The John J. Corbett Press Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1124 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The John J . Corbett Press Corporation and The
New Haven Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 74,
A/W International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO.
Case 1-RM-692
July 10, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Thomas P. Kennedy, Hear-
ing Officer. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 1, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. A brief has been filed by the Em-
ployer-Petitioner.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent the employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer-Petitioner seeks a unit of all em-
ployees at the Employer's establishment located in
New Haven, Connecticut, excepting statutory ex-
clusions. The Union moves to dismiss either on the
ground that (1) only a multiemployer unit is ap-
propriate, or (2) as an agreement to arbitrate a new
contract is in effect, and such arbitration is now
pending, an election is precluded under the Board's
' In view of our disposition herein, we do not reach the question whether
there is a contract bar to an election.
contract-bar doctrine. The Employer-Petitioner
contends that it effectively withdrew from the
established multiemployer bargaining unit, and that
no contract exists which could constitute a bar to a
representation election.'
The New Haven Area Employing Printers, herein
called the Association, is an association of em-
ployers engaged in the business of printing. The
Employer-Petitioner has been a member of the As-
sociation for a significant number of years, and
through it has participated in multiemployer bar-
gaining with the Union, as bargaining agent of its
employees. The most recent collective-bargaining
agreement between the Union and the Association
was executed in 1965, with a scheduled expiration
date of February 28, 1967. Included in this agree-
ment was a provision for automatic renewal of the
contract, absent 60 days' notice of intention to ter-
minate or modify. This provision also provided for
final and binding arbitration of any matters not
resolved in negotiations for a new contract.
On December 19, 1966, the Union notified the
Association of its intention to negotiate a new
agreement. The member-employers of the Associa-
tion, on the same date, entered into an agreement
whereby they withdrew their authority from the As-
sociation to bind the individual employers without
their express consent. The'agreement made provi-
sion for individual contracts between employers
and the Union as well as recognizing the employers'
right to act as a group upon their unanimous con-
sent. This agreement between the employers was to
remain in force until December 1, 1971. A copy of
this agreement was sent to the Union along with a
covering letter seeking the Union's consent thereto.
Thereafter, the Union agreed to abide by the
"ground rules" for future bargaining with the em-
ployers as provided in the above agreement
between the Employers, with the condition that the
parties endorse the arbitration agreement as written
in the contract of March 1, 1965, to February 28,
1967, and be willing to carry forward this agree-
ment in the renewal contract. This was agreed to by
both parties on March 2, 1967. Negotiations for a
new contract, on a group basis, were begun shortly
thereafter. Negotiations proved fruitless. In the late
summer of 1967 the Union, in accordance with the
terms of the March 1967 agreement, demanded ar-
bitration of the terms of a new contract. The Em-
ployer-Petitioner and all of the other members of
the New Haven Area Employing Printers agreed to
arbitrate the outstanding differences concerning the
terms of a new contract. The employers were
172 NLRB No. 116
THE JOHN J. CORBETT PRESS CORP. 1125
represented by a single counsel . The arbitration
proceeding has progressed to the point of selection
of an impartial arbitrator and submission of prelimi-
nary material to the arbitration board. Proceedings
have been suspended pending the determination of
a suit by one of the employers to enjoin the arbitra-
tion . However, the instant Employer and four
others have affirmatively indicated their intention
to adhere to arbitration of the dispute covering the
terms of a new contract. At no time during the en-
tire proceedings did the Employer-Petitioner at-
tempt to negotiate or enter into any individual con-
tract with the Union, nor did the Union in any way
attempt to bargain on an individual basis. The in-
stant petition was filed on March 1, 1968.
It is clear from the record that there has been a
substantial period of multiemployer bargaining
which would ordinarily be determinative of the
scope of the appropriate unit .2 Throughout the
years, however, the Board allowed an employer to
withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining group,
despite a long history of such bargaining, provided
the employer unequivocally manifests his intention
to pursue an individual course of bargaining after
proper notice and at an appropriate time.' Here,
the facts clearly show that irrespective of the effect
of the earlier limitation upon the authority of the
Association, the Employer-Petitioner, through its
subsequent conduct, has shown an intention to con-
tinue to be bound by group, rather than individual,
bargaining. The Employer-Petitioner's acceptance
of the demand for arbitration, the selection of an
impartial arbitrator, the submission of preliminary
material, and the retention of single counsel, all in
concert with other association members, establish
an assent on the part of the participating employers
to be bound by the arbitration forum's determina-
tion of a new agreement covering the historic mul-
tiemployer unit. Although the Employer's failure to
undertake individual negotiations is some evidence
of an intention to be bound by group action, there
could be no clearer indication of such intention
than voluntary agreement of the participants in
continued group bargaining to submit their disputes
concerning the negotiation of a new multiemployer
contract to final and binding arbitration. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the Employer-Peti-
tioner committed itself to group bargaining and as
it has not withdrawn therefrom in timely and
unequivocal fashion, we conclude that its em-
ployees were part of the multiemployer unit.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing and on the
record as a whole, we find that the multiemployer
bargaining unit is the only appropriate bargaining
unit, and shall dismiss the petition as seeking an in-
appropriate unit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case
1-RM-692 be, and hereby is, dismissed.
t See , e g , Donaldson Sales, !nc , 141 NLRB 1303, 1305
' See Bell Bakeries of St Petersburg, 139 NLRB 1344, Donaldson Sales,
Inc , supra Retail Associates , Inc , 120 NLRB 388, 393