United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 347

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 414 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 347, AFL-CIO (Wabash
Valley Contractors Association) and Associated
General Contractors of Illinois . Case 14-CB-3006
June 30, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On January 19, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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 Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge, but, for the reasons set forth be-
low, has decided to dismiss the complaint in its en-
tirety.
Unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we do not
think that the evidence in this case warrants the con-
clusion that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act when it refused to execute, and be bound by,
a recently negotiated multiemployer/multiunion
agreement.
Since the mid-1960's, various highway and bridge
construction contractors in Illinois and the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
(herein Carpenters) have bargained over terms and
conditions of employment on a multiemployer/mul-
tiunion basis. Most of the substantive terms of these
agreements have been negotiated on a statewide ba-
sis between the Associated General Contractors of
Illinois (herein AGC), on behalf of employer-mem-
bers, and a union committee composed of represen-
tatives of various Carpenters locals or councils
throughout the State. Wages and fringe benefits,
however, are negotiated on a "district" basis, be-
tween the AGC and groups of Carpenters locals and
councils comprising specific geographic districts cor-
responding to administrative districts of the State of
Illinois Department of Transportation.
The present dispute involves the 1975 wage and
fringe benefit negotiations between the AGC and
Wabash Valley Contractors Association (herein Em-
ployer) and a committee of various Carpenters locals
and councils which represent employees working for
contractors on projects in all 14 Illinois counties
within District 7. As in prior negotiations, the chief
spokesman of the Employer and head of its negotiat-
ing committee was Richard Curren. The chairman of
the Carpenters negotiating committee was George
Meyer.' On January 21, 1975, Meyer, as chairman of
the Carpenters negotiating committee, wrote a letter
to Curren formally requesting opening of negotia-
tions for a new 2-year agreement to succeed the 2-
year agreement about to expire in April.
The first bargaining session was held in Effing-
ham, Illinois, on March 13, 1975. At the outset of the
meeting, Curren, being aware that one of the District
7 Carpenters locals, Respondent Local 347, was un-
happy with the wage rate to be proposed by Meyer
and wished to seek a separate rate, asked Meyer re-
peatedly whether he had the authority to negotiate a
contract for the entire District. Meyer assured Cur-
ren that he had such authority. Meyer then proposed
an hourly wage increase of $1.02 effective April 1,
1975, and a 60-cent raise effective April 1, 1976,
which would be applicable for all Carpenters locals
throughout District 7, except Respondent Carpenters
Local 347, to which such a wage rate was unaccept-
able. Meyer then allowed Clarence Butcher, business
agent of Respondent, and one of the members of the
Carpenters negotiating committee, to make a sepa-
rate proposal on behalf of Respondent, whereupon
Butcher demanded that the wage rate for carpenters
represented by Respondent be tied to the wage rate
then being negotiated between AGC and the Carpen-
ters locals comprising neighboring District 5 to the
north.' Curren immediately rejected Butcher's pro-
posal but said he would consider Meyer's.
The meeting was then adjourned while Meyer and
Curren met in private session in an attempt to reach
agreement. When that effort proved unsuccessful, the
two men reentered the meeting. Butcher then voiced
his displeasure over the closed door private talks and
suggested that there was no further point to his parti-
cipation in the multiunion negotiations. Curren and
Meyer, however, urged him to come to the future
negotiating sessions in order to "keep negotiations
going." The meeting broke up without agreement
and a second meeting was scheduled for March 18.
Before the March 18 meeting, the Carpenters ne-
gotiating committee caucused, at which time Meyer
asked for authority to sign a contract. Of the five
1 The record indicates that Meyer has always been selected as chairman
by the District 7 Carpenters local delegates at a prenegotiation strategy
meeting where Carpenters initial bargaining proposals are formulated
Whether , however, Meyer has been clothed with the authority to bind vari-
ous District 7 locals at the bargaining table is a matter of dispute and will be
discussed below
2 Respondent had overlapping jurisdiction in both districts , with the ma-
jority of employees it represented working in District 5 Butcher had in-
formed Meyer on a number of occasions prior to the 1975 negotiations that
he wanted to negotiate a separate wage package
225 NLRB No. 53
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS , LOCAL 347 415
delegates of various locals and councils present, two
gave Meyer such authority,' two others gave Meyer a
limited authority to execute an agreement as long as
it contained the wage package their respective locals
wanted; i.e., the 2-year $1.02-plus-60-cent package
proposed at the original meeting. Butcher, however,
denied Meyer the authority, telling him instead that
he would have to submit any agreement arrived at to
the membership of his local for approval. The actual
March 18 negotiation meeting opened with a coun-
terproposal by the Employer for a wage package,
which Carpenters rejected. Finally, the Employer of-
fered to accept Carpenters initial wage proposal of
$1.02 plus 60 cents on the condition that such pro-
posal be made effective districtwide. Meyer accepted
Curren's offer, whereupon Curren drafted a hand-
written "Memorandum of Agreement" embodying
the understanding of the two parties. After the mem-
orandum was passed around among the Employer
and Carpenters representatives, without any objec-
tions from any of them, it was cosigned by both Cur-
ren and Meyer. Later, however, as the negotiating
session was breaking up, Butcher told Curren that as
of that moment, as far as Respondent Local 347 was
concerned, "he didn't have an agreement," since the
agreement was subject to ratification by Respon-
dent's membership. Subsequent thereto Butcher
brought the contract before his membership for rati-
fication, whereupon it was unanimously voted down.
Butcher subsequently notifed Curren of Respon-
dent's rejection of the contract and its refusal to be
bound thereby .4
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent's actions on March 18 and thereafter in
refusing to be bound by the contract executed by the
Employer and the Carpenters negotiating committee
violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. The primary basis
for his conclusion was his finding that Meyer, as
chairman of the Carpenters bargaining committee,
had authority to enter into a contract with the Em-
ployer binding Respondent and other constituent
Carpenters locals having territorial jurisdiction in
District 7. The Administrative Law Judge relied on
bargaining history which showed that Meyer had,
since 1967, always acted as Carpenters spokesman
during negotiations. The fact that Meyer had carried
out such functions without objection by any other
Carpenters delegates, and had executed numerous
agreements which had been honored by all District 7
3 Meyer testified to having received , prior to the meeting, powers of attor-
ney from three other delegates not at the March 18 meeting , giving him
authority to execute an agreement on behalf of their respective locals or
councils.
° Curren testified, without contradiction, that Butcher threatened to strike
and picket contractors in District 7 until the Employer negotiated a separate
agreement with Respondent
locals, gave Curren every reason to believe that Mey-
er had the actual and apparent authority to bind all
members of the multiunion unit.' Furthermore, if
Butcher or any other Carpenters delegate did not
want to be bound by Meyer, he should have made
this fact known to Curren. This failure to do so in the
current negotiations reinforced Curren' s reliance on
Meyer's authority. As to whether a ratification re-
quirement did indeed exist , the Administrative Law
Judge noted a conflict in testimony but credited testi-
mony of Meyer that he had authority to sign a con-
tract only "if he got for them what their members
wanted." Since Meyer's negotiation efforts were
guided by the wage demands his bargaining commit-
tee had formulated at its prenegotiation caucus, the
Administrative Law Judge reasoned that further rati-
fication after a contract embodying such demands
had been agreed to would be unnecessary. As final
proof of Meyer's authority, the Administrative Law
Judge cited the failure of Butcher or any other Car-
penters representative to object to, or try to "stop,"
the execution of the memorandum of agreement by
Meyer and Curren, and the absence in the memoran-
dum of any reference to the necessity of subsequent
ratification.
While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Meyer's authority to sign an agreement binding
the District 7 Carpenters locals in general , and Re-
spondent in particular, is the key issue of this case,
we do not believe that the preponderance of the evi-
dence warrants his conclusion that Meyer indeed
possessed such authority. While the evidence relied
upon by the Administrative Law Judge tends to es-
tablish Meyer's authority to speak for and bind con-
tractually the local unions throughout District 7,
there is other evidence, not considered by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, which depicts Meyer as
nothing more than, as Respondent argues, a negotia-
tion coordinator who set up meetings and led discus-
sions.
Regarding the all-important issue of the necessity
of ratification, the evidence is anything but clear.
While the Administrative Law Judge credited certain
testimony of Meyer which, in his opinion, would
show that ratification of the memorandum agree-
ment was not necessary, he ignored other testimony
by Meyer to the effect that each local or council had
the right to submit the agreement to its respective
membership for ratification; and that District 7
would agree to the contract only if a majority of the
member locals chose to ratify it. If these were the
ground rules under which the Carpenters locals oper-
5 The Administrative Law Judge cited the testimony of Curren that he
was unaware that various Carpenters delegates insisted on ratification by
their respective memberships before they would agree to be bound by any
contract negotiated by Meyer
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ated, it could still be argued that Respondent was
bound by what Meyer negotiated for District 7 as all
of the other locals agreed to abide by the new agree-
ment. However, Respondent adduced testimony
from Carpenters International Representative John
Pruitt which directly contradicted that of Meyer.
Pruitt testified that the District 7 ground rules were
such that any Carpenters local unhappy with the re-
sult of the multiunion bargaining could reject the
contract and negotiate its own agreement with Em-
ployer. The Administrative Law Judge never made a
credibility resolution on this narrow issue. Therefore,
Meyer's actual authority to sign an agreement with
Employer on March 18 binding all of the District 7
Carpenters locals remains unresolved.
Equally clouded is the question of Employer's
awareness of Meyer's lack of authority. While it is
true that, as Curren testified, Meyer assured him at
the March 13 meeting that he had sole authority to
speak for and negotiate on behalf of District 7, Cur-
ren surely knew of Respondent's unhappiness with
Meyer's districtwide wage package, and of its inten-
tion to put forth a separate proposal. Meyer himself
testified without contradiction that he told Curren at
the first negotiation session on March 13 that "Mr.
Butcher would not accept our offer and he was going
to present his offer himself." And, as found by the
Administrative Law Judge, Butcher proceeded to do
just that. Furthermore, while Curren testified to
being ignorant of any union challenge to Meyer's au-
thority, Meyer testified, and Curren admitted, over-
hearing the proceedings of the Union's prenegotia-
tion caucus of March 18 wherein Butcher and others
were questioning Meyer's power to sign a contract on
their behalf without first consulting their respective
locals.' This confusion over whether Curren was
aware of Respondent's desire to strike its own deal
outside the context of multiunion bargaining is best
manifested in the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion itself . While the Administrative Law Judge at
one point takes Respondent to task for not fulfilling
its "affirmative duty" to notify Curren that it did not
want to be bound by Meyer, he makes the crucial
finding elsewhere in his Decision that "he [Meyer]
and Curren knew that Butcher's people were not
bound by these negotiations because Butcher wanted
a separate deal for his members."'
Whether a union is ever bound by the results of
multiunion negotiation depends on the conduct of all
the parties to the negotiation on both sides of the
bargaining table.' Given the ambiguous and contra-
dictory record of this case, both as to Meyer's actual
authority to enter into multiunion negotiations and
bind the member locals, and Respondent's an-
nounced intention not to be bound by such negotia-
tions, we are not prepared to find that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(3) when it refused to be bound
by the contract negotiated by Meyer. We shall there-
fore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
6 While Curren did not pay any attention to the details of this conversa-
tion, he did hear references to Meyer's inability to sign for all of the unions
and then admitted the union delegates must have had "internal problems "
7 General Counsel excepts to this finding of the Administrative Law
Judge as "inexplicable counter to the entire thrust of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision which is sound in principle " However, given the
consistently outspoken position taken by Butcher throughout the negotia-
tions, we think the Administrative Law Judge's finding has a basis in fact
In light of this finding , we find it difficult to attach any significance, as
did the Administrative Law Judge, to the failure of Butcher to "stop" Meyer
from signing the memorandum of agreement of March 18 Unless Butcher
was under a duty to stop Meyer physically, it is hard to conceive of anything
more Butcher could have done to make his dissenting views known to Cur-
ren
8 Local Union 525, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry (Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co, Inc),
171 NLRB 1607 (1968)
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J. SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me on October 22, 1975, at St. Louis,
Missouri. The charge was filed on June 16, 1975, by the
Associated General Contractors of Illinois, herein called
the Employer. The complaint, which was issued on August
1, 1975, alleges that the Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
Issues
The primary issues in this case are (1) whether or not the
chairman of the Respondent 's bargaining committee,
George Meyer, was without authority to make a binding
contract; (2) whether the Respondents refused to bargain
in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by the refusal of
one of Respondent's locals, No. 347, to give effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement reached in the bargaining
among the Associated General Contractors of Illinois and
the Carpenters district councils having territorial jurisdic-
tion within the Illinois State Division of Highways District
7 as the union party to the bargaining.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which
have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the
General Counsel and Respondent.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS , LOCAL 347 417
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
At all times material herein, Charging Party and Wabash
Valley Contractors Association, herein sometimes called
Wabash, each has been and is a voluntary association of
employers engaging in the building and construction in-
dustry as highway and heavy general contractors and spe-
cialty subcontractors duly authorized to do business under
the laws of the State of Illinois.
The Charging Party has maintained its principal office
and place of business at 3219 Executive Park Drive,
Springfield, Illinois. Charging Party's and Wabash's Em-
ployer-Members maintain their principal offices and places
of business at different locations in the State of Illinois and
adjoining States and are, and have been at all times materi-
al herein , engaged in the business of constucting highway
and other heavy construction projects.
During the past year ending December 31, 1974, the Em-
ployer-Members of the Charging Party, in the course and
conduct of their business operations aforesaid, purchased
and caused to be transported and delivered to their differ-
ent offices and jobsites within the State of Illinois, con-
struction materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 were trans-
ported and delivered to said offices andjobsites within Illi-
nois directly from points outside said State.
I find that the Charging Party and Wabash are now, and
have been at all times material herein, employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
All carpenter and millwright employees employed by the
Employer-Members of the Charging Party and Wabash
within the geographical area of Illinois Highway District 7,
comprising the counties of Clay, Crawford, Edwards, Eff-
ingham, Fayette, Hamilton, Jasper, Jefferson, Lawrence,
Marion, Richland, Wabash, Wayne, and White, excluding
all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit approprate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
It has been the invariable practice of the parties to hold
bargaining sessions when notice has been received from the
Respondent to reopen the contract for wages and fringe
benefits. At each of the bargaining sessions that have taken
place from 1967 to date, Respondent formulates carpenter
wage and fringe demands for its schedule A; at a prelimi-
nary meeting of carpenter delegates at which a bargaining
committee invariably chaired by Meyer is also elected;
Meyer contacts the Employer and sets up the first schedule
A bargaining session at some mutually convenient time
and place. The two parties then bargain through one or
more bargaining sessions until they reach an agreement on
the schedule A contract, which is then binding on all the
carpenters unions having territorial jurisdiction within Dis-
trict 7.
After new agreements are reached, the Employer re-
ceives copies signed by Meyer. The Associated General
Contractors has never sought the signatures of individual
unions and district councils on these District 7 contracts.
The Employer consistently relied on Meyer's apparent and
actual authority to bind the multiunion unit as signified by
the course of conduct over almost a decade of time in
which Meyer chaired and acted as spokesman for the Dis-
trict 7 Carpenter Bargaining Committee and signed con-
tracts negotiated with the Employer on behalf of all those
unions without ever having received a challenge to his au-
thority to do so.
B. The Facts
The instant case arises against the above -described back-
ground and the Employer entered 1975 negotiations with
the Carpenters whose bargaining committee was again
chaired by Meyer, who had negotiated all previous multi-
party contracts on behalf of and binding on Carpenters
District 7.
It is contended by Clarence Butcher, who was the
Respondent's business representative at the time of the
1975 negotiations, and one Jim Pruett, business representa-
tive from Vandalia and Salem, Illinois, that Mayer was not
voted in as chairman at the commencement of the 1975
negotiations. Despite this contention, Butcher did not tell
Meyer that he wanted to actively participate in the negotia-
tions and raise any protest or take any steps to curtail
Meyer's activity or exercise of authority as the negotiating
committee chairman. Thus, whether elected each time a
new contract was to be bargained or not, Meyer was clear-
ly and constantly identified and recognized by everybody
concerned as the chairman of and spokesman for the Dis-
trict 7 Carpenters' bargaining committee.
The first negotiating session took place on March 13,
1975,1 at the Holiday Inn located in Effingham, Illinois.
Present at this meeting for the Employer was Richard Cur-
ren, who was the director of labor relations for the contrac-
tors, and George Drumm and Ron Shore.
The Respondent was represented by a committee con-
sisting of Mr. Butcher, Mr. Copple, Mr. Bathe, George
Meyer, and John Pruitt. Curren identified himself as the
spokesman for the General Contractors. George Meyer
was the spokesman for and chairman of the union negoti-
ating team.
At this meeting, Meyer proposed the Respondent's wage
1 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demand as being a $1.02, effective April 1, 1975, and 60
cents effective April 1, 1976. The employer group count-
erproposed a uniform wage increase of 70 cents throughout
the District 7. Meyer rejected this proposal and another
meeting was scheduled for March 18. During the course of
the first meeting, Butcher requested a separate deal for Lo-
cal 347, which was to be whatever District 5 (then involved
in separate negotiations) would arrive at. District 5 is the
next district to the north of District 7.
During the course of a colloquy between union counsel
and Mr. Curren, counsel asked if "Meyer was seeking indi-
vidual authority from each of the unions to sign the con-
tract-wasn't he, and you heard it?"
A. I do not recall hearing that.
Q. You do not recall people at the meeting saying
Meyer has no authority to sign the contract or to bind
us or to negotiate for us. He is just the chairman, he
just arranges the meetings, he cannot bind us.
A. No.
Q. Do you know that Meyer called people and sent
out letters seeking their authority to bind them?
A. No.
Q. And you did not hear Jim Pruett say that Meyer
has no authority to bind me.
A. No.
n
Q. Did you hear Butcher say no I will not give you
the authority to sign for me.
A. No.
Q. We, if we agree, we don't have the authority to
sign anything until it is voted on by our members and
you heard them say that didn't you?
A. No. Not that I remember. I do not think they
did.
Later, in the cross-examination, Curren said: "If Meyer
said that he represented District 7 as he has in previous
years, I had negotiated with him alone for all of District 7.
There has never been any problem with it so that would
have been all right with me, I would have believed him
when he said he represented all of District 7."
Later on in the cross-examination, Curren testified:
I believe there was the resolution because I asked
Meyer whether he had authority on behalf of these
people to enter into the agreement with me, he said,
"Yes" right in front of them and he did as I have
testified before. I did not notice any furor following
that. My assumption was that they had worked it out
although they were not all happy about it.
In his testimony George Meyer, on direct examination,
was asked if he had ever been involved in negotiations with
the AGC of Illinois.
A. Yes sir.
Q. In what particular highway district.
A. Highway District 7.
Q. This is your local.
A. My local is located in Highway District 7.
Q. When did you first become involved in negotia-
tions within District 7 between the carpenters and the
AGC?
A. I guess I negotiated the first contract with them
in 1967.
Q. How did you happen to get involved?
A. I was selected by our local as a member of the
negotiating committee and they, in turn , sent me as a
representative to the business agents' meeting prior to
the meeting there with the contractors.
Q. This is in 1967?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anybody else from your local go. This
would be to that first meeting among the business
agents.
A. Not that I can recall sir at this time.
Q. All right it was 8 years ago. When you got there,
to this first meeting this preliminary meeting which
involves only union people what happened then on
that occasion?
A. Well, the personnel that were there were there in
the same capacity as I was, to represent their local
union. At that time we selected a chairman, which
unfortunately was me.
Q. You won.
A. I was selected.
Q. This was for the chairman of what?
A. The negotiating committee to negotiate a con-
tract with the AGC and the Wabash Valley Contrac-
tors Association.
Q. Were other people also on the committee.
A. They were.
Q. Since then have you been involved in any other
negotiations. If so in what capacity?
A. I have. This is only with the AGC.
Q. Only with the AGC?
A. We negotiated in 1967 to 1971 when we had an-
other negotiation session.
Q. Were you involved?
A. I was chairman of that also.
Q. All right. How were you selected in that year?
A. The same way. Each time I was selected that
same way.
Q. Did you get involved in the next negotiations?
A. I got involved in the next negotiations, the next
one was the same contract with the AGC and Wabash
Valley Contractors Association.
Q. And it ran until when?
A. It was affective April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1975.
Q. In what capacity were you involved in the nego-
tiations in 1971, 1973 and 1975?
A. I was selected chairman.
Q. Is there any difference in the way you were se-
lected in 1967 and in the subsequent years?
A. No. Each time we had a meeting prior to our
negotiating session, I offered my resignation and they
renominated me to this position.
Q. Was there any difference in the way you operat-
ed as chairman in 1967, 1971, 1973 or 1975?
A. When we arrived at solutions as to what our de-
mands were from the contractors, I, in turn, notify the
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 347 419
contractors that we wished to terminate the present
contract and begin negotiations for a new contract.
Q. How were these determinations of what the van-
ous locals and their representatives and officials want-
ed, how did you come to an agreement on that?
A. We would all meet prior to the date that we had
to notify the contractor and we would argue it out
right around the table and we would come to a conclu-
sion of what our demands would be.
In sum the testimony of Meyer was to the effect that
locals authorized him to conclude the contract provided he
got from them what they wanted. According to Meyer,
nothing was ever said by representatives of the locals at the
meetings with the contractors that no matter what arrange-
ments Meyer could make, it was necessary for the repre-
sentative then to go back to their several locals to secure
ratification of what Meyer was able to get for them. His
remarks were clear that he knew and Curren knew that
Butcher's people were not bound by these negotiations be-
cause Butcher wanted a separate deal for his members.
There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether ratifi-
cation had to be secured from the separate locals. On bal-
ance , I am persuaded that the testimony of Meyer and
Curren, which I credit, is logical. Meyer testified without
refutation that members of the committee went along with
Meyer, "If he got for them what their members wanted."
Since this is so it seems unlikely that after Meyer was suc-
cessful the committee members then had to return to their
locals to secure ratification. In effect, Meyer had preratifi-
cation when he was able to get what the locals wanted. The
extent of their demands were hammered out in the private
meetings Meyer had with the other members of the com-
mittee before meeting with the contractors.
In the March 18 meeting the AGC offered and the Car-
penters rejected a counterproposal. Meyer said that if no
agreement were reached on the Respondent's offer he
would withdraw the Carpenters original offer and submit a
new proposal. The AGC caucused and later returned with
an offer to pay the $1.02 and 60 cents for the forthcoming
2 years on condition that the rate be districtwide. Curren
said he was going to make a wage proposal for District 7
accepting the $1.02 and 60 cents as you proposed provided
you make it uniform throughout the district. Meyer agreed
to accept a new contract with districtwide rates on behalf
of the Carpenters. Since agreement had been reached with
the Carpenters for a contract to bind everybody in the unit,
Curren proceeded to draft a "Memorandum of Agree-
ment ." This was passed around among the Carpenters rep-
resentatives at the bargaining table, including Re-
spondent's business representative and bargaining com-
mittee member, Butcher. It was then signed by Meyer and
Curren. It is significant to point out that none of the
Carpenter's representatives present, including Butcher,
tried to stop Meyer from signing the Memorandum of
Agreement which purported to, and in fact did, bind all
District 7 carpenters, including Respondent. It should be
further noted that this Memorandum of Agreement con-
tained no stipulation suggesting that the agreement embod-
ied in the contract, or the contract itself, was in any way
contingent upon subsequent ratification by any or all the
locals or district councils participating in the multiparty
negotiations. So far as ratification is concerned, Curren
credibly testified that never in his previous experience had
the question of ratification ever come up, even though he
had participated in negotiations on behalf of the AGC for
about 10 years. In any event, nothing was stated at the time
of the negotiations of March 18, 1975, to the effect that
unless the agreements entered into by Meyer were subse-
quently ratified that there would be no binding obligation
on the part of the Respondent.
Respondent places strong reliance on Local Union No.
525, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (Reynolds Electical & En-
gineering Co.), 171 NLRB 1607 (1968), in which the Board
reversed the Trial Examiner's decision, finding the union in
that case in violation of Section 8(b)(3). The facts of the
instant case are not apposite to the case at bar. In Plumbers
Local 525, the record shows that Reeco and the respon-
dent, as well as other craft unions at the Las Vegas, Ne-
vada, missile site, had a history of bargaining on an indi-
vidual craft basis for separate craft contracts. That case
turned on the Baord's conclusion that respondent had re-
fused to bargain in good faith. There is no such problem in
the instant case. The major question in the case at bar was
whether or not Meyer had authority to bind separate locals
of the Carpenters Union.
The totality of the course of bargaining between Re-
spondent and the Employer shows that for almost 10 years
Meyer represented the Carpenters, negotiated for them,
and entered into a succession of contracts binding the lo-
cals to the agreement reached between Curren and Meyer.
Meyer had more than apparent authority to enter into
binding contracts for the Carpenters Union. He had actual
authority, and exercised it without his authority being
questioned. Furthermore, at the point of signing the so-
called Memorandum of Agreement, none of the participat-
ing members of the negotiating committee voiced any ob-
jection to Meyer's signing on their behalf. It is not disputed
that Curren and Meyer had a longstanding relationship
and took part in the bargaining over a period of almost a
decade. If any of the representatives of the separate locals
did not want to be bound by Meyer, they had an affirma-
tive duty to so notify Curren. The record shows their assent
by their silence at the point of Meyer's signing for them. It
is no argument to contend that there was space at the end
of the written contract for their respective signatures. They
had not signed any of the previous agreements negotiated
by Meyer. It is also not relevant that at the time Meyer did
act for them he was in retirement. A union can be repre-
sented by any individual, whether or not he is an active
member of the said union.
It is also significant that all the parties covered by the
1975 agreement did, in fact, abide by its terms. John Pruitt,
general representative of the Carpenters Union, testified as
follows:
Q. What would be the benefit then of the contrac-
tor negotiating with everybody and find out that he
had a number of non-ratifications?
A. Well, in the years we have had this this has never
happened, in 10 years.
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Never happened that somebody would not abide
by a contract?
A. Had refused to abide by the terms of the agree-
ment. I do not think it's happened yet today. I don't
believe anyone has refused to abide by the terms of
the agreement.
Q. Would Local 347 go by the terms of the agree-
ment?
A. I think they would have jobs in their territory.
It is clear from the record that Meyer did, in fact, have
actual authority to bind the local unions who participated
in the bargaining sessions . I so find. As a result of this fact,
I find that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act. Since agreement had been reached with the Car-
penters for a contract to bind everybody in the unit, Cur-
ren proceeded to draft a Memorandum of Agreement. This
was passed around among the Carpenter representatives at
the bargaining table. Meyer's action on March 18 was in
strict accord with the past practice of the parties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 347, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of the Act.
2. Associated General Contractors of Illinois is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All carpenter and millwright employees employed by
the Employer-Members of the Charging Party and Wabash
within the geographical area of Illinois Highway District
No. 7, comprised of the counties of Clay, Crawford, Ed-
wards, Effingham, Fayette, Hamilton, Jasper, Jefferson,
Lawrence, Marion, Richland, Wabash, Wayne, and White,
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On March 18, 1975, and at all times material thereaf-
ter, Respondent has stated it is not bound by the contract
and by so doing violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. It shall
be required to notify the Associated General Contractors
of Illinois in writing that it is bound by the contract execu-
ted by its representative Meyer.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has stated that it is
not bound by the contracts executed by its agent Meyer, it
shall be ordered to notify the Associated General Contrac-
tors that it is in fact bound by the contract.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]