was taken. The result was an overwhelming rejection of the International's pro-
posals. Thereafter the negotiators again met on November 30. As indicated,
Rebhan did not attend nor did anyone else from the International or the Local as
distinguished from the unit.
Although stenographic notes were taken of the November 30 meeting, they were
never transcribed due to the demise of the stenographer who took them. Whether
or not any of the matters referred to in the International's letter read by Hawkins
in the November 23 meeting or taken up by the membership in its meeting of
November 29 were discussed in the November 30 negotiating meeting does not ap-
pear in the record except by way of Burrows' testimony that there was no request
made by the union negotiators on the 30th for the change of the heading of-the
contract, nor was there any discussion at that meeting "'about) grievances." In any
INT'L UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE; AIRCRAFT, ETC. 1345
event the understanding which Hawkins and the rest of the employee negotiators
reached on November 30 did not include the heading change which they had been
instructed by the International to secure. Nor was the contract for more than 1
year's duration. It did, however, adopt all the language on step 4 of the grievance
procedure that Rebhan had proposed but did not require the Company to furnish
the Local with minutes of grievance meetings as he had proposed in step 3.
Thereafter, having been notified that the membership accepted the contract, the
customary luncheon meeting was held on December 11. As in the past, all who
participated in the negotiations were invited as was the president of the Local. No
one from either the Local or the International attended although Robinson had
accepted his invitation but later canceled because of "other business." Having
secured the signatures of Unit Chairman Hawkins and the other employee members
of the committee, Burrows took the agreement to the International office where
he attempted to get Rebhan's signature. Rebhan said he could not sign and took
Burrows to see Johnston, director of the International's region 4. There, accord-
ing to Burrows testimony, Johnston also refused to sign on the basis of two ob-
jections: (1) The wording designating the parties to the agreement and (2) a
change to allow Local 453 to attend or be directly represented at step 3 of the griev-
ance procedure. Rebhan testified that Johnston also objected on the grounds of the
duration of the contract and the absence of a cost-of-living clause. As will be seen
from my disposition of the case I deem it immaterial whose version is correct here.
Conclusions
Separate briefs were filed by each Respondent, the Charging Company, and the
General Counsel advancing various contentions and arguments. After careful con-
sideration of ,the briefs and the facts, I am of the opinion that the solution here is
obvious and simple. I agree that Hawkins and the unit 21 employees on the nego-
tiating committee were acting as negotiators on behalf of the Local and the Inter-
national. However, when the International's letter was read to the Company's
negotiators stating that "the following changes must be made in your present agree-
ment" [emphasis supplied], and indicating that approval of future contracts would
not be forthcoming "unless there is good and sufficient reason for the inability
to incorporate these proposed changes," the Company must be deemed to have
been on notice of the limitation of authority under which the Union's negotiators
were then proceeding. Under such circumstances, the failure to provide for the
designation of the Local as a party in place of the unit went beyond the clearly
indicated scope of the union negotiators' authority. That the matter was discussed
inconclusively in the negotiations when International Representative Rebhan was
present 9 does not in any way alter the union negotiators' express limitation of
authority in this connection nor undermind the validity of this as a reason by the
International and the Local for not signing the agreement.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that under the circumstances herein, since the
union negotiators were without authority to enter into the controversial provision,
there was no meeting of the minds and no binding agreement made. Consequently
Respondents cannot be said to have refused to bargain by refusing to sign the
contract in question.
Nevertheless, in view of Rebhan's presence at the membership meeting in which
the International's directions were rejected, and his failure to appear at the sub-
sequent bargaining meeting (or have someone appear in his stead), I am of the
opinion and find that this conduct did not (either by way of deliberate bad faith
or of such negligence as to amount to the same thing) meet the Act's requirements
for good-faith bargaining.10 I also find that Rebhan, as service representative of
the Local, was acting for the Local as well as the International in the negotiations.
Accordingly, both the Local and the International are chargeable with a violation
of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act resulting from Rebhan's conduct."
The tenor of what comments there were on the matter at that time would have justified
Rebhan in assuming that the Company was acceding to, the International's demand or
would do so.
10 Since the unit membership had 'voted against- then International's recommendations
Rebhan could and should have anticipated that Hawkins and the unit negotiators, in his
absence, would fall to abide by the International's -directions ' His failure, either by his
or someone else's presence at the bargaining table or by 'communication with the Company,
to forestall useless and empty negotiation of this sort was not good-faith bargaining.
n Respondents contend that "the'General Counsel sought'tb prove a set of facts not
alleged in the complaint... . " I believe this finding is covered by the alternative allega-
630849-62-vol 134-86
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company contends that both Respondents by taking advantage of the benefits
of the agreement have ratified it. In this connection it points to (1) the acceptance
of checked-off dues,12 (2) the allowance of economic benefits to the employees in-
cluding a wage increase, (3) the appeal of grievances to arbitration, and (4) the
prosecution of arbitrations. I do not agree. Even if technically there might be
some support in.the common law principles of agency for the Company's conten-
,t(gn'that Repondents as the bargaining representative of the employees ratified the
contract by their conduct, I am of the opinion that "because of the unique char-
aracter of the statutory representative, a solution for the problem in this case must
be sought in the light of that special relationship rather than by . . . applying
without change principles of law evolved to govern entirely different situations."
American Seating Company, 106 NLRB 250, 252.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Unions set forth in section III, above , are found to con-
stitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company described in section I, above, and have a close , intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, tending to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Unions have engaged in and are engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce , I recommend that they be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Unions refused to bargain collectively with the
Company in good faith , it will be recommended that, upon request , they bargain
collectively in good faith with the Company as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in an appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement . Because of the limited scope
of Respondents ' unfair labor practices and because of the absence of any indica-
tion that other such practices may be anticipated by Respondent , no broad cease
and desist order will be recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact in the entire record in this proceed-
ing, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Amalgamated Local No.
453, are, and at all times material herein have been , labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Maremont Automotive Products , Inc., is, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees in Maremont 's plants located in
Harvey, Cicero, and Chicago , Illinois, exclusive of office and plant clerical em-
ployees, nurses, watchmen , plant guards , truckdrivers , and supervisors as defined
in the Act , constitute , and at all times material herein have constituted , an appropri-
ate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor organizations are, and at all times material herein have
been, the exclusive representatives of the employees in the above appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Company as found
in section III, above , the aforesaid labor organizations have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act.
6. The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
tion in the complaint that from September 28, 1959 , Respondents "negotiated with said
employer, in bad faith and with no intention of entering into any final or binding collective
-bargaining agreement." In any event the matter was fully litigated and constitutes a
proper basis for an unfair labor practice finding. Monroe Feed Store, 112 NLRB 1336.
'a Dues checkoff is the only manner in which the International is alleged to have
ratified the contract.