Hoilday Inn of Ft. Pierce

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Diversified Services, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn of Ft.
Pierce and Juanita Godwin, Petitioner, and Hotel,
Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
Union, Local 737, AFL-CIO. Case 12-RD-335
August 31, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On March 24, 1976, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 12 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Union filed a timely request for review
of the Regional Director's decision, contending that
there exists a collective-bargaining agreement which
bars the further processing of the petition. By tele-
graphic order dated April 20, 1976, the Board grant-
ed the Union's request for review. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, includ-
ing the brief on review, and makes the following
findings.
Local 737 was certified as the collective-bargaining
agent for the Employer's employees on February 3,
1975. When initial negotiations failed to produce a
contract, the employees went on strike in June. The
parties, represented by their respective attorneys,
continued to meet in bargaining sessions. Through-
out all the negotiations, the Employer's attorney rep-
resented to the Union that he had the authority to
bind the Employer on matters presented by him at
the bargaining table. The parties agreed on several
items during the negotiations, but were unable to
reach a final agreement.
Finally on January 22, 1976, Robert J. Mozer, the
Union's attorney, sent to Kenneth Henderson, the
Employer's attorney, a telegram stating that the
Union had accepted the Employer's last offer and
requested that Henderson forward a collective-bar-
gaining agreement for signature.
On January 28, 1976, Henderson sent the Union
two unexecuted copies of the contract, which con-
tract was based on the parties' written agreements
during the bargaining and the position taken by the
Employer on the unresolved issues. In a covering let-
ter Henderson requested that the contract be execu-
ted by the Union and returned. On January 30, 1976,
the Union sent the Employer a signed copy of the
contract and a letter stating that the parties had a
collective-bargaining agreement . The instant petition
was filed on February 4, 1976.
In concluding that there was no existing contract
which would bar the petition, the Regional Director
found that, since the Employer had not given its at-
torney any authority to sign a contract with the
Union without the approval of the Employer's execu-
tive board, the letter signed by the attorney, which
accompanied the proposed contract, does not consti-
tute the Employer's signature to the contract. Ac-
cordingly, he found that at the time when the petition
was filed there existed no contract which bore the
signatures of both parties. We disagree.
As the Regional Director himself found, the
Employer's attorney had the authority in this situa-
tion to bind the Employer because the terms in the
proposal contract were previously presented at the
bargaining table. In these circumstances we conclude
that the Employer's submission of the contract pro-
posal with the covering letter bearing the signature of
the Employer's attorney, and the subsequent signing
of the proposal by a union representative, is suffi-
cient to satisfy the Board's contract-bar rules under
Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160
(1958). In order to constitute a bar a contract need
not be encompassed within a single formal document
but may consist of an exchange of the written pro-
posal and a written acceptance. Here we find that the
Employer's signed covering letter accompanying its
proposal, coupled with the Union's execution of the
proposal prior to the filing of the petition, satisfies
the signing requirement in order to provide bar
equality to the contract.' Accordingly, we shall order
that the petition herein be dismissed.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
' See, e g , Liberty House (AMFAC Corp), 225 NLRB 869 (1976), Valley
Doctors Hospital, Inc, d/b/a Riverside Hospital, 222 NLRB 907 (1976)
225 NLRB No. 158