Pharmaseal Laboratories

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 324 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pharmaseal Laboratories and Carl Smith, Petitioner
and United Metaltronics and Hospital Supply Em-
ployees, Local 955, United Brick-and Clay Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, and Miscellaneous Ware-
housemen, Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 21-
RD-1057
September 27, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Theodore B. Horn
and briefs were filed by each of the two unions named
in the caption as comprising the joint representative.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They 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 pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. United Metalronics and Hospital Supply Em-
ployees, Local 955, United Brick and Clay Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and Miscellaneous Warehouse-
men, Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, are the joint representa-
tive of certain employees of the Employer, and as such
constitute a labor organization.
3. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks to decertify the incumbent
joint bargaining representative of all the employees in
the existing appropriate unit.' The joint representative
1 The unit consists of all production and maintenance employees , shipping
and receiving employees, truckdrivers , warehouse employees , and quality
control technicians at the Employer's Irwindale , California, plant, excluding
office clericals , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in
has two components, hereinafter separately referred
to as Local 955 and Local 986. Local 986, in response
to the present decertification petition, seeks to sep-
arately represent all of the employees in the unit. Lo-
cal 955 contends that the petition should be dismissed,
because there is presently in effect a valid collective-
bargaining agreement which constitutes a contract
bar. The Employer takes no position.
On July 2, 1965, Local 955 and Local 986 were
certified by the Board as the joint representative for
the bargaining unit. Following a period of negotia-
tions, a 3-year contract was entered into between the
Employer and the joint representative on December
1, 1965.
Negotiations for a renewal contract commenced
about October 1968. Local 986 refused to particpate
in these negotiations, however, on the ground that its
petition was then pending before the Board seeking to
sever the warehouse employees from the unit.' Nego-
tiations continued between the Employer and the
joint representative, with Local 955 alone conducting
the negotiations on behalf of the joint representative.
The negotiations resulted in a new 3-year contract
with an expiration date of December 1, 1971. Signing
this contract on behalf of the joint representative were
agents of Local 955 only. No agent of Local 986
signed the contract. Significantly, however, Local 986
accepted the benefits of the contract, abided by its
terms, and never questioned its validity.
In the latter part of 1971, with the 1968 contract
approaching expiration, the Employer was notified
that the joint representative desired to negotiate an-
other renewal contract. On September 29, 1971,3 a
proposal for a new collective-bargaining agreement
was sent to the Employer, along with a letter naming
Summers, of Local 955, as chairman and Hauck, of
Local 986, as cochairman of the joint representative's
bargaining committee. The letter was followed by a
meeting on October 13, attended by representatives of
the Employer and the joint representative, including
Hauck. The Employer was formally presented with
the aforementioned contract proposal. Hauck, at that
time, expressed complete approval of the proposal.
After about 25 bargaining sessions , the parties
were unable to reach agreement. Although Hauck had
been notified of all the bargaining sessions , he attend-
ed only the first such session on October 13, as de-
scribed above. Hauck was also informed of the par-
ties' inability to reach agreement.
On December 2, the parties held an additional
meeting at the request of a Federal mediator. After
some discussion, Summers and James Cruz, for the -
the Act.
2 Case 21-RC-11016. On March 12 , 1969, the Board issued its Order
dismissing the petition on the basis that the unit sought was inappropriate.
Pharmaseal Laboratories, 174 NLRB 1139.
' Unless noted otherwise, all dates hereinafter are 1971.
199 NLRB No. 37
PHARMASEAL LABORATORIES 325
joint representative , accepted the Employer 's latest
offer, and embodied it in a 3 -year contract which they
and the Employer signed .4 Hauck, also present at the
meeting, for the first time questioned the negotiators'
status and the validity of the understanding reached;
he refused to sign the contract and stated that he
would have the employees in the segment of the unit
he represented take a strike vote.
On the morning of December 3, Hauck dispatched
a telegram to the Employer and Local 955 , arguing
that Local 955's negotiators had no authority to sign
any collective-bargaining agreement covering the
unit.
As we had stated, Local 955 contends that the 1971
contract is an effective bar to the petition , which must
therefore be dismissed ; the Employer does not dispute
this position . The Petitioner and Local 986, on the
other hand , argue principally that the alleged contract
is not a bar, since it has not been signed by any agent
of Local 986 . For the reasons discussed below, we
believe the 1971 contract is an effective bar, and the
petition must be dismissed.
A contract, to constitute a bar to a petition , must of
course be signed by all the parties .' On its face, the
1971 contract meets this requirement . Thus, there are
just two signature blocks : one is titled "FOR THE
COMPANY.-" the other is titled
FOR THE UNION:
UNITED METALTRONICS AND HOSPI-
TAL SUPPLY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 955,
AND MISCELLANEOUS WAREHOUSE-
MEN, DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION,
LOCAL 986, I.B.T.
There is no contention that the Employer's signature
block is not properly signed.
The principal argument by Local 986 is that to be
effective the contract required an additional signature
by a Local 986 agent. However, Local 986 is not a
party to the contract. Here, as in all cases of a joint
representative, pursuant to a Board certification, a
single exclusive representative exists for all the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit. Neither Local 955 nor
Local 986 was certified individually. Rather, they
were certified jointly, to be the single statutory repre-
sentative of all the employees in the unit. There are
only two de jure parties to the 1971 contract: the Em-
ployer and the joint representative.
While it is true that on December 2 Hauck in effect
questioned Local 955's continued role as spokesman
for the joint representative and on December 3 dis-
patched a telegram to the Employer and Local 955,
arguing that Local 955 had no authority to sign any
contract covering the unit, it cannot be denied that
Hauck had admittedly attended only the first and last
of the 1971 negotiating sessions and left the 'real nego-
tiating responsibility to Summers as the spokesman
for the joint representative. These facts clearly reveal
that Summers had the final authority to negotiate for,
and bind the joint representative to, the agreement
ultimately reached with the Employer; the Employer
was led to believe that this was the case.
To accept Local 986's argument that despite its
prior course of conduct it could in December with-
draw Summers' authority to negotiate on behalf of the
joint representative would in effect mean that the Em-
ployer must bargain with Local 955 and Local 986 on
a separate basis, in separate units. We have repeatedly
held such contentions to be without merit.6 Local 955
and Local 986 had the obligation to bargain on behalf
of the unit employees on a joint basis and with one
voice. Once the Employer was given to rely upon
Summers' authority, and after the numerous bargin-
ing sessions based upon such good-faith reliance, we
are satisfied that the Petitioner and Local 986 cannot
now dispute the validity of the consummated agree-
ment.
We find from the foregoing facts that the afore-
mentioned contract constitutes a bar to the instant peti-
tion. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.7
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
4 The Employer's offer and the ensuing contract contained no provision
that it was to be subject to employee ratification , or to signature by any
agents of Local 955 or 986 as such . Accordingly , we find no merit in Local
986's argument that since the unit employees originally had voted to reject
the contract and the officers of Local 955 originally had refused to sign it,
the contract never became effective.
5 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160
('S D Warren Company, 150 NLRB 288, Utility Services, Inc, 158 NLRB
592; Standard Brands Incorporated, 175 NLRB 734.
7 Chairman Miller concurs in the result but relies solely on the evidence
that Local 986 engaged in a course of conduct establishing that Summers was
the spokesman for both unions , with authority to negotiate on behalf of, and
bind , Locals 955 and 986 to any agreement reached with the Employer.