Auto Workers Local 155 (U.S. Mfg. Corp.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 2008

352 N.L.R.B. 1122 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
352 NLRB No. 130
1122
Local 155, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO and Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO and U.S. Manufacturing
Corporation. Case 7–CB–15815
August 26, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On April 24, 2008, Administrative Law Judge John H.
West issued the attached decision. The General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondents, Local
155, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO, Warren, Michigan, and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, De-
troit, Michigan, their officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi-
fied.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
“(a) Failing and refusing to execute the July 31, 2007
written collective-bargaining agreement ratified by a

1 The judge found that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(b)(3) by fail-
ing to execute a contract that a majority of the unit employees had
ratified. None of the parties excepts to this violation. The General
Counsel excepts solely to a portion of the language in the judge’s
cease-and-desist order and to his failure to include an affirmative bar-
gaining order and a unit description in his recommended Order and
notice. We conclude that the judge entered the correct cease-and-desist
order. We have modified the recommended Order and notice to include
the unit description but the judge’s failure to include an affirmative
bargaining order is consistent with precedent. See Teamsters Local 589
(Jennings Distribution), 349 NLRB 124, 131 (2007); Teamsters Local
662 (W. S. Dailey & Co.), 339 NLRB 893, 901–902 (2003).
2 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
majority of the members of the bargaining unit on Au-
gust 1, 2007. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including materials coordina-
tors, manufacturing technicians, repair technicians, QA
inspectors, QA gauge technicians, truck drivers, tool
crib attendants, die assemblers, tool polishers, toolmak-
ers, machine build workers, cutter grinders, mainte-
nance technicians, oilers, prototype, machine techs, and
prototype welders employed by the Employer at its fa-
cility located 28201 Van Dyke, Warren, Michigan, and
including temp-to-hire employees employed in the
above classifications jointly by the employer and vari-
ous employment agencies; but excluding office clerical
employees, confidential employees, professional em-
ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute the July 31,
2007 written collective-bargaining agreement ratified by
a majority of the members of the bargaining unit on Au-
gust 1, 2007. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including materials coordina-
tors, manufacturing technicians, repair technicians, QA
inspectors, QA gauge technicians, truck drivers, tool
crib attendants, die assemblers, tool polishers, toolmak-
ers, machine build workers, cutter grinders, mainte-
nance technicians, oilers, prototype, machine techs, and
prototype welders employed by us at our facility lo-
cated 28201 Van Dyke, Warren, Michigan, and includ-
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1123
ing temp-to-hire employees employed in the above
classifications jointly by the employer and various em-
ployment agencies; but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, confidential employees, professional employ-
ees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL immediately execute the July 31, 2007 writ-
ten collective-bargaining agreement ratified by a major-
ity of the members of the bargaining unit on August 1,
2007.
WE WILL give retroactive effect to the provisions of the
July 31, 2007 written collective-bargaining agreement
ratified by a majority of the members of the bargaining
unit on August 1, 2007.
LOCAL 155, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW),
AFL–CIO AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW),
AFL–CIO
Kelly A. Temple, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephen A. Yokich, Esq. (Cornfield & Feldman), of Chicago,
Illinois, for the Respondents.
Martin J. Galvin, Esq. (Dykema Gossett, PLLC), of Detroit,
Michigan, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN H. WEST, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Detroit, Michigan, on February 19, 2008. The original
charge was filed on October 2, 2007,1 by U.S. Manufacturing
Corporation, an amended charge was filed on December 3, and
the complaint was issued December 4. It alleges that Respon-
dents Local 155, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO, Warren, Michigan, have been failing and
refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Charging
Party, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), by since about September 28, failing
and refusing to execute a collective-bargaining agreement,
which agreement was reached on July 31, subject to the condi-
tion requiring unit ratification of the tentative agreement, which
tentative agreement was ratified on or about August 1, and
notification of the ratification was given to the Charging Party
by the Respondents, and which agreement was supposed to be
executed on September 28. In their answer, dated December
18, to the complaint, Respondent International avers that when
its agent informed the Charging Party of the ratification vote he

1 All dates are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
specifically advised the Charging Party that issues had arisen
regarding the ratification vote and the Charging Party should
not put the contract into effect because there would likely be an
appeal of any decision regarding the ratification vote; that Re-
spondents had no authority to execute the collective-bargaining
agreement because no valid ratification vote had occurred; and
that Respondents did not violate the Act as alleged.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
on April 8, 2008,2 by counsel for the General Counsel, the
Charging Party, and Respondents, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Charging Party is a corporation with a place of business
in Warren, Michigan, where it has been engaged in the manu-
facture, nonretail sale, and distribution of automotive parts to
the automotive industry. It is admitted and I find that during
2006, a representative period, the Charging Party, in conducting
its operations at its Warren facility, derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and during the same period purchased and
caused to be shipped to its Warren facility goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside
the State of Michigan. It is admitted and I find that the Charg-
ing Party is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the
Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondents stipu-
lated that Greg Bauer is an agent of the International Union;
that William Verdier, who is the grievance and bargaining
chairman of the bargaining unit in question, is an agent of the
Local with respect to the involved bargaining unit and the Em-
ployer for purposes of this case; that Clarence Presley, who is
president of Local 155, is an agent of the Local Union; that
John Cunningham, who is an International representative who
was assigned to the involved bargaining unit since about No-
vember 2007, and who replaced Bauer, is an agent of the Inter-
national; and that the Local Union has the authority to act on
behalf of the International with respect to grievances at steps
one and two of the grievance process.
Laura Hudson, who is the Charging Party’s director of hu-
man resources, testified that it is her understanding that there is
a current contract between the Employer, the International Un-
ion, and Local 155; that there has been a collective-bargaining
relationship between the UAW and the Employer since 2004;
that the first contract (GC Exh. 2) was effective from 2004 to
2007; and that she took part in negotiating both contracts with
Respondents.
On cross-examination, Hudson, regarding the first collective-
bargaining agreement, testified that the parties agreed on a
tentative agreement, it went to the membership, and the mem-
bership turned it down; that a second vote of the membership

2 Counsel for the General Counsel was granted an extension from
March 25 to April 8, 2008, for filing a brief.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1124
occurred within days; and that the first contract, the 2004–2007
contract, was not effective until the membership ratified it.
Hudson testified that during the contract negotiations in June
and July 2007, the Company was represented by her, John
Delokla, who is the director of accounting and financing, and
Tim Brownfield, who is the director of operations; that the
Union was represented by Bauer, Verdier, and the members of
the bargaining committee, namely: James Thompson, Ron Bur-
ton, Dan Goodin, and Tracy Wright; that while she prepared the
Company’s proposals and the tentative agreement, the company
representatives worked as a team; that she believed that Bauer
was the spokesperson for the Union during negotiations be-
cause he gave the opening talk before negotiations began and
he laid out some of the preferred ground rules such as not dis-
cussing what occurred in negotiations; that Verdier presented
most of the Union’s proposals; that throughout the process of
negotiations changes were made to the existing contract, all of
the pages with the changes were initialed, and a tentative
agreement (GC Exh. 3) was reached on July 31; that Bauer and
the above-described members of the bargaining committee
signed or initialed the tentative agreement on July 30 or 31 on
page 36 thereof, which page was copied from the original collec-
tive-bargaining agreement; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 3 by
itself is not the whole contract since it only includes pages of the
former contract on which changes were made; that she was never
advised by the involved International or Local that the bargaining
committee or the Local were not authorized to sign the 2004 or
the 2007 collective-bargaining agreement; and that the bargaining
committee members signed the 2004 contract.
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that during negotia-
tions Bauer told her that he needed to sell this contract to his
membership; that she knew that a vote needed to occur; that she
knew in 2007, that the membership had to vote for there to be a
deal; and that the bargaining committee wanted the first lump-
sum payment called for in the agreement sooner rather than later.
Bauer testified that at the time of the trial herein he had been
an International Representative for “[g]oing on two years” (Tr.
97); that he services over a dozen contracts, negotiating collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, and participating in the third step of
the grievance procedure and arbitration; that the members of the
bargaining committee for the Charging Party were elected by the
members of Local 155 who work for the Charging Party; that the
committee met with members to find out what the members
wanted and they passed this information on to him; that in nego-
tiations he was the lead, a facilitator who was taking instructions
from the committee and the membership regarding what they
wanted; that article 19 of the UAW constitution requires mem-
bership ratification of tentative agreements; that the constitution
contains an ethical practices code which is binding on members
and UAW officers; that under the constitution if a Local or an
International officer makes a decision that a member disagrees
with, that member can appeal to the International president’s
office and then to the public review board; that Local 155, which
is called the independent parts sector, is an amalgamated local
which has members from different corporations; that Local 155
does not get involved in the grievance procedure, it does not “get
involved in anything” (Tr. 102, 103); that he, the unit, and the
bargaining committee have sole discretion; that Region 1 of the
International, and not Local 155, services the bargaining unit and
the collective-bargaining agreement of the Charging Party; and
that during negotiations he told Hudson that they were in a dif-
ferent situation than management because while the management
representatives had to sell the agreement to their superiors, the
union representatives had to sell the agreement to the a large
contingency out in the plant, their membership, and that the un-
ion representatives wanted an attractive deal because the mem-
bership was going to vote, the membership ultimately decides.
According to the testimony of Hudson, after a tentative agree-
ment was reached on July 31, midway through the day, the bar-
gaining committee members were excused for the balance of the
day to prepare for and the following day to be a part of the ratifi-
cation vote on August 1 at Local 155. Hudson also testified that
on July 31, with respect to a pending union proposal to remove
the discipline in the files of the bargaining committee, she told
the union representatives that if they got the contract ratified she
was sure that the Company could do something about removing
writeups from the files of the bargaining committee members.
Hudson testified that she excused members of the bargaining
committee for August 1, at the behest of Bauer who told her the
ratification vote was going to be held that day; that on the eve-
ning of August 1, she telephoned Bauer on his cell phone about 7
p.m. as she was getting ready to leave work; that the results were
not known at the time and she asked Bauer to call her; that at
about 7:45 p.m. Bauer telephoned her on her cell phone “and said
that the contract had been ratified . . . it was very close and could
the bargaining committee [members] be excused from work the
following day because they had had a rough day.” (Tr. 25); that
with respect to whether Bauer ever indicated to her that there was
any problem with the ratification vote, Bauer said only that the
vote was close but that it was ratified and she congratulated him;
that Bauer did not say anything else and he did not indicate to her
that the vote was conditioned upon anything; and that there was
nothing in the previous contract that stated that the contract had
to be ratified as a condition of the contract becoming valid.
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that on August 1 she
left work close to 7 p.m.; that she “called him [Bauer] driving
home” (Tr. 69); that Bauer called her back afterwards; that the
first time she knew the contract was ratified that night was
when Bauer talked to her; that she did not go back to the plant
that night; and that on August 1 it was reported to her that the
vote was in favor of the contract.
Bauer testified that the ratification vote was held on August
1 at Local 155; that he had no involvement with setting up the
voting process; that the election committee were volunteers
who worked for the Charging Party and were members of Local
155; that the voting started at 10:30 a.m.; that the Charging
Party has staggered shifts so they were coming in every couple
of hours in groups of 15 to 25 members; and that about 5 p.m.
the following happened:
We have an anti-union segment in that shop who wears their
anti-union shirts that they’ve had ever since the facility was
organized and led by a gentleman named Tony Bowman. He
walked in with his anti-union brown shirt, vote no UAW, and
when that group of approximately five came in to vote, there
is part of the bargaining committee a skilled trades rep named
Tracy Wright, and [she] inadvertently said that, well, we’re all
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1125
done, all the people voted now, we’re done. Well, at that, be-
cause I was not aware of how long we had the hall and how
long this whole process went, I went by what the skilled trade
rep had said. I looked at the election committee and said,
okay, do what you have to do, and gave orders to the commit-
tee and myself to remove ourself [sic] from that ballot box,
and we went out by the hall. The ballots were then counted.
[Tr. 106.]
Bauer further testified that the ballots were tallied with 140
votes against the contract and 130 for the contract; that one of
the stewards, Ron Burton, then walked into the room, asked
what was going on, and said that he had about 20 second-shift
employee/members who are going to come to Local 155 to vote
for the contract and they should have a chance to vote; that he
told the election committee to write a statement of what just
occurred, to put the ballots back in the box, and lock the box;
that he notified a Local officer, Vice President Bob Hector,
who was on duty that night about what occurred; that 18 more
of Charging Party’s employees came to Local 155 at about 6:30
p.m. and voted; that at 7 p.m. the balloting was closed and the
ballots were counted; that this time the outcome was 147 in
favor of the agreement to 141 to turn it down; and that he tele-
phoned Hudson after the second tally telling her:
[T]here was good news and bad news, and that the good news
was that it passed, but the bad news is there was a mix up in
counting the ballots, and she was more than familiar with
Tony Bowman and his antics, and I said, in front of Tony
Bowman of all people this had to occur, and that he left the
place hooting and hollering and he was going to go to the
plant and let them know that it didn’t pass, and now we’re
saying it is, so expect trouble; that there for sure is going to be
trouble, and I wouldn’t doubt if he has an appeal because I’m
familiar with the process. And she stated, quote, ‘That sounds
like [a] union problem.’ And I said, no, that’s our problem.
[Tr. 109.]
Bauer further testified that during this conversation he told
Hudson that “it would be in my humble opinion [there] was
going to be an appeal, so therefore we better sit tight because I
know it’s going to happen” (id.); that he wanted the Company
to sit tight because there was money involved, and what he was
concerned about was that the Company would go ahead and
issue these lump sums and then through this process bargaining
unit members would have to pay it back; and that he did not
think that the bargaining unit members would be able to do that
and the Company would take it out of their wages.
On cross-examination, Bauer testified that on August 1 he
told Hudson that the contract was ratified 147 to 141.
On August 2, according to the testimony of Hudson, she met
with the Company’s payroll department because one of the
things that was agreed to in a new provision of the contract was
that employees would receive a lump-sum payment or either
$1000 or $500 (based on the date of hire) the following week.
Hudson testified that the Employer made the lump-sum pay-
ment; that within a week following the August 1 ratification
vote she had a discussion with Bauer to confirm how the deduc-
tions from the lump-sum payments would be handled; and that
on August 9 or 16, she telephoned Bauer and they agreed that,
with respect to employees who were on approved medical leave
or a leave of absence of some kind, their lump-sum payment
checks would be held until they returned to work.
Hudson testified that other changes the Company started
working on were (a) changing its 401(k) plan to improve eligi-
bility, (b) changing the way holidays were paid, (c) changing
the attendance program so that employees with good attendance
records could call in and use a vacation day or an earned per-
sonal day without scheduling it in advance,3 (d) started work-
ing, as agreed, with an insurance agent to identify a cost effec-
tive plan to allow additional short-term disability options for
employees and arrange employee meetings to disseminate this
information, (e) changed the medical coverage so that coverage
for a brand name drug increased from $20 to $50, (f) changed
the disciplinary process in August 2007, by adding a provision
that the discipline had to occur within 7 days following the
event or the Company could not issue a writeup to the em-
ployee,4 (g) changed the procedure with respect to pay short-
ages so that if the employee did not receive the moneys that he
or she should have and if it was a shortage of 4 hours or more,
the Company would manually cut a check for the employee, (h)
changed the Company option of temporarily laying off employ-
ees from 6 to 4 weeks, (i) changed Company policy so that a
person would have to have not worked for 24 months before
they would be separated from the Company, (j) changed the
rule by expanding the area within the organization that an em-
ployee could shift bump by exercising seniority, (k) changed
the rule regarding job postings so that the employee awarded a
job posting is paid the rate of the new position from the first
day they go into that job, (l) changed Company policy so that
the bargaining/grievance committee was part of reviewing
overtime postings with the understanding that they would
communicate with management if there were any issues, (m)
changed the holiday program so that the holiday days were
deferred until the end of the year, they were treated as a bonus,
and employees were allowed to collect a full week of unem-
ployment, (n) changed the policy regarding how employees are
paid if they are injured at work to ensure that the employees are
getting a full 8 hours of pay and the day after a work-related
injury was addressed, (o) provided a variety of buy-up options
that employees as of October 2007 could purchase and have
higher short-term disability weekly benefits at their cost, and
(p) changed the eligibility for dental insurance so that employ-
ees had to wait 2 years for that benefit (previously, they had to
wait 1 year for this benefit).
On further direct by counsel for the Charging Party, Hudson
testified that as set forth in General Counsel’s Exhibit 3, the
tentative agreement, the parties negotiated for lump sum in-
creases to be implemented on August 9 and the employees

3 GC Exh. 6 is a copy of a bulletin board posting explaining the Au-
gust 7 change to the attendance policy to employees. For the Union,
Verdier signed the posting on August 24 as chairperson, bargain-
ing/grievance committee.
4 GC Exh. 5 is a grievance form dated August 8, which indicates that
a writeup of an employee which was dated July 27 regarding an inci-
dent which occurred on July 19 was withdrawn “without precedence.”
Hudson testified that it was withdrawn at step two.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1126
would have received the increase the following Thursday, Au-
gust 16; that no one from the UAW, either Local 155 or the
International, contacted her and advised her not to pay the lump
sums; that the attendance program in the above-described Au-
gust 27 posting signed by Verdier (GC Exh. 6), was negotiated
during negotiations in June and July 2007; that Verdier did not
say that he could not sign the document that was posted; that no
one from the UAW, either the involved Local or the Interna-
tional, contacted her to tell her that the change in the attendance
program was not valid and could not be implemented; and that
there were no grievances filed about the change in the atten-
dance program.
Within a couple of days after the August 1 ratification, ac-
cording to the testimony of Hudson, during a telephone conver-
sation Bauer reminded her of her July 31 statement and subse-
quently she did in fact remove the writeups, one each from
three of the bargaining committee members’ files.5
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that she wrote “Re-
move write-up 8/1/07” on the three involved writeups within a
couple of days of August 1.
Respondent’s Exhibit 3 is the appeal, dated August 4, of the
ratification vote which was sent to Ron Gettlefinger, the UAW
President. There are three pages of signatures attached to it.
Bauer, who was a “CC” on the appeal, testified that the 140
signatures are of members of the bargaining unit.
Bauer testified that between August 1 and the time that the
checks for the lump-sum payments which were due in August
(August 16) were actually cut he had a conversation with Hud-
son; that Verdier asked him to look into a concern with the
lump-sum payments; that he telephoned Hudson and spoke
with her about the lump-sum payments; that during this conver-
sation
I said, Laura, our conversation about Tony Bowman has come
to fruition; he has appealed it and he has gone to Ron Get-
tlefinger; he’s got 140 signatures, and it’s gone to my direct
boss. So once I again I asked for everything to be put on hold,
let’s see where this all goes. [Tr. 114, 115.]
On cross-examination, Bauer testified that he never told the
bargaining unit members not to cash the lump-sum payment
since he was not “entitled” (Tr. p. 118) to do that.
In late August 2007, according to the testimony of Hudson,
she gave copies of the new contract, with a cover memoran-
dum6 requesting that the recipients let her know if there were
any changes, to Verdier to give to the bargaining committee,
and she mailed a contract to Bauer.

5 GC Exhs. 7, 8, and 9 are the writeups, disciplines, or warning no-
tices which were removed from the files of bargaining committee
members Thompson, Goodin, and Verdier, respectively.
6 GC Exh. 10. As here pertinent, the body of the cover memoran-
dum reads as follows:
Attached are five (5) copies of the Final Draft for review by the Bar-
gaining/Grievance Committee. I have mailed a copy to Greg Bauer as
well. When you have completed your review of the new contract,
please let me know if there are any corrections needed. We can also
schedule a date for everyone to sign the contract at that time.
On further direct by counsel for the Charging Party, Hudson
testified that during a subsequent telephone conversation Ver-
dier told her that everything looked okay.
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that during a tele-
phone conversation with Verdier he said it looked good and this
occurred several weeks after she gave him the new contract;
that there were some typing errors in the original final draft and
there was a sentence that was missing in part of it; that conse-
quently there was a later version than the aforementioned one
that was given to Verdier; that Verdier was the one who
brought to her attention an issue involving the missing sen-
tence; and that Verdier first said that the draft given to him was
alright, then an issue occurred relating to overtime, and Ver-
dier, who was looking at the new language, noticed a sentence
was missing, he pointed this out, the Company agreed, and the
sentence was added.
On redirect, Hudson testified that after she gave Verdier the
contract it was a couple of weeks, after the Labor Day holiday,
that Verdier said that it looked okay; that subsequently there
was a concern that the supervisors and managers were not post-
ing overtime for the weekend in a timely manner, and Verdier
was looking at the new contract and he noticed that a sentence
was missing; that the Company reinforced the importance of
posting overtime on the right day; and that she believed that
Verdier noticed the missing sentence after he said everything
looked okay.
Hudson testified that in late August 2007, she initiated a
meeting with Verdier to ascertain whether the short-term dis-
ability buy-up option provided by the Company’s current pro-
vider, Hartford, would meet the requirements that the Company
and the Union had agreed to during negotiations; that Verdier
agreed that it sounded like a good program; that during the
meeting with Verdier it was agreed that the Company would
get all of the paperwork in order so that it could bring in the
insurance agent and he could explain the buy-up option and the
employees could enroll in the new buy-up option at the next
employee meeting; and that the employee meeting occurred at
the end of September 2007, and the coverage became effective
October 1.
During the week of September 17, according to her testi-
mony, Hudson spoke with Bauer and it was agreed that on Sep-
tember 28 the contract would be executed and a step three
grievance meeting would also be held on that date.
Bauer testified that the Company and the Union attempted to
set up a meeting to review a final tentative agreement; that
during the summer there were availability questions, “so we
never did get a firm date to do it” (Tr. 115); that during negotia-
tions it was agreed before the agreement was to be signed, there
would be a meeting between management and the Union with
respect to coaching some supervisors and stewards about acting
appropriately; and that they never had either meeting.
According to Hudson’s testimony, Bauer telephoned her on
September 26, and told her (a) that he probably should not be
calling her or talking to her about it, (b) the meeting for Sep-
tember 28 was canceled because there were problems, and (c)
he hoped that she would be hearing from Presley from Local
155.
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1127
Hudson testified that about 9 a.m. on September 27 Presley
telephoned her and he told her that he had a big problem and he
needed to come to the plant and talk with her as soon as possi-
ble; that Presley came to the plant within the hour; that Presley
said (a) there were big problems in that a complaint had been
filed with the “Labor Board” and with the UAW, (b) everything
had been dumped in his lap, (c) he was doing what the assistant
director told him, (d) he was going to need a whole lot of help
because there were problems with the contract and impliedly
there might have to be another vote, and (e) she could make
copies of a UAW document, which appeared to be a complaint
filed by one of the Charging Party’s employees with the
UAW;7 that she told Presley that in her opinion they had a rati-
fied contract, she was not aware of any complaints filed with
the “Labor Board,” and if there was a complaint within the
UAW, she could not help him with that; and that prior to this
she had not heard that there was any trouble with the contract
or the execution.
On further direct by counsel for the Charging Party, Hudson
testified that other than what was identified as General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 11, she has never seen any of the attachments or
other documents referenced in General Counsel’s Exhibit 11.
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that page 2 of Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 11, a copy of which was given to her for
the first time on September 27, indicates that members from
Local 155 on August 4, filed an appeal with the UAW’s presi-
dent’s office about the August 1 ratification vote; that the first
time that she heard that the Union was having issues with the
August 2007 ratification was the telephone call on September
26 from Bauer canceling their meeting and a visit the next day

7 GC Exh. 11. The 9-page document is a decision of the Interna-
tional president’s office on the appeal of Ron Teller and 148 employees
of the Charging Party, all of whom are members of Local 155, alleging
that the August 1 ratification voting process was flawed. Briefly, the
document indicates that when it was determined on August 1 that the
ballot box was prematurely opened at about 5 p.m. and the ballots were
counted, the ballots were placed back in the ballot box, a number of
members subsequently voted, and the ballots were again counted at the
end of the polling period, namely 7 p.m. According to the document,
the count made when the ballot box was prematurely opened was 130
votes for ratification and 140 votes against ratification. When the ballot
box was opened the second time the count was 147 for ratification and
141 against ratification. It was decided that the ratification vote com-
mittee made a severe mistake when they opened the ballet box prior to
the posted closing of the polls; that members had been told that the
polls would be open until 7 p.m.; that the ballots remained in full view
until they were placed back in the ballot box and the box was resealed;
that no one has accused any member of the ratification vote committee
of adding or removing a single ballot nor was there any evidence of any
ballot tampering; that there was no evidence showing that any violation
of any constitutional provision took place during the ratification proc-
ess; that although there is no clear evidence that such a breach took
place, the Union is also bound to review the circumstances of the ap-
peal as it applies to the UAW’s Ethical Practices Codes; that here the
process was contaminated and it could be questioned as corrupt, dis-
criminatory and/or antidemocratic; and that “[b]ased on the above and
the record, the ratification is set aside and a new ratification vote is
ordered. The Collective Bargaining Agreement will remain operative
and undisturbed as if the ratification stands until such time the ordered
[sic] ratification process is complete.”
from Presley; that prior to this she was not aware of any sort of
issues with the ratification; and that she did not hear any dis-
cussions at the plant that there were any issues with the ratifica-
tion vote from employees.
Bauer testified that as shown in General Counsel’s Exhibit
11, the UAW president’s office ruled that the ratification vote
was overturned and there would be a revote because according
to article 33 of the constitution the membership had a right to
do that and it was determined “that it would be in [the] best
interest to have a re-vote” (Tr. 116); that this decision was is-
sued around September 26 or 27; that he was told about the
decision before it was issued; that another ratification vote was
held and it was a landslide in favor of turning down the con-
tract;8 and that the Union never executed the contract because
the Union’s membership dictates, and they did not want that
agreement.
On cross-examination, Bauer testified that the Union’s con-
stitution is not an agreement between the Company and the
International or the Local but rather it is the Union’s internal
document; that he was told about the decision of the president’s
office a couple of days before it was issued; that he was told
that he would not be handling the re-vote and Presley would be
there from Local 155; that while there is no date in General
Counsel’s Exhibit 11 showing when it was issued, he believed
that it was sometime in October; that on page 3 of General
Counsel’s Exhibit 11 it is indicated that the appeal was ac-
knowledged by President Gettlefinger’s administrative assistant
Dave Curdon via letter dated August 16; that as indicated
above, the appeal was filed on August 4; that on page 2 of Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 11, under “FACTS,” it is indicated that
“the CBA was announced as ratified and proper notice was
forwarded to the Company”; that this refers to him “saying that
the count was 147 [to] 141, we have a ratified, we did success-
fully ratify the agreement” (Tr. p. 134); and that proper notice
refers to the fact that the outcome of the ratification vote was
posted at Charging Party’s facility.
It is noted that, as here pertinent, the following appears on
pages 3 and 4 of General Counsel’s Exhibit 11:
In a letter sent to the Local Union . . . , President Gettelfinger
requested all relevant information concerning the appeal. In a
letter to the President dated September 12, 2007 . . . the Local
Union complied. Attached to the letter was the following
statement from Region 1 Representative Greg Bauer (Exhibit
E):
Exhibit E
At about 5:00 p.m. on August 1st, 2007, a group of ap-
proximately 25 members came into Local 155 to vote on a
tentative agreement with the UAW and US Manufactur-
ing. We (the bargaining committee) had the election set
up for the hours of 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
After these approximately 25 members voted, 3 to 5 of
them were standing around and one of the stewards stated
“well that’s all of the members.” Upon hearing this, the
two volunteers from the membership who were responsi-

8 Bauer believed that the vote was 203 to 38 or 230 to 48 against
ratification.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1128
ble for counting the ballots opened the ballot box and be-
gan to count.
After a short period of time, the volunteers announced
that the count was 140 no votes to 130 yes votes. Upon
hearing this the 3 to 5 members who were standing around
began to cheer to the fact that the agreement was turned
down and left I presume to go the plant and spread the so-
called good news.
When I returned from the lobby, I had asked what was
going on and I was told the votes were counted and the
contract was turned down. I stated “Why did we have the
Local union 7:00 p.m.? [sic] A Steward named Ron said
‘I have members who don’t get their lunch until 6:00
[p.m.] and some who get theirs at 6:30 p.m. and they
didn’t get a chance to vote yet.’”
Upon hearing this I told the volunteers to put the bal-
lots back into the box, to lock the ballot box and to sign
their names to the fact of what just happened. At no time
did I or any of the bargaining committee come near the
ballots of [Perhaps this is a typo and it should read or.] the
ballot box.
. . . .
According to her testimony, Hudson telephoned the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board) and was told that no charge
had been filed against the Company. Hudson testified that she
telephoned Presley and told him that she checked with the
Board and no charge had been filed with the Board; and that
Presley said that this mess was dumped in his lap by the assis-
tant director and he understood that she was upset.
By letter dated September 28 (GC Exh. 12), Hudson advised
Presley as follows:
This letter is written to document our telephone con-
versation of today, and our meeting yesterday.
U.S. Manufacturing Corporation negotiated in good
faith. We reached an agreement with UAW Local 155.
The Company was officially informed by Greg Bauer,
UAW Region 1 International Representative, that the con-
tract was ratified on August 1, 2007.
It is the position of U.S. Manufacturing that we have a
valid collective bargaining agreement with the UAW.
Please contact me to reschedule a meeting to expedite
the contract as soon as possible.
By letter dated October 11 (GC Exh. 13), Presley advised
Hudson, as here pertinent, as follows:
Please be advised that Tom Popa and Richard Burton will be
needed out of the plant on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007. They
will be on official union business.
Hudson testified that since the two-named employees were not
members of the bargaining/grievance committee, she tele-
phoned Presley to ask him why these two individuals needed to
be excused for union business and Presley told her that they
would be observers during the vote; that she excused the time;
and that before this she was not aware that the Union was hold-
ing another ratification vote.
By letter dated October 30 (GC Exh. 14), Bauer advised
Hudson as follows:
The Bargaining Committee for UAW Local 155 of
U.S. Manufacturing is prepared to meet with your team
and resume negotiations due to the fact that the contract
was not ratified in accordance with UAW procedures.
Please contact us with dates for negotiating.
On cross-examination, Bauer testified that between August 1
when he told Hudson that the contract was ratified and his
above described October 30 letter to Hudson, he did not send
Hudson any correspondence letting her know that there was any
sort of problem with the ratification; that this was all done ver-
bally; that there was nothing in writing; that he talked quite
often with Hudson on the telephone; that between August 1 and
September 27, he spoke with Hudson on the telephone four to
six times; and that he thought that there were around six con-
versations.
By letter dated November 1 (GC Exh. 15), Hudson advised
Bauer as follows:
This letter is written in response to your letter dated
October 30, 2007.
On August 1, 2007 you informed us that we had a rati-
fied contract.
As you may or may not be aware, U.S. Manufacturing
Corporation has filed an unfair labor practice with the
NLRB.
It is our position that we have a contract.
General Counsel’s Exhibit 17 is a charge filed on November
6, by International Union UAW, and its Local 155 (the charge
was signed by the same attorney who represents the Union at
the trial herein) in Case 7–CA–50830 against U.S. Manufactur-
ing Corporation alleging as follows:
In July 2007, the Employer and the Union reached a
tentative agreement on a new contract. The tentative
agreement was subject to ratification by the union mem-
bership. The union membership rejected the contract.
Following the rejection of the contract, the Union re-
quested the Company to return to negotiations. The Com-
pany has refused to return to negotiations.
By letter dated December 5 (GC Exh. 18), the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7 of the Board advised the Union that after an
investigation of the Union’s charge in Case 7–CA–50830, he
concluded that further proceedings were not warranted and he
was dismissing the charge. A Summary Report of the basis for
his conclusions was attached to the letter.9 The Union was also
advised of its right to appeal.

9 As here pertinent, the summary report indicates as follows:
The investigation disclosed that ratification by employees
was a condition precedent to a collective bargaining agreement
between the parties. However, it is the Union, not the NLRB, that
construes the meaning of the union’s internal regulations relating
to the ratification process. See North County Motors, 146 NLRB
671 (1964)[.]
The investigation further disclosed that the International rep-
resentative, a duly authorized agent of the Union, notified the
Employer that the agreement was ratified. This representation
was later confirmed by the International Union on appeal, which
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1129
On January 16, 2008, a grievance (GC Exh. 16), was filed by
Verdier which refers to “CONTRACT PROVISION Appendix
A Lump Sum Payments $1,000.00.” It alleges that
Employees out of work for medical short term disability,
FMLA or any other approved or unapproved absences were
not paid lump sum payments as scheduled on 1/10/08. Com-
pany states there was a verbal agreement during contract ne-
gotiations. Union has no existing notes.
The “RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT” portion of the
grievance indicates “Pay-out Lump Sum payments due to any
affected employees out of work on scheduled days noted in
contract.” Hudson, who sponsored this exhibit, testified that at
the time of the trial herein the Company was waiting for a deci-
sion on the part of the International to either withdraw the
grievance, move it to arbitration, or request to discuss it fur-
ther.10
On further direct by counsel for the Charging Party, Hudson
testified that Verdier’s reference to “CONTRACT
PROVISION Appendix A . . .” is a reference to the signed ten-
tative agreement, the new contract which was received herein
as General Counsel’s Exhibit 3, and which references lump
sum payments.
On cross-examination, Hudson testified that the grievance
memorialized by General Counsel’s Exhibit 16, as described
above, had a third-step meeting in the beginning of February
2008; that this grievance and the other grievance described
above (GC Exh. 5), are the only two grievances that have been
filed under the new contract; and that the Union and the Com-
pany have not gone to arbitration since August 1.

held that the evidence did not support the finding of a violation of
the Union’s constitution, but only of its ‘ethical provisions. When
a labor organization gives notice to an employer that an agree-
ment has been ratified, it signifies acceptance of the rights and du-
ties arising under that agreement, and, in turn, a statutory obliga-
tion arises to execute a written contract embodying that agree-
ment. Teamsters Local 662 (W. S. Darley & Co.), 339 NLRB
893, 899 (2003).
Given that the Employer and Union reached agreement for a
successor contract, the Employer was not obligated to return to
the bargaining table. Hence, its refusal to do so did not violate the
Act.
Accordingly, further proceedings are unwarranted and the
charge is dismissed.
10 On brief, counsel for the General Counsel indicates that she inad-
vertently failed to have this exhibit admitted; that it is a document filed
by Respondent Local and its authenticity was not questioned; and that
if her motion to have it admitted is not granted, there is ample undis-
puted testimony regarding the filing of this grievance to establish the
existence of this grievance. It is noted that while there is no indication
in the transcript that GC Exh. 16 was received, the court reporter in-
cluded this exhibit in the exhibits received portion of the record, and on
the backside of this exhibit the court reporter, who initialed the sticker,
placed a check mark on the sticker indicating that GC Exh. 16 was
received. Verdier did not testify to dispute or qualify the fact that this
grievance was filed. In the circumstances extant here, while there may
be a question as to whether this exhibit was received, it would be best
to remove any doubt. Accordingly, the General Counsel’s Motion is
granted and GC Exh. 16 is received. It does not appear that Respon-
dent’s would be prejudiced in any way by this action.
By letter dated January 31, 2008 (GC Exh. 19), the Office of
Appeals of the Office of the General Counsel of the Board in
Washington, D.C. advised the Union regarding its appeal in
Case 7–CA–50830 as follows:
Your appeal from the Regional Director’s refusal to is-
sue complaint has been carefully considered.
The appeal is denied substantially for the reasons set
forth in the summary report attached to the Regional Di-
rector’s letter of December 5, 2007. As the Regional Di-
rector noted, when the Union’s agent advised the Em-
ployer the collective bargaining agreement was ratified by
the membership that agreement took effect regardless of
any irregularities in the election. See Teamsters Local 662
(W. S. Darley & Co.), 339 NLRB 893, 899 (2003), and
Teamsters Local 589 (Jennings Distribution), 349 NLRB
No. 15 [124] (2007). Under these circumstances, the evi-
dence is insufficient to establish that the Employer’s ac-
tions were unlawful as alleged. Accordingly, further pro-
ceedings are unwarranted.
Hudson testified that at the time of the trial herein the Com-
pany was working under the new contract.
Analysis
As noted above, the complaint alleges that Respondents have
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
with the Charging Party, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act, by since about September 28, failing and refusing to exe-
cute a collective-bargaining agreement, which agreement was
reached on July 31, subject to the condition requiring unit rati-
fication of the tentative agreement, which tentative agreement
was ratified on or about August 1, and notification of the ratifi-
cation was given to the Charging Party by the Respondents, and
which agreement was supposed to be executed on September
28.
Also, as noted above, in its answer to the complaint Respon-
dent International avers that when its agent informed Charging
Party of the ratification vote he specifically advised the Charg-
ing Party that issues had arisen regarding the ratification vote
and the Charging Party should not put the contract into effect
because there would likely be an appeal of any decision regard-
ing the ratification vote.
Here what was said by the Union to the Company on August
1 regarding the August 1 ratification vote and the action of the
Union in giving official notification of the ratification by post-
ing the results on a bulletin board in the involved Company
facility are determinative. What actions the Union took and did
not take between August 1 and September 26, as the Company
commenced taking measures to comply with the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement which was ratified on August 1
corroborate Hudson’s testimony.
As was pointed out by Judge Meyerson in Teamsters Local
589 (Jennings Distribution), 349 NLBB 124 (2007), whose
rulings, findings and conclusions were affirmed by the Board:
[G]enerally speaking, a union can condition agreement on the
terms of a contract on ratification by the bargaining unit em-
ployees, as long as the employer is aware before or during ne-
gotiations of such a condition precedent, and has expressly
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1130
agreed to it. Observer-Dispatch, 334 NLRB 1067, 1072
(2001). Whether actual ratification occurs, or whether the
ratification process is fair and proper, is not relevant to the
question of the existence of the agreement. What is relevant
is what the union tells the employer about ratification. [Foot-
note omitted.] In Teamsters Local 662 (W. S. Darley & Co.),
339 NLRB 893, 899 (2003), the Board held that “whenever a
labor organization gives notice to an employer that their
agreement has been ratified by the employees, that notice sig-
nifies acceptance of the rights and duties arising under the
agreement and, in turn, the statutory obligation arises to exe-
cute a written contract embodying that agreement.” Not only
are employers not permitted to challenge the results or proce-
dures of those elections, but the Board has concluded that
“[t]he same considerations warrant the conclusion that once
they give notice to employers that ratification has occurred,
labor organizations may not, under the Act, brandish deficien-
cies in ratification elections as escape mechanisms for refusals
to execute contracts embodying their agreements.” Id.
. . . .
[In Teamsters Local 589 (Jennings Distribution), supra] . . .
the Union ‘officially informed’ the Employer that the em-
ployees had ratified the contract. Once that occurred, it made
no difference what the Union subsequently decided about the
correctness of the ratification process. It is long standing
principle that a union, not the employer with whom it is deal-
ing, construes the meaning of the union’s internal regulations
relating to ratification. North County Motors, Ltd., 146
NLRB 671 (1964). However, that does not alter the fact that
once the union notifies the employer that ratification has oc-
curred the union cannot, thereafter, lawfully change its posi-
tion and refuse to execute the contract on the basis that the
ratification was for some reason allegedly improper. Team-
sters Local 662 (W. S. Darley & Co.), supra.
Here, the Company was aware that the Union conditioned
agreement on the terms of a contract on ratification by bargain-
ing unit employees. Indeed, the first collective-bargaining
agreement between this Union and this Company required two
ratification votes because the bargaining unit employees voted
against ratification the first time. With respect to the contract
involved herein, Hudson telephoned Bauer to ascertain the
results of the ratification vote on August 1. So the Company
was aware and in agreement that the contract had to be ratified
by bargaining unit members.11

11 On brief, counsel for the General Counsel contends that notwith-
standing the fact that above-described Regional Director’s summary
report attached to his December 5 letter indicates that “[t]he investiga-
tion disclosed that the ratification by the employees was a condition
precedent to a collective bargaining agreement between the parties,”
such is not the case in that at trial Respondents failed to establish, either
through testimony or admitted documents, that ratification was a condi-
tion precedent. Perhaps what Respondents did at the trial took into
consideration the fact that par. 11 of the complaint in this proceeding
alleged that
On about July 31, 2007, the Charging Party and Respondents reached
complete agreement on the terms and conditions of employment of
the Unit to be incorporated in a successor collective bargaining
When Bauer was shown General Counsel’s Exhibit 11 by
counsel for the Union, Bauer did not indicate that there was any
error in his written statement as described by the Office of the
International President in the above-described Decision on the
appeal of the August 1 ratification vote. As noted above, in
pertinent part, Bauer’s written statement reads as follows:
At about 5:00 p.m. on August 1st, 2007, a group of ap-
proximately 25 members came into Local 155 to vote on a
tentative agreement with the UAW and US Manufactur-
ing. We (the bargaining committee) had the election set
up for the hours of 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
After these approximately 25 members voted 3 to 5 of
them were standing around and one of the stewards stated
“well that’s all of the members.” Upon hearing this, the
two volunteers from the membership who were responsi-
ble for counting the ballots opened the ballot box and be-
gan to count.
After a short period of time, the volunteers announced
that the count was 140 no votes to 130 yes votes. Upon
hearing this, the 3 to 5 members who were standing
around began to cheer to the fact that the agreement was
turned down and left I presume to go the plant and spread
the so-called good news.
When I returned from the lobby, I had asked what was
going on and I was told the votes were counted and the
contract was turned down. I stated “Why did we have the
Local union 7:00 p.m.? [sic] A Steward named Ron said
‘I have members who don’t get their lunch until 6:00
[p.m.] and some who get theirs at 6:30 p.m. and they
didn’t get a chance to vote yet.’”
Upon hearing this I told the volunteers to put the bal-
lots back into the box, to lock the ballot box and to sign
their names to the fact of what just happened. At no time
did I or any of the bargaining committee come near the
ballots of [perhaps this is a typo and it should read or] the
ballot box.
Compare this with the following of Bauer’s above-described
testimony at the trial herein:
We have an anti-union segment in that shop who wears their
anti-union shirts that they’ve had ever since the facility was
organized and led by a gentleman named Tony Bowman. He
walked in with his anti-union brown shirt, vote no UAW, and
when that group of approximately five came in to vote, there
is part of the bargaining committee a skilled trades rep named
Tracy Wright, and [she] inadvertently said that, well, we’re all
done, all the people voted now, we’re done. Well, at that, be-
cause I was not aware of how long we had the hall and how
long this whole process went, I went by what the skilled trade
rep had said. I looked at the election committee and said,
okay, do what you have to do, and gave orders to the commit-
tee and myself to remove ourself [sic] from that ballot box,
and we went out by the hall. The ballots were then counted.
[Tr. p. 106.]

agreement, subject to the condition requiring Unit ratification of the
tentative agreement. [Emphasis added.]
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1131
In his written statement Bauer, who according to his written
statement asked those who prematurely opened the ballot box
“[w]hy did we have the Local union [until] 7:00 p.m.,” appears
to place the blame for the premature ballot count on the volun-
teer election committee. Indeed at page 7 in the DISCUSSION
portion of the Decision of the Union International President’s
Office, it is indicated as follows:
The voluntary Ratification Vote Committee was inexperi-
enced at performing the task of conducting a ratification vote.
Although their efforts are surely appreciated and their will-
ingness to help [is] commendable, they made a severe mistake
when they opened the ballot box prior to the posted closing of
the polls. [Emphasis added.]
It appears from this quoted portion of the Decision of the Union
International President’s Office that the “severe mistake” was
committed by the voluntary ratification vote committee. Yet
when he subsequently testified under oath at the trial herein
Bauer testified that
[A] skilled trades rep named Tracy Wright, and [she] inadver-
tently said that, well, we’re all done, all the people voted now,
we’re done. Well, at that, because I was not aware of how
long we had the hall and how long this whole process went, I
went by what the skilled trade rep had said. I looked at the
election committee and said, okay, do what you have to do,
and gave orders to the committee and myself to remove our-
self [sic] from that ballot box, and we went out by the hall.
The ballots were then counted. [Tr. p. 106 with emphasis
added.]
In other words, when he testified at the trial herein Bauer, who
was overseeing the ratification vote, admitted that he, in effect,
told the volunteer election committee to open (prematurely) the
ballot box and one of the reasons he did it was because he was
not aware of how long they had the hall. As noted above, in his
written statement Bauer asked those who prematurely opened
the ballot box “[w]hy did we have the Local union [until] 7:00
p.m.,” Bauer did not make any attempt to clear up these appar-
ent contradictions. It is noted that Bauer was not placed in
charge of the second ratification vote. Rather, Presley was
placed in charge of that vote.
As noted above, on cross-examination, Bauer testified that
on page 2 of General Counsel’s Exhibit 11, which is the deci-
sion of the Office of the Union’s International President on the
appeal of the August 1 ratification, under “FACTS,” it is indi-
cated that “the CBA was announced as ratified and proper no-
tice was forwarded to the Company”; that this refers to him
“saying that the count was 147 [to] 141, we have a ratified, we
did successfully ratify the agreement” (Tr. p. 134); and that
proper notice refers to the fact that the outcome of the ratifica-
tion vote was posted at the Charging Party’s facility. Contrary
to the Union’s argument on brief, the Union clearly indicated
that the contract had been ratified. Respondents did not show
that they made any attempt to have this finding in the decision
of the office of the International president qualified or modified
in any way by filing a motion for clarification or a petition for
reconsideration or an appeal to the public review board, which
can reverse a decision of the office of the International presi-
dent.
There are reasons, in addition to Bauer contradicting him-
self—without explanation, why I find that Bauer is not a credi-
ble witness. First, Bauer testified that on August 1 that he told
Hudson “that it would be in my humble opinion [there] was
going to be an appeal, so therefore we better sit tight because I
know it’s going to happen.” (Tr. p. 109.) Hudson testified that
Bauer said only that the vote was close but it was ratified, and
that she was not aware of any issue with the August 1 ratifica-
tion until Bauer telephoned her on September 26. Bauer did
not specifically deny Hudson’s testimony that within a couple
of days after the August 1 ratification, he reminded Hudson
during one of his four to six post-August 1 telephone conversa-
tions with her, that she had agreed to remove writeups from
three of the bargaining committee members files. As noted
above, Hudson also testified that on July 31, with respect to a
pending union proposal to remove the discipline in the files of
the bargaining committee, she told the union representatives
that if they got the contract ratified she was sure that the Com-
pany could do something about removing write-ups from the
files of the bargaining committee members. Hudson’s testi-
mony is credited. Bauer did get Hudson to remove the three
writeups. Bauer did not tell Hudson to “sit tight.” If he had told
Hudson to “sit tight,” Bauer would not have had any justifica-
tion for asking and he would not have asked Hudson to remove
the disciplines from the bargaining committee members’ files.
Second, Bauer testified that the reason that he wanted Hud-
son to “sit tight” was because there was money involved, he
was concerned that the Company would go ahead and issue the
lump sums, and when the bargaining unit members had to pay
it back, they would not be able to and the Company would take
it out of their wages. Yet, Bauer did not specifically deny Hud-
son’s testimony that that within a week following the August 1
ratification vote she had a discussion with him to confirm how
the deductions from the lump-sum payments would be handled;
and that on August 9 or 16, she telephoned Bauer and they
agreed that, with respect to employees who were on approved
medical leave or a leave of absence of some kind, their lump
sum payment checks would be held until they returned to work.
Bauer did testify that between August 1 and when the lump-
sum checks were actually cut, at the behest of Verdier, he spoke
with Hudson about lump-sum payments telling her that the
appeal had been filed and “[s]o once I, again I asked for every-
thing to be put on hold, let’s see where this all goes.” (Tr. pp.
114, 115.) But the problem with Bauer’s testimony is that he
did not tell Hudson on August 1 to sit tight. And with all that
was occurring, if Hudson was told to put everything on hold
and she did not, then one has to wonder if Bauer was very con-
cerned about the lump sum payment, albeit he believed that he
was not “entitled” to tell the bargaining unit members not to
cash the lump sum payments, why didn’t he send Hudson
something in writing. According to Bauer’s testimony he ver-
balized to Hudson that there was an appeal pending. So ac-
cording to Bauer it was not a secret. That being the case, why
didn’t he put it in writing to Hudson? Bauer did not tell Hud-
son that there was an issue with the ratification vote until Sep-
tember 26.
Third, Bauer admits that during the summer of 2007 the
Company and the Union attempted to set up a meeting. Bauer
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1132
testified that the meeting was to review a final tentative agree-
ment. Why would there be a meeting to review a final tentative
agreement after agreement was reached on July 31, and ratified
on August 1? The only thing left was to sign the agreement
after all typos were corrected, which would include the omis-
sion of a sentence in the final draft of a sentence which was in
the contract agreed to on July 31. Bauer was not being candid
about the purpose of the meeting which was to be held in the
summer of 2007. Bauer then asserts that during negotiations it
was agreed before the agreement was to be signed, there would
be a meeting between management and the Union with respect
to coaching some supervisors and stewards about acting appro-
priately; and that they never had this meeting. Such a meeting
would not be a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is not re-
ferred to in the agreement that was reached on July 31, and
ratified on August 1, and the failure to hold such a meeting,
even if there was an agreement to hold such a meeting, would
not change the fact that the contract was ratified on August 1,
and the Union verbally and by posting notified the Company of
this fact, without qualifying it in any way. Such notification
signified acceptance of the rights and duties arising under the
agreement, and, in turn, a statutory obligation arose to execute a
written contract embodying that agreement.
Fourth, Bauer did not specifically deny Hudson’s testimony
that during the week of September 17, he agreed that on Sep-
tember 28, the contract would be executed and a step three
grievance meeting would also be held on that date. Hudson’s
testimony is credited.
Fifth, with respect to timing, Bauer, as noted above, gave a
written statement to the Office of the International president
regarding what occurred with respect to the ratification vote on
August 1. See General Counsel’s Exhibit 11. Also, as noted
above, on page 2 of the decision of the office of the Interna-
tional president, General Counsel’s Exhibit 11, under
“FACTS,” it is indicated that “the CBA was announced as
ratified and proper notice was forwarded to the Company.
Bauer testified that this refers to him “saying that the count was
147 [to] 141, we have a ratified, we did successfully ratify the
agreement” (Tr. p. 134); and that proper notice refers to the fact
that the outcome of the ratification vote was posted at Charging
Party’s facility. As noted, it has not been shown that Bauer
attempted in any way to have the decision of the office of the
president regarding whether proper notice was given to the
Company modified to show that, as he asserts, he qualified his
notification to the Company by explaining to the Company that
there was a mix up in counting the ballots, he did not doubt that
there was going to be an appeal, and that the Company should
“sit tight.” It appears that Bauer’s assertion that he in any way
qualified his notice to the Company regarding the August 1
ratification vote first surfaced after December 5 when the Re-
gional Director of Region 7 of the Board advised the Union,
after an investigation of the Union’s charge in Case 7–CA–
50830, that the Union’s charge was being dismissed because an
International Representative (Bauer), who is a duly authorized
agent of the Union, notified the Employer that the agreement
was ratified and “[w]hen a labor organization gives notice to an
employer that an agreement has been ratified it signifies accep-
tance of the rights and duties arising under the agreement, and,
in turn, a statutory obligation arises to execute a written con-
tract embodying that agreement, Teamsters Local 662 (W. S.
Darley & Co.), 339 NLRB 893, 899 (2003).” (See GC Exh.
18.) The Union did not allege in its November 6 charge that
there was no ratification because Bauer allegedly told Hudson
to “sit tight” and “everything . . . [should] be put on hold, let’s
see where this all goes.” The Regional Director does not indi-
cate in his summary report that the investigation disclosed that
the ratification was assertedly qualified. And the Office of
Appeals January 31, 2008 letter makes no mention of such an
assertion on the part of the Union.
Other things demonstrate that the Union did not notify the
Company to “sit tight” (Tr. p. 109) or request of Hudson that
“everything to be put on hold, let’s see where this all goes.”
(Tr. pp. 114, 115.) As indicated above, after August 1, the
Union filed two grievances relying on changes made in the
agreement which was ratified on August 1.12 Verdier signed a
posting regarding the new attendance policy in the agreement
which was ratified on August 1. Also, Verdier did not testify at
the trial herein so he did not deny that he told Hudson that eve-
rything in the final draft of the collective-bargaining agreement

12 On brief the Union argues that the filing of the two grievances, GC
Exhs. 5 and 16, does not undermine Respondents’ position in that as the
grievance procedure was unchanged by the expiration of the contract;
the Union still has a right to file and process grievances under the pro-
visions of the grievance procedure. Respondents’ argument is not on
point and it is disingenuous. The point is not that the Union had a right
to file a grievance. The point is the subject matter of the grievance or
the basis for filing these two grievances. Both of the involved griev-
ances are based on a new benefit or right which did not exist prior to
collective-bargaining agreement which was reached by the parties on
July 31, and ratified by the members of the involved bargaining unit on
August 1. The Respondents next argue that by not asking for these two
grievances to be submitted to arbitration, they have not acted inconsis-
tently with their belief that no contract currently exists between Re-
spondents and the Charging Party because arbitration does not exist
post-expiration. The problem with this argument regarding the griev-
ance received as GC Exh. 5 is that there was no reason to go to arbitra-
tion in that the Union won; the involved document was withdrawn at
step two. While the “RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT” portion of
this grievance indicates “[r]emove write-up/ PayOEE, Make Whole,”
Hudson on voir dire testified that she did not know if the employee
received any time off for the writeup. Verdier, along with the involved
employee, signed the grievance. Neither Verdier nor the involved
employee was called to testify. It has not been shown that the with-
drawal of the writeup did not satisfactorily resolve this grievance. As
Hudson testified, the withdrawal occurred at step two. It has not been
shown that there was a step three. It has not been shown that the basis
had been established for even considering the possibility, let alone the
necessity, of going to arbitration on this grievance. The problem with
this argument regarding the grievance received as GC Exh. 16 is that
the step-three meeting, according to the unrefuted testimony of Hudson,
was held about a week before she testified at the trial and the Company
was waiting for a decision on the part of the International to either
withdraw the grievance, move it to arbitration, or request to discuss it
further. What eventually transpired is not a matter of record. And
obviously, if the Union decided—regarding that grievance—not to take
it to arbitration, the possibility of further undermining the position
taken by Respondents in this case would undoubtedly have been a
consideration. Respondents’ argument regarding not taking these two
grievances to arbitration has no merit.
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 155 (U.S. MFG. CORP.) 1133
submitted to him after August 1 looked okay; and that the
changes being made pursuant to the contract ratified on August
1 in the short-term disability program sounded good. Finally,
there is the fact that neither Respondents nor members of the
involved bargaining unit at the time challenged those August 1–
September 26 changes made by the Company pursuant to the
July 31 collective-bargaining agreement.13
I do not find Bauer to be a credible witness. I do find Hud-
son to be a credible witness. To the extent that there is a con-
flict in the testimony of Hudson versus the testimony of Bauer,
I credit the testimony of Hudson. Since no one but Bauer testi-
fied for the Respondents, Hudson’s testimony about Verdier is
not denied. Hudson’s testimony regarding what Verdier said
and did is credited.14

13 At the end of their brief the Respondents argue as follows:
Finally, the GC will rely on the fact that the Company im-
plemented the new attendance and disability policies in the new
contract without protest from the Union. Both these policies fa-
vored Union members. The Union’s acquiescence to the imple-
mentation, therefore, cannot permit the inference that the Union
has agreed to a contract in violation of its International Constitu-
tion.
Actually, Respondents and members of the involved bargaining unit
not only did not protest these policy changes which benefited them but,
as noted above, they did not reject the lump-sum payments, they did not
protest the removal of writeups from the files of three of the bargaining
committee members and, by filing grievances, GC Exhs. 5 and 16, they
asserted rights which they believed were given to them in the contract
reached July 31, which was ratified by a majority of the members in the
involved bargaining unit on August 1. Respondents are apparently
arguing that they and members of the bargaining unit are only too
happy to accept the benefits granted by the collective-bargaining
agreement reached July 31, which was ratified August 1 by a majority
of the members of the involved unit, but they do not want to be bound
by the terms of the agreement. It appears that the Respondents are
arguing that they should not be held responsible for the consequences
of their actions. This argument of the Respondents also has no merit.
14 Similarly, since Presley did not testify at the trial herein, Hudson’s
testimony regarding his role is not denied. Hudson’s testimony regard-
ing what Presley said and did is credited. It is noted that on brief the
Charging Party requests that an adverse inference be drawn, namely
that Respondents’ failure to call Verdier and Presley should lead to an
adverse inference that, had they testified, their testimony would have
been detrimental to the Union’s case. More specifically, the Charging
Party argues that it should be inferred that had Verdier and Presley
testified regarding the events in which they were directly involved, they
would have further contradicted the unsupported testimony of Bauer.
The focus of this decision is what the Union told the Company on Au-
gust 1 about the ratification and the fact that the Union posted the Au-
gust 1 ratification vote results on a bulletin board in the Company plant.
Neither Verdier nor Presley participated in the final August 1 telephone
conversation between Hudson and Bauer (No one is asserting that It
was a conference call.) when Bauer told Hudson that the contract had
been ratified. So, in this regard, their testimony would not have shed
any additional light on what was said by Bauer during this telephone
conversation. Additionally, as noted above, since they did not testify
herein, Hudson’s testimony about what Verdier and Presley said and
did was not denied. Hudson’s uncontradicted testimony about Verdier
and Presley has been credited. It is not necessary to rely in any way on
an adverse inference; it is not needed to reach the determinations I have
reached herein. Nonetheless, someone posted the ratification notice in
the plant. If it was Verdier, what he might have been told by Bauer
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By since about September 28 failing and refusing to execute
the July 31 collective-bargaining agreement which was ratified
by a majority of the members of the involved bargaining unit
on August 1, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondents shall forthwith execute the collective-
bargaining agreement reached with the Employer on July 31,
2007, and ratified by a majority of the members of the involved
bargaining unit on August 1, 2007; and shall give retroactive
effect to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement
from August 1, 2007.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended15
ORDER
The Respondents, Local 155, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, Warren, Michigan, and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, De-
troit, Michigan, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from

with respect to the notification given to the Company would have been
relevant. Also, since Verdier discussed problems regarding the lump
sum payment with Bauer, what was said during this conversation or
during these conversations would have been relevant. To the extent
that Charging Party seeks an adverse inference regarding Verdier, I
agree. When a party fails to call a witness who may reasonably be
assumed to be favorably disposed to the party, an adverse inference
may be drawn regarding any factual question on which the witness is
likely to have knowledge. It may be inferred that the witness, if called,
would have testified adversely to the party on that issue. While an
adverse inference is unwarranted when both parties could have confi-
dence in an available witness’ objectivity, it is warranted where, as
here, it is stipulated that the missing witness, Verdier, is an agent of
Local 155 with respect to the involved bargaining unit and the Em-
ployer, and for purposes of this case. International Automated Ma-
chines, 285 NLRB 1122 (1987). To the extent that the Charging Party
seeks an adverse inference regarding Presley, I do not agree. It appears
that Presley’s involvement commenced only after the office of the
international president decided that there was going to be a second
ratification vote and Bauer would not oversee that ratification process.
It has not been shown that Presley was involved in the August 1 ratifi-
cation process or in what occurred between August 1 and September
26. As Presley told Hudson on September 27, everything had been
dumped in his lap and he was doing what the Assistant Director told
him.
15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1134
(a) Failing and refusing to execute the above-described July
31, 2007, written collective-bargaining agreement which was
ratified by a majority of the members of the involved bargain-
ing unit on August 1, 2007.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Execute forthwith the written collective-bargaining
agreement embodying the final and binding agreement reached
with the Employer on July 31, 2007, and ratified by a majority
of the members of the involved bargaining unit on August 1,
2007.
(b) Give retroactive effect to the provisions of the collective
bargaining agreement reached with the Employer on July 31,
2007, and ratified by a majority of the members of the involved
bargaining unit on August 1, 2007.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Local 155 union office in Warren, Michigan, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees and members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies
of the notice for posting by U.S. Manufacturing Corporation at
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondents have taken to comply.

16 If this 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 read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”