Office & Professional Employees, Local No. 42

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 991 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES , LOCAL NO 42 991
Office & Professional Employees International Union,
Local No . 42, AFL CIO and UAW Local Council
of Michigan, International Union , United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW). Case 7-CB-3371
November 17, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On June 29, 1976, Administrative Law Judge El-
bert D. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
a brief in opposition to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs I
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions z of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Office & Professional
Employees International Union, Local No. 42, AFL-
CIO, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
1 Respondent requests leave to file a reply to the background statement in
Charging Party's brief We hereby grant that request.
2 We have noted and corrected several inadvertent errors in the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision However, these minor errors do not affect the
validity of his conclusions
3 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record.
exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties
DECISION
vember 28, 1975, against Office & Professional Employees
International Union, Local 42, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Respondent. The complaint alleged that the Respon-
dent did and continues to refuse to bargain collectively
with the Charging Party in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act.
The hearing in the above matter was held before me in
Detroit, Michigan, on February 19 and 20, 1976. Briefs
have been received from counsel for the General Counsel,
counsel for the Charging Party, and counsel for the Re-
spondent, respectively, which have been carefully consid-
ered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
with its principal offices at 8000 East Jefferson Street, De-
troit, Michigan, is a labor organization representing em-
ployees primarily employed by the automobile industry
and related employers. It is empowered under its constitu-
tion to charter local labor unions. At all times material
herein, the Charging Party Employer, UAW Local Council
of Michigan, has been an affiliate of the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, and has also main-
tained its offices and principal place of ,business at 8000
Jefferson Street, Detroit, Michigan.
Charging Party Employer has employed employees at
various local labor unions affiliated with and chartered by
the International Union, UAW, located throughout the
State of Michigan Its employees are members of the Re-
spondent, Office & Professional Employees International
Union, Local 42, AFL-CIO, and service local labor organi-
zations representing employees employed in the motor in-
dustry.
International Union (UAW) receives, pursuant to the
charter granted to its various local unions, dues and other
monetary assessments. During the past calendar year, a
representative period, International Union, UAW, received
at its Detroit, Michigan, place of business, directly from
points located outside the State of Michigan, dues, from its
various chartered locals, in excess of $50,000.
The complaint alleges, the Charging Party Employer ad-
mits, and I find that Charging Party Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELBERT D. GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed on August 18, 1975, by UAW of UAW Local
Council of Michigan, herein sometimes called Charging
Party Employer, a complaint was issued by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on No-
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulate, and I find
that the Respondent, Office & Professional Employees In-
ternational Union, Local No. 42, AFL-CIO, is, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
226 NLRB No. 159
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Background
There are three locals of Office & Professional Employ-
ees International Union (herein OPEIU) in the State of
Michigan. They are Local 353, which represents employees
in the Grand Rapids-Muskegon area; Local 393 which rep-
resents employees in the Flint-Saginaw area; and Local 42,
which represents the balance of the State. Desiring to nego-
tiate a statewide agreement covering all OPEIU members
working for UAW locals, Mabel Holleran, president, and
Irene Christie of OPEIU, Local 42, were instrumental for
the occasion of the meeting of the presidents and financial
secretaries of all UAW locals in the State of Michigan held
on February 26, 1969. Of the 64 locals present at the meet-
ing, some 55 locals agreed to establish the UAW Council
of Michigan to which each local membership delegated the
power to negotiate an agreement for it. It was further
agreed that each of the six geographic regions would select
two representatives, one to act as committee member and
the other to act as the alternate. From the 12 selected rep-
resentatives, a chairman and a secretary were to be selected
by the committee. The committee was chosen at that time
(February 26, 1969), and negotiations between the three
Locals and the UAW commenced or March 10, 1969, and
continued for 10 or 12 months thereafter.
While the authority of the Council to negotiate collec-
tive-bargaining agreements on behalf of the three Locals is
not in question, how the agreement so negotiated is to be
ratified by the respective Locals is the principal issue to be
resolved before it can be determined whether Respondent
committed the unfair labor practice with which it is
charged. Since the Charging Party now contends that the
contract which was negotiated in 1974 was ratified by two
of the three Local Unions, and Respondent Local Union
42 contends that the contract was not ratified because of a
lack of majority of the membership of all three Locals, the
dispute raises a question about the propriety of the proce-
dure by which the contract is to be ratified.
B. How the Negotiated Agreement Was To Be Ratified by
the Parties
A composite of the credible testimony of several of the
knowledgeable witnesses establishes that a tentative agree-
ment, on the economic issues only, resulted from the nego-
tiations in May 1970 which was referred to the Locals for
ratification with the understanding, as stated by Local 42
President Mabel Holleran, that the Locals had an equal
vote for ratification. Subsequently, John Bateman, admin-
istrative assistant for the International, secretary-treasurer
of the UAW, was orally advised by Mabel Holleran that
Locals 42 and 353 had ratified the economic agreements.
Negotiations continued and a tentative final agreement
was reached on January 12, 1971 The parties left the meet-
ing with the understanding that the same ratification pro-
cedure would be followed as was followed in May 1971;
that the Locals would notify Bateman by telephone to be
followed by written confirmation as to whether their re-
spective Locals had accepted or rejected the agreement On
February 4, 1971, Holleran notified Bateman by telephone
that Locals 42 and 353 had ratified the agreement and this
notice was confirmed by written communications from
each of said Locals.
Approximately 3 weeks later, Bateman was verbally ad-
vised by representatives of OPEIU Local 42 that Local 353
had rejected the agreement. Jack Balisley, chairman of the
UAW Local Union Council, and Bateman then initiated a
series of telephone conversations with representatives of
Local 42 in an effort to ascertain whether or not the parties
had an agreement. President Holleran of Local 42 and
Chairman Christie of the OPEIU committee took the posi-
tion that the agreement had been ratified. These conversa-
tions or discussions continued from mid-March 1971 until
May 10, 1971, when President Holleran called and advised
that Local 42 was prepared to sign and implement the
agreement.
Thereafter, UAW implemented the agreement, thereby
changing the working conditions of the members of Locals
42 and 353 who worked for UAW locals. Some of the wage
increases and other monetary provisions went into effect
for Local 393 pending resolution of prior overpayment
problems. On February 14, 1972, the UAW received a
signed copy of the June 10, 1975, agreement (G.C. Exh. 3)
containing the signatures of all the representatives of all
three Locals, including Local 393.
When asked did he know what position members of the
OPEIU committee took on ratification of contracts in
1972, Bateman said the UAW negotiations for a 1974 con-
tract were undertaken as described in his testimony as fol-
lows:
A. Well, in accordance with the practice estab-
lished in 1969, we received, in early March 1974, a
letter from Mabel Holleran, President of OPEIU Lo-
cal 42, in which she listed nine members of the OPEIU
42 MEG committee. She listed Florence Cozma as
Chairman. Irene Christie as Vice-Chairman, Helen
Zande, Z-A-N-D-E, as recording secretary and then
six members; and that was directed to me at my office.
Thereafter, Irene Christie and Florence Cozma called
the International secretary-treasurer and requested a meet-
ing to discuss negotiation procedures. A meeting was
scheduled and held on April 2, 1974, during which Bate-
man said he learned that Local 42 was drafting its own
bylaws and setting up an OPEIU Council. On April 10,
1974, he received notice from OPEIU Local 42's president,
Mabel Holleran, and OPEIU Local 42 Chairman Florence
Cozma, a list of demands for changes in the June 10, 1971,
agreement, and their request for a meeting date. The par-
ties met on April 20, 1974, and thereafter, once or twice a
week. OPEIU Locals 42, 353, and 393 subsequently be-
came known as OPEIU Multiple Employee Group Council
of Michigan (herein MEG).
The parties continued negotiations from April 29, 1974,
until October 29, 1974, when a tentative agreement was
reached which was finalized on November 25, 1974. Locals
353 and 393 were represented and, as the meeting ap-
proached its conclusion, the parties all had knowledge that
the UAW would meet with the UAW Local Council on the
next day (November 26, 1974) for a tentative ratification of
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO 42 993
the agreement . As to the conclusion of the meeting, Bate-
man testified as follows:
A. I asked the question: Do you intend to ratify in
the same procedure in this one as you did in 1971? We
were advised that each of the three OPEIU locals
would hold their ratification meeting, that they would
notify us verbally by telephone at my office and then
verify this by-by letter.
Q. Can you recall who it was who was advising you
of that from the union side?
A. I made that statement to-to Mrs. Cozma as
Chairman of the Committee and the-the under-
standing was that this would be the procedure to be
followed.
Q. Well, specifically, did-did Mrs. Cozma or any
other individual speak for the union on that point at
the conclusion of the meeting?
A. No, sir, there were no objections raised to-to
that statement of procedure.
The UAW met on November 26, 1974, and ratified the
agreement . The representatives of OPEIU Local 353 noti-
fied Bateman 's office by telephone in December 1974 that
it had ratified the agreement and that notice was confirmed
by letter; and OPEIU Local 393 likewise notified Bate-
man's office by telephone and thereafter confirmed, by let-
ter, that OPEIU Local 393 had ratified the agreement.
About mid-December 1974, Cozma telephoned Chair-
man Duncan and advised him that a majority of OPEIU
locals had voted agreement and that a letter would be
forthcoming demanding arbitration. The UAW learned
through telephone conversations with Holleran that the
three Locals had held ratification meetings in January with
the same result . OPEIU Local 353 sent another letter ad-
vising Bateman that it had ratified the agreement, but
nothing was received from OPEIU Local 42. The UAW
then sent a letter to OPEIU Local 42 (G.C. Exh 19 and
20).
After receiving telephonic information that International
President Howard Coughlin advised, as he did in 1971, that
the agreement had been ratified by a majority of the Lo-
cals, Bateman said he made arrangements for a meeting for
the signing of the agreement for March 3, 1975. He re-
ceived letters from Locals 353 and 393 advising that they
would be present for signing and he received a letter from
Cozma stating that Local 42 would be present, but not for
the purpose of signing the agreement . The presidents of the
three Locals are as follows: Local 42, Mrs. Holleran; Local
393, Mrs. Steuart ; and Local 353, Mrs. Pelton. On March
3, 1975, Local 42 brought its legal counsel , Donald Calkins
to the meeting . Bateman testified that he objected to Cal-
kins' presence in the joint meeting and all of the represen-
tatives of Local 42, accompanied by Calkins, left the meet-
ing. Barbara Wright corroborated Bateman's testimony on
Calkins' entry to the September 4, 1974, meeting .' The re-
1 While the testimony is somewhat conflicting as to how and why the
members of Local 42 left the meeting , the most significant fact is that they
did leave the meeting without signing the agreement Since Bateman's ver-
sion is corroborated by Barbara Wright, I am persuaded that Local 42
members were not ordered and barred from participating and signing at the
meeting
maining parties thereafter met and signed (executed) the
agreement on behalf of the UAW Local Union Council,
OPEIU Local 353, and OPEIU Local 393. Bateman said
he thereupon sent copies of the signed agreement to the
presidents of the UAW Locals along with instructions for
implementing the change in fringe benefits to members of
all three Locals, as required by the contract. The terms of
the agreement were immediately put into effect.
The UAW sent a letter to the presidents of Locals 42,
353, and 393 and to Cozma, chairman of the OPEIU nego-
tiating committee, which read as follows:
Dear Madams and Sisters:
Regarding the procedures established in Paragraph
25A of the June 10, 1974, Agreement, this will confirm
the discussion with your Committees at our meeting
on March 3, 1975 that as a matter of policy the re-
spective EMPLOYER Local Unions will not officially pro-
test the reasons for layoff where an employee of that
Local Union exercises the right to be laid off rather
than accept temporary or part-time work.
Please sign and date the second copy of this letter
acknowledging your agreement with this under-
standing and return to Sam Duncan, Chairman, UAW
Local Union Council of Michigan, 8000 E. Jefferson
Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48214.
The UAW did not receive any opposition from any of
the three Locals including Local 42, and the payment of
the new fringe benefits were accordingly made to the em-
ployees in all Locals. Bateman acknowledged receipt of
General Counsel's Exhibits 31 and 32, signed by Irene
Christie, steward of Local 42, citing a grievance provision
of the 1974 contract and complying with that procedure.
He then identified General Counsel's Exhibits 33 and 34,
which are letters from Locals 353 and 393, respectively,
regarding the presentation of certain fringe benefits (red-
circled items) from the 1971 contract, which would be con-
tinued in the 1974 contract. Bateman stated that during the
October 29, 1974, meeting the parties agreed to furnish a
list of the individuals named in each local who were enti-
tled to the fringe benefits (red-circled), in accordance with
the old contract, in order to verify entitlement to the new
fringe benefits, and that such names would then be put into
memorandum to become a part of the total contract. He
said such a list was never received from Local 42.
C. What the Parties Acquiesced In or Understood To Be
the Procedure for Ratification of Agreements
With respect to the mutual understanding of how agree-
ments were to be ratified, Bateman said during a meeting
in December 1968, at which Holleran and Christie were
present, it was generally agreed that for purposes of rat-
ifying agreements each UAW local would be a one-vote
office, regardless of the number of its membership. How-
ever, a vote of the membership of each local would de-
termine how its one vote sent to the Council would be cast.
This is the same method by which all OPEIU Locals oper-
ate, irrespective of the size of their memberships. No oppo-
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sition was manifested or expressed by Holleran or Christie
to the procedure as discussed and outlined at the time.
Virginia Morton testified that in February 1969 she was a
member of the bargaining committee for Local 393, and
that she recalled that during the first meeting there was
discussion on the procedure for ratification or adoption of
the contract. She testified that she wrote the letter referred
to in General Counsel's Exhibit 7 which reflected her un-
derstanding that a majority of the OPEIU Locals could
ratify; that is, that two of such Locals out of the three
could ratify the contract binding all three Locals.
Barbara Wright, a member and recording secretary of
OPEIU Local 393, employed by UAW Local 595, and re-
cording secretary for MEG since April 1972, testified that
in 1971 Local 393 overwhelmingly voted to reject the
agreement and a ratification meeting was thereafter called
on January 11, 1972. At the meeting President Coughlin
explained that Local 393 was nevertheless bound by the
contract because the other two OPEIU Locals, 353 and 42,
had ratified the contract. Local 393 then signed the con-
tract on January 18, 1972. Both Holleran and Christie were
present at that meeting. Wright furtl}er testified that in or
about July 1974 a dispute arose regarding vacation sched-
uling, and Locals 393 and 42 voted one way, while Local
353 voted the other way. The problem was resolved by the
majority vote of Locals 42 and 393. Barbara Wright's testi-
mony was corroborated in this regard by Joyce Stewart.
She said the same procedure was followed on other matters
on which said Locals had to vote. Wright said that she was
present during a MEG bargaining committee meeting on
September 4, 1974, when the following transpired:
A. In the discussion, Florence Cozma was of the
opinion that it should be the majority of the units
rather than the two out of three local union vote at the
bargain table. All of us there-practically all of us that
I remember, went back to 1971 and explained how it
had been ratified at that time, and that President
Coughlin told us that we had to accept the contract
because two out of three had already ratified the con-
tract.
At that time, she said if we did not agree with it,
why did we not hire an attorney and fight-
Q. Now, who was "she""
A. Florence-
Q. Was that Ms. Cozma?
A. -Florence, I'm sorry. Florence asked why we
didn't hire an attorney and fight it. And we told her
that our opinion was that President Coughlin was the
highest authority of our International Union and ac-
cording to the constitution he makes the final deci-
sion, so we accepted it.
Q. Do you recall Mrs.-
Do you recall Mrs. Holleran's taking any specific
position in this discussion that you have described?
A. I wouldn't want to say yes. I know that a num-
ber of people entered the discussion and that all of us
were of the same opinion, that we had to do it this
time the same as we did in 1971.
Q. Would I be correct to understand, from your
testimony that in that discussion, no one took Mrs.
Cozma's view? No one else took Mrs. Cozma's view,
would that be right?
A I don't remember.
Wright categorically stated that Calkins was not the at-
torney of her Local and that her general concern at the
meeting was to follow the oral procedure for ratification
established by the 1971 meeting. In describing the step-by-
step procedure of ratification in 1971, Wright continued to
testify as follows:
Q. How many Employer locals are in that particu-
lar unit?
A. Ten.
Q. And each of those Employer locals has a unit of
393?
A. You mean-We have girls from 393 working in
each Employer local union, yes.
Q. Are they generally described as a unit within
your particular unit?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And was the general agreement that you fol-
lowed in 1971 that the vote would be by unit rather
than by individual vote?
A. It would be by unit and then the majority of the
unit vote would be the vote that went back to the bar-
gaining table.
Q. For that particular union?
A. For Local 393.
Q. In other words, you would report-you would
be reporting the unit vote for 393, is that correct?
A. Whether it would be yes or no, but we did not re-
port so many yes and so many no, we voted one vote
which was no. [Emphasis supplied.]
Joyce Stewart, employed by UAW Local 581 and a
member and president of OPEIU Local 393, testified that
she was on the MEG negotiating committee since the
spring of 1972. After the August 26, 1974, meeting the bar-
gaining committee was in disagreement about filing for ar-
bitration with the American Arbitration Association and
they met at the home of Virginia Morton in September
1974. Cozma brought attorney Calkins and urged the com-
nuttee to retain him, but the committee did not make a
decision at that time.2 Bateman testified that in a letter
dated May 13, 1971, President Coughlin said he had re-
ceived a letter from Virginia Morton dated March 11, 1971,
wherein she said, "It was also discussed and ruled upon
that the majority vote would rule when the agreement was
culminated; that no one group or local could hold the
agreement up." Based upon his participation and negotia-
tions for 2 years during which an agreement had been
reached, Coughlin said he did not believe one local could
be allowed to hold up an agreement when it was initially
understood that the majority would rule. He went on to say
2 Counsel for the Respondent spent considerable time trying to elicit from
the several witnesses whether they understood the Local or the unit which
they represented was referred to as a "unit, " rather than a'7ocat "However,
f find that, regardless of what designation the locals or units were given, the
Government witnesses did in fact understand that each of the three Locals,
353, 393. and 42, could cast only one vote to ratify a contract, even though,
in order to do so, each Local had to take an individual vote by its member-
ship
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO 42
that: "It is my opinion that the contract is binding on all
locals of the UAW in the State of Michigan and equally
binding on Locals 42, 353, and 393 of the OPEIU." He
further stated that, while it is not proper for him to direct
all local unions to sign the agreement, the UAW should be
notified that the agreement was in effect.
Bateman continued to testify as follows-
Tied in with this are direct long distance calls to Mrs.
Holleran in Miami, Florida, on June 10, 1971, in
which she advised Mrs. Christie and myself that she
had discussed this matter not only with President
Coughlin but with the General Counsel and they were
there handy to enforce the opinion of President
Coughlin that the agreement had been ratified by two
out of the three Local unions voting yes on the agree-
ment , yes, sir.
Bateman said after this letter was received he arranged a
meeting for June 10, 1971, as the date for signing the con-
tract; and that the Union did not make a demand for arbi-
tration 60 days prior to June 10, 1971, or 30 days thereaf-
ter, as the expiring 1971 contract provided. He said the
smallest local represents 400-500 members and the largest,
Local 600, represents 32,000 UAW members
Irene Christie, trustee on the executive board and chair-
man of MEG unit of Local 42 corroborated the testimony
of Barbara Wright and Joyce Stewart with respect to their
understanding of the ratification procedure. She further
testified that the MEG Council was established on April
15, 1972, and that the bylaws of the Council do not provide
for ratification of a contract because the Council had noth-
ing to do with ratification which was carried out at the
local level. She said it was decided by Local 353 and Local
393 in September 1974 to retain Calkins but that on Janu-
ary 30, 1975, the bargaining committee decided to rescind
his contract. She cited article XXV and article X, section 7,
of General Counsel's Exhibit 2.
Christie also stated that the only group who passed the
resolution to retain a lawyer for arbitration was Local 42
but MEG did not pass such a resolution.
Mabel Holleran, president of OPEIU Local 42 and repre-
sentative and member of the bargaining committee, testi-
fied that on May 7, 1970, when she said each Local would
have one vote she meant each UAW Local and not the
three MEG Locals. She acknowledged that she heard Pres-
ident Coughlin inform the MEG committee in 1971 that a
majority of the locals had ratified the contract and that
Local 393 was bound by it even though he would not make
them sign the agreement. After the individual Locals had
voted and President Coughlin had been apprised of some
lack of understanding on the ratification procedure, during
December 1974 Holleran said he advised her to take anoth-
er vote. In preparing to do so she prepared and mailed the
following letter:
TO ALL MEMBERS OF MEG:
Due to the lack of a clear understanding between
the three OPEIU Local Unions (42, 353, and 393) re-
garding what exactly constitutes ratification of the
MEG Agreement, and in accordance with a telephone
conversation with International Union President
995
Howard Coughlin, it was determined that another rat-
ification vote should be held.
Therefore there will be a Special Meeting of the
MEG Units on Sunday, December 15, 1974, at 2:00
P.M., at the Wright Mutual Insurance Building, 2995
E. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48202, for this pur-
pose. Inasmuch as a detailed discussion was held on
the contract on December 8, if you are unable to at-
tend this meeting, your unit will be able to vote between
the hours of 2:00 and 4.00 P.M. Please make sure that
a representative from your Local Union votes on Sun-
day.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused
you. However, the final ratification will be determined
on the total "yes" votes versus the total "no" votes
from all of the UAW Units (with each Unit having
one vote) covered by the MEG Agreement.
Holleran said the second vote resulted in Locals 353 and
393 ratifying and Local 42 not ratifying. She testified sec-
tion 7 of article 10 was not intended to require an approval
by the International bylaws. She said that when Coughlin
talked to them at the meeting in January 1972 in Detroit
and referred to a majority of local unions he did not say
whether he meant UAW or OPEIU locals. She wondered
how President Coughlin had ruled and what was his au-
thority to do so. She acknowledged that President Cough-
lin is the final authority on interpreting the constitution of
the International in the absence of an appeal to the con-
vention. In describing her conversation with President
Coughlin about his authority on the ratification procedure
and his recommendation that Local 42 take another vote
(December 8, 1974), Holleran testified as follows
Q. And he still indicated that you should take a
second vote, is that correct"
A. He asked me about if there were by-laws, and I
told him that when I had read the by-laws, I couldn't
see anything in there about ratification. [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
He said-Then he asked me some questions about
why we were-why each UAW local union only had
one vote and we didn't take total membership
So I explained to him we always said sixteen girls at
Local 600, why we use them and that many people-
vote sixteen, one-girl offices. He realized that I talked
to him and Joe Finley early in '67 or '68 about the
resolutions; that that was, you know, appropriate to
do one vote, you know, for each unit because of the
autonomy situation
He said, `Well, if you don't have'-He said-He
didn't say-He said-And I don't know the prelimi-
nary words, but he said, `If you don't have it-If you
have a lack-If there's a lack of a clear understanding
of what constitutes ratification'-and I wrote those
words down 'cause I take shorthand-right away; and
I thought, `I can use that expression.' He said, `You
should talk to the other local unions, get a clear under-
standing of what should constitute ratification and
have a second ratification.'
And then he said he thought, you know, what we
would do is take the total yes votes versus the total no
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
votes; and I subsequently talked to-I don't know
whether I talked to Joyce or Barbara first.3
Holleran acknowledged that arbitration is designed to
resolve only contractual disputes between the employer
and the union and not problems that are only internal
union problems.
Virginia Farmer, a member of the bargaining committee
of MEG for Local 42, testified that she and members from
Locals 353 and 393 agreed that they would hire legal coun-
sel (Calkins) to represent them in arbitrating the 1974 con-
tract ratification question, by each party contributing $10
for such representation. Virginia Farmer is a witness for
the Respondent. She further testified that, although she did
not hear President Coughlin clearly articulate the ratifica-
tion procedure in 1971, her understanding, nevertheless,
was that each Local had one vote and a vote of two of the
three Locals bound all three Locals.
Janette O'Dell, cochairman of MEG committee from Lo-
cal 42 on the 1971 contract, testified that she thought a
majority of the individual votes was determinative of ratifi-
cation although her Local did not give President Bateman
a count of its total votes. She did not participate in the
1974 meeting and she did not hear President Coughlin tell
them at the ratification meeting of 1971 that two out of
three was a majority vote.
Florence Cozma, chairman of MEG unit Local 42 and
the MEG bargaining committee, testified that she partici-
pated in the bargaining sessions and heard President
Bateman's statement in the January 1972 meeting with re-
spect to ratification. She understood him to mean that rati-
fication would be effective on the total combined vote of
all three Locals.
Cozma's version of the March 3, 1974, meeting for the
signing of the contract was substantially consistent with
the version of Bateman, except that she stated that her
representatives were ordered out of the room with their
attorney (Calkins) and that none of the OPEIU members
invited them to return to the meeting with or without their
attorney. She went on to state that 13 units of Local 42 did
not vote and if such units had voted they might have voted
in favor of ratification and that result, coupled with the
"yes" votes of those who did vote affirmatively, would
have been a favorable majority for ratification by Local 42.
This is why President Coughlin suggested Local 42 take
another vote.
When Cozma was asked on cross-examination who did
she contact to inform of the results after the first ratifica-
tion vote, she testified as follows.
A. To inform of the results?
Q. Urn-hum.
A. I-I know that I had contact with the other two
locals, Mr. Duncan was informed, President Holleran
was informed-
Q. What about the first one, Ma'am?
A. On the first vote.
Q. On the first one, didn't you call Mr. Bateman's
office?
3 1 do not credit the testimony of Holleran in this regard because of the
hesitating , unsure, and confusing manner in which she testified , which is
partially reflected on the record
A. I might have, but I know that Mr. Duncan was
told because I told his secretary.
Q. Urn-hum. Wasn't your instruction or the in-
struction that you were operating under, which you
said were the instructions you were operating under,
wasn't that to contact Mr. Bateman and not Mr. Dun-
can?
A. Sir, I'm not very sure on this because Mr. Dun-
can is chairman of the committee, and at some point,
we had problems as to who was the chairman, so-
Q. Did you read the letter that you said you made
so many copies of?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall what the letter said?
A. Well, not verbatim.
Q. Um-hum.
A. Now, I might have Mr.-called Mr. Bateman. I
won't say that I didn't, but I know that I did notify the
other locals of the result.
Q. Let me show you the letter that you made so
many copies of, all right?
A. All right, sir. I made copies of-
Q. This letter which is marked as Respondent's Ex-
hibit 1 gives you instruction who to notify?
A. That's right, sir. This is dated November the
27th.
Q. Who did you notify?
A. Sir, I can't-If you'll allow me to refresh my
memory with members of the committee because any-
thing I did they knew about, but I cannot right now.
Q. I see. You'll have to find out from the members
of the committee who you called?
A. Sir, I-If I may-
Q. Is that what you'd have to do, find out from the
members of the committee?
A. If I may, sir, I-Whenever I did anything or
went anywhere, I always had a member of the com-
mittee with me.
Q. Right. So the only way you could find out who
you called if you asked somebody else?
A. I can't think right now, sir, as to-
Q. So what you're telling me is that-
JUDGE GADSDEN: She doesn't recall.
Q. (By Mr. Miller): You do not know whether you
followed the instructions that were set forth in that
letter?
A. I'm not going to say that because I don't recall.
I really don't recall.'
Cozma further stated that the second arbitration demand
was filed on behalf of Local 42 only.
Joyce Stewart testified that she did not recall making a
telephone call to Cozma in November 1974 regarding the
retention of Calkins. She said she did make an effort, how-
ever, to collect money in September and October 1974 to
° 1 do not credit Florence Cozma's testimony that she could not recall
whether or not she notified Bateman 's office of the results of the ratification
vote of Local 42 because of the uncertain, evasive, and unpersuasive man-
ner in which she testified An examination of her testimony above partially
reflects how she hedged on answering that question because to acknowledge
that she notified Bateman 's office would have been tantamount to an ac-
knowledgment of, and her acquiescence in, the ratification procedure an-
nounced and followed by Bateman
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO 42
hire an attorney on behalf of Local 393, but she did not
inform Cozma of Local 42 of such fact.
Barbara Wright testified that she did not recall any tele-
phone call to or from Cozma in September or October
1974 regarding the retainer of an attorney for union busi-
ness.
On cross-examination , Bateman acknowledged his state-
ment in his letter of December 27, 1974, in which he stated
that the Locals were to advise his office of "the action by
the majority of the units of the three Local unions." He
admitted that his statement could have been more clearly
stated to the effect that "this means 42 take the vote of its
41 UAW offices and you will notify us of the outcome of
that vote on the basis of whether or not it is for or against."
Analysis and Conclusions
Procedure for Ratification of Negotiated Agreements
It is unequivocally established by the evidence of record
that in May 1969 the parties, UAW, Local Council of
Michigan , and OPEIU Locals 42, 353, and 393, which also
subsequently became known as the OPEIU Multiple Em-
ployee Group Council of Michigan (MEG), agreed to ne-
gotiate a collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of the
UAW Council and on behalf of the employee-members of
Locals 42, 353, and 393 (MEG). Although the parties en-
tered into the above-descnbed agreement , they neverthe-
less neglected to discuss and agree upon a procedure by
which any collective -bargaining agreement reached be-
tween themselves should be ratified. Without rectifying this
omission , the parties proceeded with negotiations and ar-
rived at a tentative agreement first, on only the economic
considerations . Mabel Holleran , president of Local 42,
thereupon notified Bateman by telephone in May 1970 that
the three Locals had ratified the economic agreement. The
parties continued to negotiate and reached their final
agreement on January 12, 1971. They left the negotiation
meeting with the understanding that the same procedure
(notifying Bateman 's office by telephone to be followed by
written confirmation as to whether their respective locals
had accepted or rejected the agreement ) as had been fol-
lowed in May 1970. On February 4, 1971, Holleran noti-
fied Bateman by telephone that Locals 42 and 353 had
ratified the agreement and this notice was confirmed by
written communication from each of said Locals.
In late February 1971, Bateman was orally advised by a
representative of OPEIU Local 42 that Local 353 (prob-
ably 393, instead) had rejected the agreement . Consequent-
ly, a question arose as to whether the agreement had been
ratified and a series of telephone conversations between
Bateman and the chairman of the UAW Local Union
Council , Ballsley, was carried on in an effort to determine
whether the parties had an agreement . Local 42 President
Mabel Holleran and Chairman Irene Christie of the
OPEIU committee took the position that the agreement
had been ratified . On June 10 , 1971, Locals 42 and 353
signed the agreement . Finally, Holleran reported that
OPEIU International President Howard Coughlin and
their general counsel had determined that the agreement
had been ratified and should be put into effect. Holleran
997
thereupon notified Bateman of this determination (G.C.
Exh. 7) and the agreement was thereupon executed.
Based upon the foregoing credible evidence which is
practically free of conflict , I hereupon conclude and find
that on and after May 1971 all of the negotiating parties of
the three Locals understood , and thereafter participated
and acquiesced in a procedure which recognized ratifica-
tion of a negotiated agreement upon the following factors:
1. An affirmative local vote for ratification by any two
locals binds the third local.
2. Notice by telephone to Bateman 's office from each
Local as to whether or not the agreement was accepted or
rejected by that respective Local.
In May 1972 Irene Christie advised the UAW Council
that an OPEIU Council had been formed ; and that each
Local would have equal votes on matters coming before
the OPEIU Council , including ratification . The specific
mode of voting , as well as the conclusion to be drawn upon
such voting, is not clearly spelled out in the record . Never-
theless, the OPEIU Council was known as OPEIU Multi-
ple Employee Group Council of Michigan (MEG). It fur-
ther appears in the record that , during a meeting with
Bateman , Irene Christie and Florence Cozma had a discus-
sion on the procedures for the upcoming negotiations for
the 1974 agreement, when Cozma said , "We're going to
change our by-laws , because 42 represents over 100 mem-
bers, and since I am 42ish , I think 42 should dominate in
any ratification ." The record does not show any clarifica-
tion of the above-quoted statement and negotiation ses-
sions followed from April 1974 through mid-July 1974.
However , prior to Florence Cozma 's statement about the
size of Local 42's membership in comparison with the size
of the membership of other locals, there had been no mani-
fested opposition to the general understanding that two
Locals, each voting internally for ratification , constituted a
majority vote , which was binding upon the third Local. In
fact, the evidence shows that, aside from the 1968-69 un-
derstanding of that procedure , the three Locals complied
with said procedure in May 1970, February 1971, and June
1972, and an intravening dispute over vacation scheduling
was also resolved by the affirmative vote of two Locals,
over the opposition of the third Local.
First Evidence of Disagreement With the General
Understanding and Procedure That the Vote of Two
Locals Shall Constitute a Majority for the Purpose of
Ratification
In preparing for the 1974 negotiations , Bateman met
with Irene Christie and Florence Cozma on April 2, 1974,
to discuss the procedures to govern the negotiation ses-
sions. At that time , Bateman was advised by Cozma and
Christie of their desire to change the bylaws with respect to
ratification procedure . It is not clear from the record as to
which bylaws Cozma and Christie had reference . Again,
during a MEG bargaining committee meeting on Septem-
ber 4 , 1974, Cozma expressed her view to the members that
ratification of the agreement should be satisfied by a col-
lective vote of the total membership of all three Locals,
instead of by a favorable or unfavorable vote of two Locals
out of the three Locals.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although Florence Cozma made an effort to change the
established ratification procedure by having Local 42 re-
tain an attorney to submit the question of ratification pro-
cedure to arbitration, the record does not show that such
counsel was ever retained by all three Locals, or that the
other Locals shared Cozma's view for change. Whether or
not the parties in this proceeding were obligated to arbi-
trate and did in fact proceed to arbitration, or was in fact
obligated as a condition precedent to do so, does not ap-
pear to be a question germane to a disposition of the prin-
cipal issue in this case . That is, although the OPEIU MEG
Council might have in fact amended its bylaws providing
for another procedure by which contracts with the UAW
Local might be ratified, there is no evidence that such pro-
cedure was formally brought to the attention of the UAW
Council for its acceptance.
Correspondingly, since the bylaws of the OPEIU Locals
made no provision for ratification, and although Local 42's
bylaws do provide that "no contract can become effective
until ratified by the membership at a meeting called for
that purpose with each unit entitled to one vote," the fact
remains that Local 42, as well as the entire MEG Council
of OPEIU Locals, had previously come to an under-
standing on the aforestated ratification procedure with the
UAW Council, which OPEIU International President
Coughlin had advised was binding upon the OPEIU Lo-
cals. It is clear that such an internal ruling by the Interna-
tional president is binding and conclusive upon all locals,
including Local 42. This conclusion is further supported by
the decisions in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. UAW, 419 F.2d 534
(C.A. 6, 1969), and North Country Motors, Ltd. 146 NLRB
82 (1964), which held that when the method of contract
ratification is not stipulated by the parties it is "an internal
concern of the Union." Since the question as to whether
Local 42 is bound by the prior understanding and practice
of ratification was resolved by OPEIU International Presi-
dent Coughlin, the question of the propriety of the ratifica-
tion of the 1974 agreement was resolved internally by
OPEIU's president. Both Florence Cozma and Irene
Christie conceded that President Coughlin had the authori-
ty to resolve such issues in the absence of any language in
the constitution and bylaws of OPEIU and its Locals.
However, since the agreement was properly ratified, Lo-
cal 42 is bound by the agreement and its refusal to sign the
agreement upon the request of the UAW Local Council
and the other OPEIU Locals constitutes a refusal to bar-
gain in good faith, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act. H.J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R B, 311 U.S. 514 (1941).
This disposition should not be particularly adverse to Re-
spondent since the Respondent conceded to the court in
Civil Action No. 5-71305, that this controversy is moot if
this agreement (the 1974-77 agreement) is in full force and
effect. The Administrative Law Judge takes administrative
notice of the above-cited civil action as requested by coun-
sel for the General Counsel.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair
labor practice warranting a remedial order, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It having been found that Respondent has unlawfully
failed and refused to sign the collective-bargaining con-
tract to which it and the Charging Party had agreed on
October 29, 1974, because Respondent questioned the well-
settled method for its ratification, the recommended Order
will provide that Respondent sign the agreed-upon con-
tract if the UAW Union Council so requests, and, if no
such request is made, the Respondent shall, upon request,
bargain collectively with the UAW Local Council as a
member of the OPEIU MEG Council, and as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the OPEIU employees and
members of Local 42, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record of this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 UAW Local Council of Michigan , International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Charging Par-
ty herein, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office & Professional Employees International
Union, Local No. 42, AFL-CIO, Respondent herein, is,
and has been at all times material herein , a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent OPEIU Local 42 is a member of the
OPEIU MEG Council and, as such , is the representative of
the members of OPEIU Local 42 to assist the OPEIU
MEG Council in negotiating a collective -bargaining agree-
ment on behalf of the OPEIU Locals with the UAW Local
Council.
4. By failing and refusing , on or about March 3, 1975, to
sign and execute the 1974-77 written agreement as agreed
upon on October 29, 1974, the Respondent has refused,
and is refusing , to bargain collectively, and has withdrawn
from the negotiations with the UAW, Union Council, and
is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO 42 999
ORDERS
Respondent, Office & Professional Employees Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 42, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local
Council of Michigan, by refusing upon request, to sign the
collective-bargaining agreement on which the Respondent
and the UAW Local Union Council had reached agree-
ment on October 29, 1974.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the
efforts of the UAW, Local Council of Michigan, to bargain
collectively on behalf of employees in the appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, sign the collective-bargaining agree-
ment on which the Respondent and the UAW Local Coun-
cil of Michigan had agreed on October 29, 1974.
(b) Upon request, execute the contract, which the Re-
spondent and the UAW Local Council of Michigan had
agreed upon on October 29, 1974, the aforesaid contract to
be effective from March 3, 1975, to the next renewal date
as provided therein; and bargain with respect to bargain-
able issues within the scope of the bargaining authority of
the respective parties.
(c) If no request is made as provided in paragraph 2(a)
and (b) hereof, upon request, bargain collectively with the
UAW Local Council of Michigan, as a member of OPEIU
Local Council of Michigan, to negotiate a collective-bar-
gaining agreement, and embody any understanding which
may be reached in a signed agreement.
(d) Post at all offices where notices to unit employees
are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
6 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW, Local Council of Michigan, by refusing to sign
and execute the contract agreed upon on October 29,
1974.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with the efforts of said UAW, Local Council of Michi-
gan, to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL, upon request, sign the collective-bargain-
Ing agreement (contract) on which we, as a member of
the OPEIU Local Council of Michigan, and the
UAW, Local Council of Michigan, had agreed on Oc-
tober 27, 1974.
WE WILL, upon request, execute the contract we, as a
member of the OPEIU Local Council of Michigan,
and the UAW, Local Council of Michigan had agreed
upon on October 29, 1974, the aforesaid contract to be
effective from March 3, 1975, to the next renewal date
as provided therein, and bargain with respect to bar-
gainable issues within the scope of the bargaining au-
thority of the respective parties.
WE WILL, if no request is made as provided above
hereof, upon request, bargain collectively, as a mem-
ber of OPEIU Local Council of Michigan, with UAW,
Local Council of Michigan, to negotiate a collective-
bargaining agreement on behalf of OPEIU Locals in
Michigan, and embody any understanding which may
be reached in a signed agreement.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL No. 42, AFL-CIO