Western Roto Engravers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Western Roto Engravers , Incorporated and
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No.
824, Petitioner and San Francisco-Oakland Local
No. 8-P , Lithographers and Photoengravers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.' Case
20-RC-7715
December 22, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Patrick Yim, Hearing Of-
ficer of the National Labor Relations Board. Peti-
tioner, Employer, and Intervenor have filed briefs,
which have been duly considered.
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 case to a three-
member panel. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
Petitioner seeks to represent the machinists in the
Employer's plant. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend, inter alia, that an existing collective-
bargaining agreement is a bar.
The Employer manufactures rotogravure cylin-
ders. Excluding office clerical employees, guards,
supervisors, and floor boys, the Employer employs
approximately 26 journeymen engravers and the
two machinists who are the subject of the petition.
Since 1952, the Lithographers and Photoengravers
International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 8-P, had
represented the engravers. The parties disagree as
to whether the previous collective agreements also
covered the two machinists.
In May 1967 the Employer and the Intervenor
began negotiations for a new collective-bargaining
contract. Uncontradicted testimony of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor indicates that the parties
agreed to terms on June 23, 1967. On or about June
23 the wage increase and other benefits provided by
the new agreement were put into effect retroactive-
ly. The 1967 agreement specifically covers the
work performed by the two machinists. Article
XXVII thereof also provides that the agreement is
"subject to review of the International and the con-
tract does not become a valid and binding document
without the approval of the International Pres-
ident." During the final days of negotiation, Inter-
venor's International Union was represented at the
negotiations by its vice president, Ted Brandt. At
the conclusion of negotiations, when Brandt was
asked about his authority, he stated that he was
authorized to act on behalf of the International
Union, that he had been sent to the negotiations for
that purpose, and that the agreement met with the
International's approval.
The contract was ratified by the Intervenor's
Local membership on June 25. Copies of the agree-
ment signed by the Local's representative were
delivered to the Employer on July 11. The Em-
ployer signed the agreement and returned the con-
tract to Intervenor's San Francisco office on July
13. On July 14 Petitioner filed the present petition.
Petitioner contends that the above-mentioned
contract is ineffective as a bar to an election
because it was not signed by the International
president of the Intervenor and was undated. We do
not agree. In Standard Oil Company,2 the Board
held that a requirement for approval by an Interna-
tional union which is not a party to the contract is
not a substantial requirement necessary to achieve
stability in the bargaining relationship of the parties.
Since, in the instant case, the International union is
not a party to the contract, its approval is not a con-
dition precedent to the functioning of the contract
as a bar.; Moreover, even if the approval by the In-
ternational union were a condition precedent, we
note that the contract does not require approval in
writing. The previous contract, which also required
approval by the International, had never been
signed by its president. Thus, the oral assurance
given by International Vice President Brandt that
the terms of the contract were acceptable to the In-
ternational union amounted to approval of the con-
tract by a representative of the International who
had apparent as well as actual authority to act on
the International's behalf.
The Petitioner also contends that the contract
cannot constitute a bar because it was undated. The
absence of a date on a written and signed agreement
has never been regarded as sufficient, by itself, to
' Intervention was permitted because of the Intervenor's collective-bar- 119 NLRB 598
gaining agreement with the Employer Id.
168 NLRB No. 142
WESTERN ROTO ENGRAVERS, INC. 987
invalidate a contract for purposes of the contract venor constitutes a bar to the present petition. We
bar rule .4 In this case , the evidence establishes that shall therefore dismiss the petition without con-
the contract was reduced to writing, was for a sidering the Petitioner 's request for a separate unit.
definite term , was signed by the parties , and was
ratified by the Local Union before the Petitioner
ORDERfiled its petition . Under these circumstances, we re-
gard the absence of a date as immaterial.5
Accordingly, we find that the collective -bargain- It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
ing contract between the Employer and the Inter- be, and it hereby is , dismissed.
4 Cf. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 118 N LRB 961
5 See Appalachian Shale Products Co, 121 NLRB 1160, 1162