San Diego Cabinets

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 1014 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
George M. Hart d/b/a San Diego Cabinets; D & G
Cabinets, Inc.; Allan M . Homes and Charles A.
Homes d/b/a A . M. Homes Pre-hung Doors, and
Homes & Sons; Thompson Cabinets , Inc.; Cross
Cabinet & Door Company ; Ronald H . Sandoval
d/b/a Rondell Cabinet Mfg .; Harry B. Parkinson
d/b/a Parkinson Cabinet Shop ; Kitchen Cabinets,
Inc. and Carpenters ' Local Union No. 2020 of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , AFL-CIO. Cases 21-CA-8828-1,
21-CA-8828-2, 21-CA-8828-3,
21-CA-8828-4, 21-CA-8828-5,
21-CA-8828-6, 21-CA-8828-7, and
21-CA-8861
June 24, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On April 6, 1970, Trial Examiner George
Christensen issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting 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
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and sup-
porting brief, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondents, George M. Hart d/b/a San
Diego Cabinets, D & G Cabinets, Inc., Allan M.
Homes and Charles A. Homes d/b/a A. M. Homes
Pre-hung Doors, and Homes & Sons, Thompson
Cabinets, Inc., Cross Cabinet & Door Company,
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ronald H. Sandoval d/b/a Rondell Cabinet Mfg.,
Harry B. Parkinson d/b/a Parkinson Cabinet Shop,
and Kitchen Cabinets, Inc., their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, each shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: On
December 16 and 17, 1969,1 the Trial Examiner
conducted a hearing at San Diego, California, to try
issues raised by complaints2 alleging that the
Respondents3 have refused to bargain in good faith
with Carpenters' Local union No. 2020 of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO," since August 2 and have
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act).
Separate charges were filed by Local 2020 against
KC on October 21 and against the balance of the
Respondents on October 6.
All Respondents filed answers admitting proper
service of the charges upon them, that each at all
times pertinent was engaged in the manufacture
and installation of kitchen and bathroom cabinets
in the San Diego area, that each annually purchases
and receives goods, materials, and supplies valued
in excess of $50,000 from suppliers within the State
of California who receive such goods, materials,
and supplies directly from points outside the State
of California, that each at all times pertinent was an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that a unit consisting of production and main-
tenance employees of each Respondent, including
journeymen millmen and cabinetmakers, jour-
neymen finishers, spray gun operators, and mill and
shop helpers, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitutes an appropriate unit
Add 1969 to any further date references where the year is omitted
= All the cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing and decision on
November 17 inasmuch as issues common to all were involved and to be
litigated , and to save unnecessary cost and delay
3 The Respondents hereafter shall be designated as follows : George M.
Hart, d/b/a San Diego Cabinets , as Hart; D&G Cabinets, Inc., as D&G;
Thompson Cabinets , Inc., as Thompson, Cross Cabinets & Door Co, as
Cross, Ronald H. Sandoval d/b/a Rondell Cabinet Mfg , as Rondell, Harry
B. Parkinson d/b/a Parkinson Cabinet Shop, as Parkinson ; Kitchen
Cabinets, Inc., as KC. One of the issues in the proceeding is whether Allan
M Homes , d/b/a A M. Homes Pre -hung Doors and Charles A. Homes,
d/b/a Homes & Sons , should be treated as one employer, as contended by
the General Counsel , or as separate entities , as contended by Mr. McGrath.
For this reason, the former shall be designated as A. M and the latter as C.
A. Homes where the Trial Examiner finds it necessary to distinguish them
in this Decision.
° Hereafter Local 2020
183 NLRB No. 100
SAN DIEGO CABINETS
as to each Respondent for the purpose of bargain-
ing collectively with respect to the rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment
of the employees of each Respondent within such
unit.
All the Respondents contend that no violation of
the Act occurred because prior to the time each of
their contracts with Local 2020 expired they joined
an employer association which was party to a
1968-71 agreement with a conference of unions in-
cluding Local 2020, thereby merging that Associa-
tion and their separate bargaining units into a mul-
tiemployer bargaining unit encompassed by that
agreement . Cross alleges an added and separate
defense that at no time pertinent did it refuse to
bargain with Local 2020 but on the contrary ex-
pressed its willingness to bargain at any mutually
convenient date. C. A. Homes alleges an added and
separate defense that at no time was it under any
obligation to bargain with Local 2020.
The basic issue is whether by such association af-
filiation the Respondents were relieved of any
obligation to bargain individually with Local 2020
concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other working conditions of their employees within
the units heretofore specified. Added issues arise as
to whether, assuming a duty on the part of Cross to
bargain individually with Local 2020, it satisfied
that duty and whether C. A. Homes at any time had
any duty to bargain with Local 2020.
The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and all
the Respondents appeared by counsel at the hear-
ing and were afforded full opportunity to introduce
evidence, to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
to argue orally, and to file briefs. Counsel for the
General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respon-
dents Cross and Homes filed briefs.
Based upon his review of the entire record, ob-
servation of the witnesses , perusal of the briefs, and
research , the Trial Examiner enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT5
I. JURISDICTION
The essential facts ( related above ) necessary to
establish the Board 's jurisdiction over the Respon-
dents in this case were alleged in the complaints
and admitted in the answers . The Trial Examiner
therefore finds and concludes that the Respondents
were employers engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of
the Act at all times pertinent to this proceeding.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
1015
M. N. Long , financial secretary of Local 2020,
testified without contradiction that Local 2020 ex-
ists primarily for the purpose of bargaining collec-
tively on behalf of its members with their employers
concerning their wages, hours, and working condi-
tions. It has petitioned the Board for certification as
the exclusive representative of its members for that
purpose, participated in Board elections, and has
been so certified . It has negotiated and executed
several collective-bargaining agreements with em-
ployers of its members concerning their wages,
hours, and working conditions . The Trial Examiner
therefore finds and concludes that Local 2020 was
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
at all times pertinent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Bargaining History
Historically Local 2020 and the employers of its
members negotiate the rates of pay , wages , hours,
and other working conditions for the carpenters
within Local 2020's geographic and trades jurisdic-
tion by local bargaining. For some 10 years, at
least, the area pattern has been established by
negotiation of a collective -bargaining agreement
between Local 2020 and the San Diego Lum-
bermen's Association (S. D. Assn.), followed by
separate , independent negotiations of agreements
containing basically the same terms between Local
2020 and the employers of Local 2020's members
who were not members of the Association (the In-
dependent). These agreements, while separately
and independently negotiated on a single -employer
basis , were tailored to specific segments of the in-
dustry within the area (Mill & Cabinet; Stock Mill;
etc.).
The last round of negotiations preceding those
which precipitated this dispute occurred in 1966. In
accord with previous practice, Local 2020 and the
S. D. Assn .. negotiated a 3-year contract expiring
on July 31.
None of the Respondents were members of the S.
D. Assn . at the time . Seven of the nine Respondents
(Cross, D&G, Hart, A. M. -Homes, KC, Parkinson,
and Thompson) and some 50 other employers in
the San Diego area subsequently negotiated and ex-
ecuted separate and individual contracts for the
same term with Local 2020 . A. M. Homes and
Local 2020 executed a Stock Mill agreement and
" The findings in this case are based on the stipulations of the parties and
the uncontradicted testimony offered during the hearing , Respondents did
not adduce any testimony.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the other six executed Mill & Cabinet agreements.
Rondell was signatory to a Mill & Cabinet agree-
ment with Local 2020 for the term ending July 3 1,
1966, but did not execute a new contract for the
1966-69 term. Rondell did, however, comply with
all the terms and conditions of the latter contract
during its term. C. A. Homes and Local 2020 ex-
ecuted a Mill & Cabinet agreement some time prior
to 1969, but did not sign a 1966-69 contract. Local
2020's members worked for C. A. Homes and Ron-
dell through the 1966-69 term of Local 2020's
agreements with the other seven and thereafter,
were serviced by Local 2020's representatives, and
were compensated in accordance with the terms of
said agreements . Local 2020 members worked at
the premises of C. A. Homes and were directly su-
pervised in their work performance by C. A. Homes
at all times since 1966 . C. A. Homes' business at all
times pertinent was conducted in a building im-
mediately adjacent to that of A. M. Homes.
B. The 1969 Negotiations
Pursuant to the duration provision of the respec-
tive contracts, on May 29 Local 2020 served writ-
ten notices upon the S. D. Assn. and each of the 50
or more independents, including Cross, D&G, Hart,
A. M. Homes, C. A. Homes, KC, Parkinson, Ron-
dell, and Thompson. The notices to the Indepen-
dents (including each Respondent) read as follows:
In accordance with the provision of the
respective Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and the provisions of Section XIX of our cur-
rent agreement, we hereby give the required
sixty day notification of our desire to change,
modify or terminate the afore-mentioned
agreement.
In accordance with the above section, we
stand ready to meet with you within the next
thirty days to outline the changes we feel are
necessary.
If we have no response to this notice, we will
assume it is your intention to abide by the out-
come of negotiations between our Union and
the Lumbermen's Association.
Thank you for an early reply.
Only one of the Respondents requested a con-
ference to discuss Local 2020's proposals for a new
contract. Kent Cross, president of Cross,
telephoned M. N. Long, financial secretary of
Local 2020, the two met on June 19 at Cross' of-
fice, and Long went over each of Local 2020's
proposed changes from the 1966-69 contracts, ex-
plaining each one. It was recognized that the
proposals would undergo modification as negotia-
tions between the S. D. Assn. and Local 2020
progressed (they were scheduled to commence the
next day). Cross commented that he thought the
wage proposals were too high and asked Long to
keep him informed concerning developments in the
S. D. Assn.-Local 2020 bargaining. Long agreed
and from time to time thereafter telephoned Cross
and kept him informed.
Sometime that same month, while Long was en-
gaged in casual conversation with A. M. Homes,
president of A. M. Homes, he told Homes that
Local 2020 was seeking a wage increase of over 75
cents per hour over the term of the new contract; at
that, in Long 's words, "Mr . Homes almost flipped
in the air, almost fell over , and from that point our
trouble started."
Negotiations between the S. D. Assn. and Local
2020 ran through June and into July.
In the course of the negotiations John Maxwell,
owner of a cabinetmaking shop and one of the S. D.
Assn.'s negotiators, informed Long he had heard
that several of the Independents had signed an out-
of-the-area contract and complained that he and
other cabinetmakers among the S. D. Assn .'s mem-
bership would be placed at a competitive disad-
vantage if this was so.
By late July the S. D. Assn. submitted a substan-
tial offer to Local 2020. Local 2020 took the offer
to its membership and it was accepted on July 30 (a
Wednesday).
That same date Long addressed a letter to each
of the Independents, including the nine Respond-
ents, reminding them of the July 31 expiration of
their agreements, advising them that Local 2020
wished to negotiate a separate, individual contract
with each of them as it had in the past, and
requesting that they meet with Local 2020 at 9:30
a.m. on August 2 (a Saturday) at the Carpenters
hall or contact Local 2020 for the purpose of
setting a mutually satisfactory time, date, and place
for such negotiations.
Still on the same day, Frank Daluiso, executive
vice president of the Southern California Associa-
tion of Cabinet Manufactures at Los Angeles,
California (S. C. Assn ), addressed a letter to Dean
Southerland, chairman of the 12 Southern Califor-
nia Counties Mill Conference (S. C. Conf.), with a
copy to Long of Local 2020 and to Daniel John-
ston, a professional negotiator who had led the S
C. Conf. team in the 1968 negotiation of an S C.
Assn.-S. C. Conf. contract for a term expiring July
31, 1971, stating that the Respondents (except C.
A. Homes) had joined the S. C. Assn. and therefore
SAN DIEGO CABINETS
automatically were covered by the S. C. Assn.-S. C.
Conf. 1968-71 contract.'
The next day (Thursday, July 31), Cross replied
to Local 2020's July 30 request to meet with it for
the purpose of negotiating a separate individual
contract supplanting the previous one with a tele-
grain advising Local 2020 that Cross had joined the
S. C. Assn. on the previous day,7 that this automati-
cally placed Cross under the coverage of the S. C.
Assn.-S. C. Conf. 1968-71 contract and therefore
there was nothing to negotiate about. On or about
the same date, Cross by its counsel telephoned
counsel for Local 2020 and stated Cross'
willingness to meet with Local 2020 at any time to
discuss the situation. The telegram was received the
same day and was Local 2020's first notification
that any of the Respondents actually had joined the
S. C. Assn. and were claiming coverage under that
agreement.' The Daluiso letter notifying Local
2020 the balance of the Respondents had joined
the S . C. Assn . and were making a similar conten-
tion apparently was received on Friday, August 1.
Many of the Independents telephoned Local
2020 between July 31 and Saturday, August 2, to
state their inability to attend the August 2 meeting
requested in Long's July 30 letter and to arrange
for another date. None of the Respondents other
than Cross contacted Local 2020 to arrange a con-
ference with Local 2020 for a date other than Au-
gust 2.
About seven or eight Independents met with
Local 2020 on August 2 at the time requested.
None of the Respondents appeared. Local 2020 ex-
plained the terms of the S. D. Assn.-Local 2020 set-
tlement and requested that each of the Indepen-
dents accept similar terms and execute new in-
dividual, separate contracts embodying such terms
titled "Interim Independent Mill & Cabinet" agree-
ments." The Independents in attendance and Local
° While Local 2020 affiliated with the S . C Conf. when the Conf was
formed and negotiated its first contract with the S . C. Assn. for a term of 3
years expiring in 1968 , it was a matter of accomodation inasmuch as none
of the employers whose employees were represented for purposes of col-
lective bargaining by Local 2020 were included either in the negotiations
or the coverage of that contract Local 2020 had no role in the administra-
tion of the contract and was prevailed upon to pin in the notice terminat-
ing it by the representation that this was necessary for an effective termina-
tion. Local 2020 did not participate in any way in the negotiations of the
successor contract in 1968 between the S . C. Assn and the S C Conf The
costs for Johnston's services as contract negotiator were distributed on a
pro rata basis among the S. C. Conf. affiliates who had collective-bargain-
ing relations with employers covered thereby. No charge was levied upon
or paid by Local 2020 , inasmuch as it did not have collective -bargaining
relations with any employers affected thereby . Shortly after the 1968 S. C
Assn -S C Conf negotiations were completed and the contract executed,
Local 2020 received an inquiry from Respondent Parkinson about it and
informed Parkinson it did not affect him When Local 2020 began to ready
its proposals for its 1969 negotiations with the S D. Assn and the Indepen-
dents ( including the Respondents), it decided to resolve any ambiguities
with regard to the S C Conference 's right to bargain collectively on behalf
of its members Its executive board passed a resolution to recommend that
1017
2020 executed such contracts . As the meeting was
breaking up, Messrs . Homes and Cross appeared.
Homes signed one of the interim agreements and
presented it to Leslie Parker , secretary-treasurer of
the San Diego District Council of Carpenters, along
with a document executed by Homes as agent for
the S . C. Assn. on behalf of its Respondent mem-
bers wherein Homes stated that he was signing the
accompanying interim agreement as an agent of the
S. C. Assn. on behalf of its Respondent members
under protest. Parker refused to accept the two
documents on this basis and advised Homes that
Local 2020 would accept Homes' execution of an
interim agreement on behalf of the Respondents
only with the clear understanding that he was bind-
ing each as a separate, independent entity. Homes
refusal to execute the agreement on that basis. To
make clear Local 2020 's nonacceptance of the
agreement in the form tendered , Parker destroyed
the agreement proffered by Cross as agent for the
S. C. Assn.
Commencing the following Monday ( August 4)
Local 2020 implemented its "no-contract, no
work " policy by striking all Independents who had
not signed a separate , independent interim agree-
ment . By August 10, each Respondent and Local
2020 had executed separate , independent interim
agreements . Cross advised Local 2020 by letter that
it was signing the agreement under protest to avoid
further economic losses occasioned by the strike
and without waiving its position that the S. C.
Assn.-S. C. Conf. 1968-71 contract governed the
wages, rates of pay, and other working conditions of
its employees represented by Local 2020 and its
right to seek a judicial determination of its rights to
that effect. The other Respondents take a similar po-
sition , and all Respondents consistently have main-
tained this stance since . There hasn't been any bar-
gaining between the Respondents and Local 2020
Local 2020 withdraw from the S C. Conf. The recommendation was
adopted by membership vote on March 27. On or about March 31, Local
2020 advised Johnston of its action and was assured by Johnston that their
withdrawal did not present any problem , inasmuch as no employer with
collective-bargaining relations with Local 2020 was affected thereby and
Local 2020 was free to negotiate with the employers with whom it had such
relations as it had in the past
r The other Respondents (with the exception of C A Homes) tendered
applications for membership in the S C. Assn between July 26-30
° The Respondents relied on sec 12(a) of the 1968 -71 S. C Assn -S C
Conf. agreement reading.
All Employers who are or who become regular members of the
Southern California Association of Cabinet Manufacturers are parties
to this Agreement and are entitled to the benefits here.
° The proposed interim agreement provided for wage scales in the
amounts and effective on the same dates as those negotiated with the S D
Assn , provided for the same changes in retirement contributions and vaca-
tion benefits , the same duration provision , but further provided for waiver
of the no-strike, no-lockout and grievance -arbitration provisions of the
previous agreement during the term of the interim agreement and further
bargaining until all amendments to the prior agreement had been worked
out and a complete and total agreement negotiated and executed.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since the Respondents' execution thereof and no
complete contracts have been negotiated.
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
It is undisputed that prior to late July 1969, each
of the Respondents had recognized and bargained
with Local 2020 as the representative of separate
and independent units 10 of their employees and exe-
cuted individual agreements governing their wages,
hours, and working conditions. As conceded by the
Respondents, such units are presumptively ap-
propriate. Silver Lake Nursing Home, 178 NLRB
478; Greene Construction Co., 133 NLRB 152; Ap-
pliance Supply Company, 127 NLRB 319; Chicago
Metropolitan Home Builders Association , 119 NLRB
1184; Arden Farms, 117 NLRB 318.
Local 2020 served timely, individual notices in
1969 upon each of the Respondents effectively ter-
minating the agreements it had with seven of the
Respondents and putting the other two Respon-
dents on notice that it desired to negotiate agree-
ments with them for a term commencing August 1,
1969 (the previous agreements expired July 31,
1969). No cross-notices were served on Local 2020
prior to the opening dates (June 1, 1969) of their
respective agreements by any of the seven under
contract, nor by the two who were not, of any
desire to change the preexisting nine separate units
for bargaining purposes to a multiemployer unit.
The Board has accepted a multiemployer unit as
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
when: "The inclusion of a particular employer in a
multiemployer unit is based upon the mutual con-
sent of the parties to such inclusion, as evidenced
either by a bargaining history for such group of em-
ployers in a single unit, or by the express agreement
of the parties to the inclusion of the individual em-
ployers." Local Union 49 of the Sheet Metal Wor-
kers Association, 122 NLRB 1192, 1194. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In this case, there is neither a history of multiem-
ployer bargaining nor express agreement between
10 As noted heretofore , Respondents conceded in their answers to the
complaints that production and maintenance units consisting of jour-
neymen millmen and cabinetmakers , journeymen finishers, spray gun
operators and mill and shop helpers , excluding all other employees, con-
stituted separate units appropriate for collective -bargaining purposes
under Sec 9 of the Act They further stipulated that on various dates prior
to their July 31, 1969 , expiration, all but Rondell and C. A Homes ex-
ecuted separate agreements recognizing Local 2020 as the exclusive
representative of their employees within those units ; that Rondell and C. A
Homes prior to July 31, 1966, executed similar agreements with Local
2020 members employed at the premises of Rondell and C A Homes have
been compensated and their working conditions governed by the terms of
the 1966-69 agreements between the Independents and Local 2020 It is
undisputed that during the 1966-69 term of the various contracts between
Local 2020 and the Independents and thereafter, all nine Respondents
recognized Local 2020 as the exclusive representative of their employees
within the units heretofore described, discussed problems concerning the
the Respondents and Local 2020 for multiemployer
bargaining ; rather their past practice has been to
bargain individually and separately and Local 2020
has unequivocally opposed bargaining on a multiem-
ployer basis with the Respondents.
The question then arises as to whether, as here,
an employer or a union , acting unilaterally , may ef-
fectively change the character of the existing bar-
gaining relationship.
The reports contain several cases where the
Board and the courts have recognized the uni-
laterally exercised right of either an employer or a
union to withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining
unit and to establish or re-establish bargaining on a
single employer basis and imposed a legal obliga-
tion upon both parties to bargain on such basis
thereafter . (N.L.R.B. v. Gerald Sklar and Alfred
Goldman , 316 F.2d 145 (C.A. 6), reversing 134
NLRB 1289 ; Detroit Newspaper Publishers Associa-
tion v. N.L.R.B., 372 F.2d 569 ( C.A. 6), enfg. 154
NLRB 1482; Publishers' Association of New York
City v. N.L.R.B., 364 F.2d 293 (C.A. 2), enfg.
156 NLRB 210.) Such right and obligation have
been denied , however , when the attempted
withdrawal was belated , without timely and
adequate notice , equivocal or in bad faith,
(N.L.R.B . v. John J . Corbett Press, Inc., 401 F.2d
673 (C.A. 2), enfg . 163 NLRB 154 ; N.L.R.B. v.
Joseph T. Strong, 386 F.2d 929 ( C.A. 9), enfg. 152
NLRB 9; N.L.R.B. v. Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc.,
367 F.2d 55 (C.A. 10), enfg . 149 NLRB 1487;
N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations , Inc., 357 F.2d 245
(C.A. 2), enfg . 148 NLRB 150 (cert . denied 385
U.S. 1005 ) N.L.R.B. v. Jeffries Banknote Co., 281
F.2d 893 ( C.A. 9), enfg . 124 NLRB 920.
The Board has been even more stringent in cases
involving an attempt by one of the parties to uni-
laterally change the character of the bargaining
relationship from a single -employer to a multiem-
ployer unit basis , due to the presumption favoring
preservation of single -employer units. For example,
in United Fryer & Stillman , Inc., 139 NLRB 704,
the union in question was party both to a multiem-
wages, hours , and working conditions of the employees within such units
with Local 2020 , and otherwise accorded Local 2020 recognition as the ex-
clusive representative of their employees within said units. The denial of
Local 2020's exclusive representative status within the nine individual units
contained in the Respondents ' answers to the complaints were based on
their contentions that the separate unit entities were destroyed by their
merger into the multiemployer unit encompassed by the S . C. Assn.-S. C.
Conf agreement , not on the basis Local 2020 did not at all times pertinent
represent the employees within the units Based on the foregoing , the Trial
Examiner finds and concludes that separate and independent production
and maintenance employee units consisting of employees of each of the
nine Respondents classified as journeymen millmen and cabinetmakers,
Journeymen finishers , spray gun operators, and mill and shop helpers, ex-
cluding all other employees , constitute units appropriate for collective-bar-
gaining purposes and that at all times pertinent Local 2020 has been and
continues to be the exclusive representative of Respondents ' employees
within such units.
SAN DIEGO CABINETS
ployer agreement with an employer association
covering a number of small meat packing plants in
the Denver area as well as a separate , individual
agreement with the respondent . During the term of
the two agreements , the respondent joined the em-
ployer association and signed a power of attorney
authorizing the association to represent it for col-
lective -bargaining purposes . The union was not
notified of this action at that time . When the union
subsequently served timely notice under its agree-
ment with the respondent signifying its desire to
negotiate a new agreement, the association
responded with a communication notifying the
union that the respondent had joined the associa-
tion and that the association would bargain with the
union on behalf of the respondent as part of the
multiemployer unit and agreement coverage. The
union advised the association it did not recognize
the respondent as part of the association for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes and renewed its request
for separate , independent bargaining on the preex-
isting single -employer basis, stating that it had no
objection to the association acting as the respon-
dent 's agent in negotiations on such basis. The as-
sociation maintained its position . The Board
adopted the Trial Examiner 's recommended deci-
sion finding that by so doing the respondent failed
to bargain in good faith and thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act , inasmuch as (1) a
single -employer unit is presumptively appropriate,
(2) previous bargaining was on a single -employer
basis , ( 3) the association 's notice to the union of a
desire to negotiate on a multiemployer basis was
untimely in that it was served on the union after the
union had served a timely request upon the respon-
dent to bargain on a single -employer basis for a
renewal of their existing separate, independent
agreement , and (4 ) the union refused to consent to
the change in the bargaining relationship desired by
the respondent . To a similar effect , Moveable Parti-
tions, Inc., 175 NLRB 915; Local Union No. 525,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry, 171 NLRB
1607; The U . S. Pillow Corp ., 137 NLRB 584.
Applying the rationale of the cases cited above,
the Respondents ' unilateral attempt to change the
character of the collective -bargaining relations
between them and Local 2020 from single-em-
ployer bargaining to multiemployer bargaining is in-
valid and consequently their insistence upon bar-
gaining with Local 2020 through the S. C. Assn. as
a part of the multiemployer group covered by the S.
C. Assn .-S. C. Conf . agreement was and is violative
of Section 8(a)(5) and ( I) of the Act. It is un-
disputed that eight of the nine Respondents joined
the S . C. Association ( C. A. Homes did not join it
1019
at all) and authorized it to represent them for col-
lective -bargaining purposes after their receipt of
Local 2020's requests addressed to each of them
separately for single -employer bargaining, in ac-
cordance with previous practice , and after Cross
(and A. M. Homes , with regard to wages) had
discussed Local 2020's proposals for new agree-
ments . It reasonably may be presumed that the
balance of the Respondents were informed of Local
2020's proposals and the S . D. Association's July
offer . The Respondents ' motive for joining the S.C.
Assn. and attempting to place themselves under the
coverage of the 1968-71 S. C. Assn.-S. C. Conf.
agreement is readily apparent ; the S . C. cabinet-
maker rate is $4.145, effective July 1, 1969,
$4.345, effective July 1, 1970, with a contract ex-
piration date of June 30, 1971; the S . D. cabinet-
maker rate is $4.43, effective August 1, 1969,
$4.81, effective August 1 , 1970, $5. 18, effective
August 1 , 1971, with a contract expiration date of
July 31, 1972. The Respondents would be required
to pay increases of only 3 -1/2 cents in 1969 (their
cabinetmaker rate, effective August 1, 1968, was
$4.11), and 20 cents in 1970 under the S . C. Assn.
agreement , as contrasted with increases of 32 cents
in 1969 , 38 cents in 1970 and 37 cents in 1971
under the S. D. agreement (assuming Local 2020
was successful in securing their agreement to the S.
D. Assn. rate adjustments ). Obviously Respondents
sought to avoid single -employer bargaining with
Local 2020 over its proposal to accept the S. D.
Assn.-Local 2020 $1.07 wage settlement for the
1969-72 term and instead obligate themselves only
for 23 -1/2 cents for the following 2 years with every
prospect for an increase for the 3d year of far less
than 83-1/2 cents ( the difference between the total
$1.07 3-year settlement of the S. D. Assn . and the
1969 and 1970 S. C. Assn. rate increases). It is
further undisputed that the eight Respondents who
joined the S. C. Assn. and empowered it to
represent them did not notify Local 2020 of their
action until after Local 2020 had served its requests
for single -employer bargaining upon them and
reached agreement with the S . D. Assn., and failed
to secure Local 2020's consent to a change in their
previous collective -bargaining pattern.
With regard to the latter factor ( consent), the
Trial Examiner rejects the Respondents ' contention
that paragraph 12(a) (see fn . 8) constitutes Local
2020's consent to Respondents ' inclusion within the
S. C. Assn. multiemployer unit for collective bar-
gaining inasmuch as knowing and express consent is
required , and is absent here, Local 2020 did not
participate in the negotiation of the 1968-71 S. C.
Assn .-S. C. Conf. agreement , Local 2020 withdrew
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the S. C. Conf. prior to the date the Respon-
dents applied for membership in the S . C. Assn. (cf.
The U. S. Pillow Corp ., 137 NLRB 584, and Local
Union No. 525, United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry,
171 NLRB 1607.)
Insofar as Cross' contention that it at no time
refused to bargain inasmuch as it informed Local
2020 of its willingness to meet and discuss matters
with Local 2020 at any time , it also by its president
on August 2 and by its vice president and counsel
on August 7 and continuously since those dates has
consistently maintained that it is not required to
bargain individually and independently on a single-
employer basis with Local 2020 and that the wages,
hours , and working conditions of its employees in
the appropriate unit hereinbefore specified are
governed by the 1968-71 S . C. Assn.-S. C. Conf.
agreement . A finding has been entered above that
by its continued adherence to this position Cross
has violated the Act; its professed willingness to
discuss this unlawful position does not excuse the
violation.
C. A. Homes contends that it has no duty to bar-
gain with Local 2020 because it has not employed
any members of Local 2020 at any time pertinent.
It is not disputed that C . A. Homes is a corporation
operating a business in a building immediately ad-
jacent to a building in which A. M. Homes, a
separate corporation , conducts a separate business.
At one time in the recent past , C. A. Homes was
party to a Mill & Cabinet agreement with Local
2020 at the same time A. M. Homes was party to a
Stock Mill agreement . Continuously since the ex-
piration of the C . A. Homes-Local 2020 agreement,
Local 2020 has continued to dispatch its members
to the premises occupied by C. A. Homes for work
under the supervision and direction of C. A.
Homes . In recent times, the carpenters so employed
have been paid by checks issued by A. M. Homes.
On these facts , the Trial Examiner finds and con-
cludes that while paid by A. M. Homes , at times
pertinent to this cause , members of Local 2020 in
job classifications within the appropriate unit
hereinabove specified have been and continue to be
employed by C. A. Homes at its place of business,
in work which it conducts under its supervision and
control, and therefore it had at times pertinent and
continues to have a duty to bargain collectively
with Local 2020 concerning the wages , hours, and
working conditions of such employees and, if it has
reached and/or reaches an agreement with Local
2020 with regard thereto, to comply with or ex-
ecute same.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents were employers engaged in
commerce in a business affecting commerce, and
Local 2020 was a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 of the Act at all times per-
tinent to this proceeding.
2. Separate units at each Respondents' premises
consisting of employees classified as journeymen
millmen and cabinetmakers, journeymen finishers,
spray gun operators, and mill and shop helpers, ex-
cluding all other employees, constitute units ap-
propriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9 of the Act.
3. Local 2020 has been the exclusive representa-
tive of Respondents' employees in the separate, ap-
propriate units specified in 2, above, for purposes
of collective-bargaining at all times pertinent to this
proceeding.
4. By Cross' insistence since July 31, 1969, and
all the Respondents' insistence since August 2,
1969, that the Respondents were included within a
multiemployer unit covered by a 1968-71 agree-
ment between the S. C. Assn. and the S. C. Conf.
for collective-bargaining purposes and therefore
not obliged to bargain collectively with Local 2020
on an individual, separate, single-employer basis
with regard to the wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of their employees within the units specified
in 2, above, the Respondents have failed and
refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices occurring
in connection with Respondents' operations hereto-
fore described have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and, unless corrected, will tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof, and therefore
constitute unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, the Trial Examiner
shall recommend that they cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative actions designed to
effectuate the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in the case,
SAN DIEGO CABINETS
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Trial Ex-
aminer recommends that each of the nine Respon-
dents, their officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Asserting that the wages, hours, and working
conditions of their employees classified as jour-
neymen millmen and cabinetmakers, journeymen
finishers, spray gun operators, and mill and shop
helpers are governed by the 1968-71 agreement
between the S. C. Assn. and S. C. Conf., or that the
separate identity of units for collective- bargaining
purposes consisting of employees within such job
classifications has been destroyed by merger into a
single multiemployer bargaining unit covered by
that agreement.
(b) Asserting that any individual, separate agree-
ment or understanding reached between any of the
Respondents and Local 2020 concerning the wages,
hours, and working conditions of employees within
such units is unlawful, void, or otherwise unenforce-
able by virtue of any conflict between such agree-
ment and the 1968-71 S. C. Assn.-S. C. Conf.
agreement.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Meet and bargain with Local 2020 at its
request over the wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of employees within the units hereinabove
specified and, when and if full and final settlement
of all issues is reached, reduce such agreements to
writing and execute same.
(b) Post at each of Respondents' premises co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative, of each
Respondent shall 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 each
Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by each Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith. 'I
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
1021
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . 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 Na-
tional 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."
is In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . " Notify the Regional Director for
Region 21, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assert that the wages, hours,
and working conditions of our employees
represented by Capenters Union Local 2020 of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are those con-
tained in a contract between the Southern
California Association of Cabinet Manufac-
turers and the 12 Southern California Counties
Mill Conference for a term extending from
1968 to 1971, or that collective bargaining for
our employees represented by Local 2020 shall
be conducted on a multiemployer, multiunion
basis between representatives of that Associa-
tion and Conference.
WE WILL NOT assert that the terms and con-
ditions of any agreements or understandings
we reach with Local 2020 covering the wages,
hours, and working conditions of our em-
ployees represented by Local 2020 are un-
lawful, void, or otherwise unenforceable by
virtue of any conflict between such agreements
and understandings and the terms of the
1968-71 agreements between the Associa-
tion and Conference.
WE WILL meet and bargain with Local 2020
at its request over the wages, hours, and work-
ing conditions of our employees represented by
it and, when and if we reach full and final set-
tlement of all disputes over the terms and con-
ditions of such employees' wages, hours, and
working conditions, we, will reduce such settle-
ment to writing and sign it.
GEORGE M. HART D/B/A
SAN DIEGO CABINETS; D
& G CABINETS, INC.;
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ALLAN M. HOMES D /B/A Dated
A. M. HOMES PRE-HUNG
DOORS , CHARLES A.
HOMES D/B/A HOMES &
SONS ; THOMPSON
CABINETS , INC.; CROSS
CABINET & DOOR
COMPANY ; RONALD H.
SANDOVAL D/B/A
RONDELL CABINET MFG.;
HARRY B. PARKINSON
D/B/A PARKINSON CABINET
SHOP; KITCHEN CABINETS,
INC.
(Employer)
By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an offcial notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 849 South Broadway, Eastern
Columbia Building, Los Angeles , California 90014,
Telephone 213-688-5200.