Sheet Metal Workers Local 359 (Madison Industries)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1995

319 N.L.R.B. 668 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

668
319 NLRB No. 87
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 Chairman Gould has previously expressed the view that interest
arbitration is a mandatory subject of bargaining on which a party
may insist to impasse. Sheet Metal Workers Local 162 (Dwight
Lang’s Enterprises), 314 NLRB 923, 926 fn. 12 (1994). Accord-
ingly, he would overrule Sheet Metal Workers Local 59 (Employers
Assn.), 227 NLRB 520 (1976), and other cases holding that interest
arbitration is a nonmandatory subject of bargaining. In the absence
of a current Board majority to overrule that precedent, however,
Chairman Gould agrees that the judge has correctly applied it here
in concluding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(3).
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter will be in 1993.
2 At the time of the hearing here, an appeal from the arbitration
award was pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association,
Local Union No. 359, AFL–CIO and Madison
Industries, Inc. of Arizona. Case 28–CB–4059
November 14, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN
AND TRUESDALE
On June 8, 1995, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V.S. Robbins issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers’
International Association, Local Union No. 359, AFL–
CIO, Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Richard C. Auslander, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Rosemary Cook, Esq., of Phoenix, Arizona, for the Respond-
ent.
Phil B. Hammond, Esq., of Phoenix, Arizona, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me pursuant to a complaint which al-
leges that the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 359, AFL–CIO (Respondent or the
Union) violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. The principle issue here is whether Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by insisting to im-
passe that Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona (Madison),
agrees to the inclusion of an interest-arbitration provision in
any successor agreement and by insisting that Madison abide
by all terms of a successor agreement imposed on it by the
National Joint Adjustment Board (the NJAB), that included
an interest-arbitration provision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Based on the pleadings, I find that at all times material
herein:
A. Madison has been an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
B. Respondent has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
For a number of years Respondent has been engaged, at
its Phoenix, Arizona plant, in the fabrication of modular
buildings. This fabrication work is performed by Madison’s
shop employees, also referred to as inside or production em-
ployees. After fabrication, the buildings are partially dis-
assembled and shipped to the jobsite where they are reassem-
bled by Madison’s outside employees, also referred to as
construction or building trades employees. The employee
complement is seasonal with outside employees fluctuating
between 10 and 30 and shop employees between 10 and 50.
For many years the outside employees were represented by
Respondent Local 359 and the shop employees were rep-
resented by Sheet Metal Workers Local 485. Both Locals
were parties to successive collective-bargaining agreements
with the Air Conditioning Contractors of Arizona. Although
not a member of this Association, Madison was bound by
these agreements by virtue of memorandum agreements with
the two Locals. The collective-bargaining agreement involved
here was effective by its terms to July 31, 1993.
About 5 years ago, Local 485 merged into Local 359 with
the outside employees and the shop employees continuing as
separate bargaining units with separate contracts. After the
merger, Local 359 claimed the fabrication work for the out-
side employees. This, however, was not the type heating,
venting, air-conditioning (HVAC) work normally performed
by them. Consequently, Madison was dissatisfied with their
work and began subcontracting the fabrication work. Re-
spondent filed a grievance regarding this subcontracting. On
April 16, 1993,1 after a hearing, the Local Joint Adjustment
Board (the LJAB) ruled against Madison and ordered it to
cease the subcontracting and to pay the outside employees
for the work they had lost due to the subcontracting.2
On April 21, Madison timely withdrew bargaining author-
ity from the Association and, in June, commenced bargaining
669SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 359 (MADISON INDUSTRIES)
3 See App. B for full text of art. X.
4 There is a dispute as to whether White was present at the conclu-
sion of the meeting. White and Sentell testified that he was. Pierce
did not testify in this regard. Stewart was unsure. Burk testified that
White was not present for the entire meeting. Stephens testified that
White did not return after Sentell’s telephone call to Madison’s at-
torney. He admits, however, that he told a Board agent that he
thought White was there for the entire meeting but would have to
review his notes. A review of his notes revealed no reference to
White not being present for the entire meeting. In view of the uncer-
tain and/or conflicting nature of the testimony of Stewart and Ste-
phens and consistent with my other credibility findings, I credit
White and Sentell.
individually with Respondent. Negotiation sessions were held
on June 16, 30, and July 6. The negotiators for Madison
were its attorney, Phil Hammond, and modular assembly line
manager, Daniel White. Negotiators for Respondent were
Business Manager Jack Stewart, Business Agent Ted Lewis,
and Business Agent Dave Chacon. At the conclusion of the
July 6 bargaining session, the Respondent determined that
the negotiations were deadlocked. Under article X, section 8
of the then current contract,3 such determination may be
made unilaterally by either party which initiates a mediation
process under the aegis of the NJAB. If the mediation is un-
successful, a resolution of the dispute is submitted to the
NJAB, whose unanimous decision is final and binding as to
the terms of a new contract.
Although the collective-bargaining agreement does not
limit the number of unresolved issues which may be submit-
ted to the NJAB, the notice of unresolved dispute form states
that no more than three, excluding wage/fringe package and
contract duration, may be presented by either side. On July
12, Respondent made a unilateral submission to NJAB which
listed, as unresolved, article X, section 8 (interest-arbitration
provision), contract duration, certain wage/fringe benefit pro-
posals, and a substance abuse proposal proposed by Madison.
Thereafter, on about July 20, Madison made a unilateral sub-
mission in which it asserts that the unresolved issues exceed
three in number and that article X, section 8 places no re-
strictions on the number of unresolved issues which can be
submitted. Madison then listed seven items as unresolved.
These include grievance/arbitration, contract duration, wages,
contributions to all joint employer-union funds other than
pension plans, restriction of the coverage of the contract to
the geographical area described in the contract, health insur-
ance, and provisions relating to apprentices. Madison’s uni-
lateral submission further asserts its adamant position that the
interest-arbitration provision be deleted from any future
agreement.
On August 2, Respondent and Madison appeared before
the NJAB in San Francisco and presented their respective po-
sitions. At this time, it became apparent that settlement of the
LJAB court matter, arising from the subcontracting of pro-
duction work previously performed by shop employees but
now claimed by Respondent for the outside employees, was
impacting on the possibility of reaching an agreement as to
a successor contract. Early in the proceeding Jack Stewart,
representative for the Respondent, and John Sentell, Madi-
son’s general manager, were instructed by NJAB to leave the
hearing room and attempt to reduce the unresolved issues to
three. It is disputed as to whether Stewart and Sentell
reached any formal agreement as to any of the issues. When
they returned, however, it was clear that the major unre-
solved issues were grievance/arbitration, contract duration,
and the jurisdictional dispute, including the court matter. No
resolution was reached as to these matters.
On August 4, the NJAB issued a decision finding that the
testimony established that the parties had resolved all issues
regarding a new contract except for the duration of the agree-
ment, the Employer’s proposal to delete article X, and a
method of resolving work jurisdiction disputes between shop
and outside employees. It also designated a subcommittee
panel to go to the local area with full authority to resolve
these contractual issues and to issue a final and binding deci-
sion thereon, to investigate the underlying issues involving
work jurisdiction between shop and outside employees, and
to make recommendations to the parties concerning the same.
On October 19, subcommittee members Richard J. Pierce,
a management representative, and Roger F. Burk, a union
representative, toured Madison’s facility and heard testimony
from the parties. Respondent was represented by Stewart,
Chacon and Ted Lewis and Madison by Sentell and White.
Also present was William Stephens as a NJAB observer. It
is undisputed that Respondent and Madison again failed to
reach agreement. It is also undisputed that the panel pro-
posed that if Madison would accept a 3-year contract term
and interest arbitration, the LJAB could be bypassed, the
shop employees could perform the fabrication work, and
Madison would be permitted to transport a three-person crew
into Las Vegas instead of the heretofore permitted two-per-
son crew.
There was discussion as to the lawsuit, during which
Stewart said settlement would require a $25,000 payment by
Madison. Respondent’s representatives also voiced objections
to the proposed resolution of the jurisdictional dispute and to
a three-person Las Vegas crew. At Sentell’s request, a break
was taken to permit him to discuss the proposed resolution
with Legal Counsel Phil Hammond. Sentell testified that he
went to his car and called Hammond, who advised him not
to agree to interest arbitration, and that it was illegal to hold
Madison to that provision. In corroboration, White testified
that, immediately at the conclusion of this telephone con-
versation, Sentell told him Hammond said he should not
agree to that provision, that it was inappropriately presented
and illegal and Sentell should so state.
There is no dispute that Madison and Respondent never
reached agreement as to the terms of a new contract. What
occurred following the break, however, is disputed, specifi-
cally whether Sentell agreed to certain provisions, including
interest arbitration. Sentell testified that he did not. His testi-
mony in this regard is corroborated by White.4 Further, al-
though each of Respondent’s witnesses initially testified that
Sentell agreed to the interest-arbitration provision, when
questioned as to specifically what was said, such agreement
is not evident. Thus, Stewart initially testified that at the end
of the October 29 meeting, Sentell’s position with respect to
article X was that he objected to section 2 (LJAB) but had
no problem with the remainder of the article. When asked to
relate specifically what Sentell said, however, he testified
that, in response to Burk’s inquiry as to whether he would
accept a settlement whereby jurisdiction was given to the
production workers and the LJAB was eliminated, Sentell re-
plied, ‘‘I have no problem with the National, I have a prob-
670 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 It is not clear whether this latter statement was before or after
the break.
lem with the Local and I couldn’t agree to that.’’ He further
admits that Sentell did say that he objected to the interest-
arbitration provision but he does not recall Sentell saying
that the provision was illegal.5 Pierce admits that Sentell was
never specifically asked if he agreed to article X, section 8
and that he never heard Sentell specifically say that he
agreed to that provision. According to him, they listed all the
things out to him and asked, ‘‘Do you agree to this?’’ Sentell
answered, ‘‘Yes.’’
Contrary to Stewart, Stephen denies that, at any time dur-
ing the meeting, Sentell said he had a problem with the inter-
est-arbitration provision. According to him, once the LJAB
provision was resolved, Sentell said he had no problem with
the interest-arbitration provision. Yet, his notes state that
Sentell did not want interest arbitration or to have Madison’s
new agreement negotiated by the LJAB. Similarly, although
Burk testified that Sentell said he would agree to article X
and other provisions if that was the decision of the panel, he
admits that his notes state, ‘‘John would agree to three years
and 10-8, and pay two weeks to each man, but Union must
drop lawsuit.’’ Stewart said, ‘‘No way.’’
In view of these conflicts, I find the testimony of Re-
spondent’s witnesses to be unreliable. I also find it unlikely
that Sentell would suddenly drop his opposition to the inter-
est-arbitration clause, particularly when he had just been ad-
vised by his attorney that he should not agree to this clause
since it could not be forced on Madison or yield his position
that any agreement must include a resolution of the lawsuit.
I also note that according to Burk’s notes Sentell’s agreement
was contingent on the dropping of the lawsuit, which Re-
spondent refused to do. I found Sentell to be a more reliable
witness. Accordingly, I credit his version of what occurred.
According to Sentell’s credited testimony, when he re-
turned to the meeting, he said he thought the LJAB step in
the grievance-arbitration procedure was a kangaroo court and
that agreement by him to the procedure would lock him into
the remaining 2 years of a 3-year contract and then into an-
other 3 years for a total of 5 years without knowing the final
monetary outcome. Pierce asked if he would accept interest
arbitration in return for elimination of the LJAB. Sentell said
he could not agree to that. At some point, Sentell said he had
just spoken to his lawyer and he wanted to reiterate that arti-
cle X, section 8 is illegal and could not be forced on Madi-
son. He said the $25,000 was a main issue, that it did not
seem that the parties could reach agreement and NJAB was
going to have to impose a contract because he did not agree
to anything.
On October 28, the NJAB issued their decision determin-
ing, inter alia, that Madison and Respondent would be bound
by the Association contract, including article X, section 8
(the interest-arbitration provision) but excluding section 2
which provides an appeal to the Local Joint Adjustment
Board (LJAB) as the second step in the grievance-arbitration
procedure. Instead, they determined that the second step
would be bypassed and grievances would go directly from
the first step to the third-step panel appointed by the co-
chairmen of the NJAB. As to the jurisdictional issue, the de-
cision determined that certain traditional HVAC work would
be performed by the outside employees, that Madison in its
sole discretion could determine if additional job functions
should be performed in the shop or on the company grounds
by outside employees, and that any work not specifically
mentioned would fall within the jurisdiction of the produc-
tion agreement. The decision does not recite that any portion
of the decision was based on any agreement of the parties.
On April 14, 1994, Respondent filed a verified petition to
confirm and enforce arbitration award in the United States
District Court requesting that the court enforce the contract
imposed by the NJAB and thereafter, the court issued an
order staying the proceeding until after the issuance of the
Board decision here.
B. Conclusions
Section 8(d) obligates employers and unions to bargain in
good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment. Anything not related to these mat-
ters is a nonmandatory subject of bargaining which neither
party may insist on to the point of impasse. NLRB v. Borg-
Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958). It is well established
that an interest-arbitration clause is a nonmandatory subject
of bargaining since it relates to the relationship between the
parties rather than to wages, hours, or other terms and condi-
tions of employment. Sheet Metal Workers Local 38
(Elmsford Sheet Metal Works), 231 NLRB 699; Sheet Metal
Workers Local 20 (George Koch Sons), 306 NLRB 834
(1992).
I find that by the end of the July 6 bargaining session, Re-
spondent and Madison had reached an impasse due, in part,
to Respondent’s insistence that a collective-bargaining agree-
ment include an interest-arbitration provision, a nonmanda-
tory subject of bargaining. Further, by submitting the inter-
est-arbitration provision to the NJAB on July 12, Respondent
acknowledged that an impasse had been reached and that it
was continuing to insist on the inclusion of this provision in
any collective-bargaining agreement with Madison. I there-
fore find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act
by insisting to impasse that a collective-bargaining agreement
with Madison include an interest-arbitration provision.
Further, since the obligation to bargain continues after im-
passe and since Madison never agreed to an interest-arbitra-
tion clause, the filing of a petition to enforce a collective-
bargaining agreement which includes an interest-arbitration
clause imposed on Madison and Respondent by NJAB is a
continuation of the refusal to bargain and is also violative of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Madison is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By bargaining to impasse on an interest-arbitration
clause, a nonmandatory subject of bargaining, Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
4. By attempting to enforce the decision of the National
Joint Arbitration Board as to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment containing an interest-arbitration clause, Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
671SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 359 (MADISON INDUSTRIES)
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
7 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
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.’’
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Asso-
ciation, Local Union No. 359, AFL–CIO, Phoenix, Arizona,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargaining with Madison Industries, Inc. of
Arizona, by insisting to impasse that an interest-arbitration
clause, a nonmandatory subject of bargaining, be included in
any new collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Insisting on compliance with, or attempting to enforce
the award of the National Joint Adjustment Board as to, a
new collective-bargaining agreement containing an interest-
arbitration clause.
(c) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain col-
lectively with Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona by insist-
ing on the inclusion in the collective-bargaining agreement of
provisions or proposals not related to wages, hours, and other
terms or conditions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Bargain with Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona con-
cerning the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment for employees in the following appropriate bar-
gaining unit.
All employees of the Employer performing the work set
forth in Article I of the collective bargaining agreement
between Respondent and the Air Conditioning Contrac-
tors of Arizona effective from August 1, 1990 through
July 31, 1993.
(b) Notify Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona that Re-
spondent will not insist to impasse, as a condition of a new
collective-bargaining agreement, on continuation of the pro-
visions of article X, section 8 of the bargaining agreement
which expired on July 31, 1993.
(c) Post at Respondent’s offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix A.’’7 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director for posting by Madison Indus-
tries, Inc. of Arizona, if it is willing, the notice to be posted
in all locations where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO 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 the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Madison Industries
of Arizona, Inc. by insisting to impasse that an interest-arbi-
tration clause, a nonmandatory subject of bargaining, be in-
cluded in any new collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT insist on compliance with, or attempt to en-
force the award of the National Joint Adjustment Board as
to a new collective-bargaining agreement containing an inter-
est-arbitration clause.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bar-
gain collectively with Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona by
insisting on the inclusion in a collective-bargaining agree-
ment of provisions or proposals not related to wages, hours,
and other terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain with Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona
concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment for employees in the following appropriate
bargaining unit:
All employees of Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona
performing the work set forth in Article I of the collec-
tive bargaining agreement between Sheet Metal Work-
ers’ International Association, Local Union No. 359,
AFL–CIO and the Air Conditioning Contractors of Ari-
zona effective from August 1, 1990 through July 31,
1993.
WE WILL notify Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona that
we will not insist to impasse, as a condition of a new collec-
tion-bargaining agreement, on continuation of the provisions
of article X, section 8 of the bargaining agreement which ex-
pired on July 31, 1993.
SHEET METAL WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION NO. 359, AFL–
CIO
APPENDIX B
The Union and the Employer, whether party to this Agree-
ment independently or as a member of a multiemployer bar-
gaining unit, agree to utilize and be bound by this article.
672 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SECTION 1. Grievances of the Employer or the Union,
arising out of interpretation or enforcement of this Agree-
ment, shall be settled between the Employer directly in-
volved and the duly authorized representative of the Union,
if possible. Both parties may participate in conferences
through representatives of their choice.
To be valid, grievances must be raised within thirty (30)
calendar days following the occurrence giving rise to the
grievance, or, if the occurrence was not ascertainable, within
thirty (30) calendar days of first knowledge of the facts giv-
ing rise to the grievance.
SECTION 2. Grievances not settled as provided in Section
1 of this article may be appealed by either party to the Local
Joint Adjustment Board where the work was performed or in
the jurisdiction of the employer’s home local and such Board
shall meet promptly on a date mutually agreeable to the
members of the board, but in no case more than fourteen
(14) calendar days following the request for its services, un-
less the time is extended by mutual agreement of the parties,
or Local Joint Adjustment Board. The Board shall consist of
representatives of the Union and of the local Employers’ As-
sociation and both sides shall case an equal number of votes
at each meeting. The local Employers’ Association, on its
own initiative, may submit grievances for determination by
the Board as provided in this section. Except in the case of
deadlock, a decision of a Local Joint Adjustment Board shall
be final and binding.
Notice of appeal to the Local Joint Adjustment Board shall
be given within thirty (30) days after termination of the pro-
cedures prescribed in section 1 of this article, unless the time
is extended by a mutual agreement of the parties.
SECTION 3. Grievances not disposed of under the proce-
dure prescribed in section 2 of this article, because of a
deadlock or failure of such Board to act, may be appealed
jointly or by either party to a panel consisting of one (1) rep-
resentative appointed by the labor cochairman of the Na-
tional Joint Adjustment Board and one (1) representative ap-
pointed by the management cochairman of the National Joint
Adjustment Board. Appeals shall be mailed to the National
Joint Adjustment Board. Notice of appeal to the panel shall
be given within thirty (30) days after termination of the pro-
cedures prescribed in section 1 of this article. Such Panel
shall meet promptly, but in no event more than fourteen (14)
calendar days following receipt of such appeal, unless such
time is extended by mutual agreement of the panel members.
Except in case of deadlock, the decision of the panel shall
be final and binding.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this sec-
tion, and employer who was not a party to the labor agree-
ment of the area in which the work in dispute is performed
may appeal the decision of the Local Joint Adjustment Board
from that area, including a unanimous decision, and request
a panel hearing as set forth in section 3 of this article, pro-
viding such appeal is approved by the cochairmen of the Na-
tional Joint Adjustment Board.
SECTION 4. Grievances not settled as provided in section
3 of this article may be appealed jointly or by either party
to the National Joint Adjustment Board. Submissions shall be
made and decisions rendered under such procedures as may
be prescribed by such Board. Appeals to the National Joint
Adjustment Board shall be submitted within thirty (30) days
after termination of the procedures prescribed in section 3 of
this article. (Copies of the procedures may be obtained from
the National Joint Adjustment Board.)
SECTION 5. A Local Joint Adjustment Board, panel, and
the National Joint Adjustment Board are empowered to
render such decisions and grant such relief to either party as
they deem necessary and proper, including awards of dam-
ages or other compensation.
SECTION 6. In the event of noncompliance within thirty
(30) calendar days following the mailing of a decision of a
Local Joint Adjustment Board, panel, or the National Joint
Adjustment Board, a local party may enforce the award by
any legal means including proceedings in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction in accord with applicable state and Federal
law. If the party seeking to enforce the award prevails in liti-
gation, such party shall be entitled to its costs and attorney’s
fees in addition to such other relief as is directed by the
courts.
SECTION 7. Failure to exercise the right of appeal at any
step thereof within the time limit provided therefore shall
void any right of appeal applicable to the facts and remedies
of the grievances involved. There shall be no cessation of
work by strike or lockout during the pendency of the proce-
dures provided for in this article. Except in case of deadlock,
the decision of the National Joint Adjustment Board shall be
final and binding.
SECTION 8. In addition to the settlement of grievances
arising out of interpretation or enforcement of this agreement
as set forth in the preceding section of this article, any con-
troversy or dispute arising out of the failure of the parties to
negotiate a renewal of this agreement shall be settled as here-
inafter provided:
(a) Should the negotiations for renewal of this agreement
become deadlocked in the opinion of the union representa-
tive(s) or of the employer(s) representative, or both, notice
to that effect shall be given to the National Joint Adjustment
Board.
If the cochairmen of the National Joint Adjustment Board
believe the dispute might be adjusted without going to final
hearing before the National Joint Adjustment Board, each
will then designate a panel representative who shall proceed
to the locale where the dispute exists as soon as convenient,
attempt to conciliate the differences between the parties and
bring about a mutually acceptable agreement. If such panel
representatives or either of them conclude that they cannot
resolve the dispute, the parties thereto and the cochairmen of
the National Joint Adjustment Board shall be promptly so
notified without recommendation from the panel representa-
tives. Should the cochairmen of the National Joint Adjust-
ment Board fail or decline to appoint a panel member or
should notice of failure of the panel representatives to re-
solve the dispute be given, the parties shall promptly be noti-
fied so that either party may submit the dispute to the Na-
tional Joint Adjustment Board.
In addition to the mediation procedure set forth above or
as an alternate thereto, the cochairmen of the board may each
designate a member to serve as a subcommittee and hear the
dispute in the local area. Such committees shall function as
arbitrators and are authorized to resolve all or part of the
issues. They are not, however, authorized to deadlock and
the matter shall be heard by the National Joint Adjustment
Board in the event a subcommittee is unable to direct an en-
tire resolution of the dispute.
673SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 359 (MADISON INDUSTRIES)
The dispute shall be submitted to the National Joint Ad-
justment Board pursuant to the rules as established and modi-
fied from time to time by the National Joint Adjustment
Board. The unanimous decision of said board shall be final
and binding upon the parties, reduced to writing, signed and
mailed to the parties as soon as possible after the decision
has been reached. There shall be no cessation of work by
strike or lockout unless and until said board fails to reach a
unanimous decision and the parties have received written no-
tification of its failure.
(b) Any application to the National Joint Adjustment
Board shall be upon forms prepared for that purpose subject
to any changes which may be decided by the board from
time to time. The representatives of the parties who appear
at the hearing will be given the opportunity to present oral
argument and to answer any questions raised by members of
the board. Any briefs filed by either party including copies
of pertinent exhibits shall also be exchanged between the
parties and filed with the National Joint Adjustment Board
at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the hearing.
(c) The National Joint Adjustment Board shall have the
right to establish time limits which must be met with respect
to each and every step or procedure contained in this section.
In addition, the cochairmen of the National Joint Adjustment
Board shall have the right to designate time limits which will
be applicable to any particular case and any step therein
which may be communicated to the parties by mail, tele-
gram, or telephone notification.
(d) Unless a different date is agreed upon mutually be-
tween the parties or is directed by the unanimous decision
of the National Joint Adjustment Board, all effective dates in
the new agreement shall be retroactive to the date imme-
diately following the expiration date of the expiring agree-
ment.