Utility Tree Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Utility Tree Service, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 . Case 20-
CA-9044
June 23, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAuwAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On December 14, 1974, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the
above-entitled proceeding, fording that the Respon-
dent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of -the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and ordering that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to remedy such unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, on March 18, 1975, the Respondent
filed a motion to reopen the record in order to
submit allegedly newly discovered evidence which if
adduced and credited, it contends, would require a
different result.
The central issue in the above case was whether the
Union's unconditional acceptance of the Respon-
dent's outstanding offer of contract terms based on
the results of a ratification meeting held on March 9,
1974, resulted in a binding contract. The Board, in its
Decision and Order, found that it had. The Board
expressly rejected as without merit the Respondent's
contention that subsequent actions by the Union's
members or issues raised by the Respondent provid-
ed it with a basis for doubting in good faith whether
the Union thereafter represented a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit. The Board found
instead that such "subsequent actions or issues" were
irrelevant and immaterial since on March 9, when
the agreement was consummated, Respondent had
no basis for questioning the Union's majority.
1 215 NLRB No. 152 0974).
s See General Asbestos & Rubber Division, Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 183
NLRB 213, 217 ( 1970) and cases cited therein.
3 Cf. C & W Lektta Rgt Co., 209 NLRB 1038 (1974). Employee-members
The Respondent in its motion now alleges that
subsequently it has received affidavits from employ-
ees who attended the ratification meeting of March
9, 1974, contending that voting was not held under
open and free conditions, and that the members were
coerced into voting for ratification of the contract
because of certain threatening statements made by
officials of the Union. The Respondent further
contends that such information was not previously
available to it before the above Decision and Order
was issued, but that the General Counsel was aware
of such facts. The Respondent urges that the Board
should,' therefore, reopen the record to receive such
evidence and thereafter consider whether a valid
ratification occurred, conclude that no such ratifica-
tion took place, and then, upon reconsideration of its
original decision, reach a different result.
From the uncontested facts it appears that, during
the negotiations, the Union indicated that, in accord
with the Local Union's general internal practice, any
final offer by the Respondent would be submitted to
its members for ratification. Ratification was thus
not a condition precedent to reaching agreement
between the parties, but merely was the Union's
general policy. Under familiar principles of contract
law, the notification on March 9, 1974, by the Union
that the contract was ratified, i.e., that the member-
ship had voted to accept the Respondent's final offer,
concluded an agreement binding on both parties,
and imposed upon the Respondent the obligation, as
found in our above Decision and Order, to sign the
contract.2 The events which transpired at the Union's
internal meeting are irrelevant, and the` Union's
statement to the Respondent on March 9, 1974, that
the Respondent's final offer had been accepted was
conclusive.3
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that Respondent's motion to
reopen the record be, and it hereby is, denied as
lacking in merit.
who believe that their rights may have been violated or that the Union used
irregular or illegal internal procedures, as alleged by the Respondent, have
other resources available to provide a remedy.
218 NLRB No. 111