Radio Corp. of America

980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Inland Boatmen's Union of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of Inland Boatmen's Union of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters, AFL-CIO, on behalf of such employees. The bargaining unit is : All employees employed on vessels of the Respondent in and about Morehead City, North Carolina, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. CARTERET TOWING COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone Number, Park 4-8356, if they have any, question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Radio Corporation of America and Local Union 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21- CA-4194. February 13, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On March 21, 1961, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 135 NLRB No. 100. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 981 rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. The Respondent and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the International, have been parties to national collective-bargaining contracts which have covered bar- gaining units in various plants of Respondent represented by the International or its locals. The practice has been for the national agreement to be supplemented at the plant level by agreements be- tween locals of the International and the Respondent covering purely local issues. The most recent national agreement preceding the pres- ent dispute was signed on May 26, 1959. It contained the following clause : Section 1.01-Recognition. The Company recognizes the IBEW as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative with respect to pay, wages, hours and other conditions of employment, for all employees of those locations where the IBEW or any of its affiliated Local Unions have been recognized, or shall be recognized, through appropriate means satisfactory to both parties hereto, as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining rep- resentative. The locations referred to above and for which IBEW is the recognized collective bargaining representative on the date this Agreement is entered into, are set forth in Appendix I at- tached hereto and made a part hereof. Any location or locations in the Manufacturing Division of the Company at which IBEW, or any of its Local Unions shall hereafter be recognized, shall automatically be included in and be covered by the terms of this Agreement. [Emphasis supplied.] On August 1, 1960, subsequent to the execution of the above- described national agreement, Local 11 of the International, the Charging Party, was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of employees in a unit of maintenance electricians at Respondent's Los Angeles and Van Nuys, California, facilities. Thereafter the Local and Respondent entered into collective- bargaining negotiations. Respondent's position at these negotiations, concurred in by the International, was that upon certification Local 11 became bound by the national agreement and that the only matters subject to negotiations were local issues. It offered to negotiate a local agreement in accordance with the terms of the national agree- ment, as it had done with other locals of the International. On the other hand, Local 11 insisted that it was not bound by the national agreement and demanded that Respondent negotiate a completely new agreement covering employees in the certified unit. The assistant 982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the president of the International, testifying in behalf of Respond- ent stated that : 1. The ordinary bargaining procedure - between Respondent and the International was to -negotiate a' national agreement covering all plants of Respondent and' all locals, and then to supplement the national agreement with -a"series of local agree- ments which would not be inconsistent with the ' national agreement. 2. The national agreement had been extended previously to three newly certified locals without objection. ' 3. The International considers newly chartered locals bound by the national agreement because local unions are part of the Inter- national and ' required to conform with its 'constitution and bylaws.' The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had not refused to bargain with Local 11 by insisting that both parties were bound by the national agreement. We agree with him. The dissenting opinion, in our view, overlooks the critical fact that the employees here involved designated Local Union 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. This is not the case with which the dissenting opinion deals. Rather, our dissenting colleagues, in effect, are reforming both the certification and the complaint so as to deal with Local Union 11 as a wholly separate entity quite apart from the International. To that extent we find the authorities they cite 'inapposite. The evidence simply does not support the charge that Respondent has failed to respect the, certification of, or has de- faulted in its statutory bargaining obligation to, Local'Union 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 'AFL-CIO. Our decision in this case in no way disturbs the Board's decision in the representation case (21-RC-6236), as our dissenting colleagues contend, as to the appropriateness of the new unit of Respondent's employees represented by Local 11, IBEW. Multiplant master or national agreements are not in every case inconsistent with appropriate single-plant bargaining units. The record here reveals that the national agreement-local agree- ment procedure used by this Respondent and the IBEW contemplated the binding of separate units in different plants by one master agree- ment and then supplementing this by separate, supplemental agree- ments at each plant for 'the IBEW's local there. Other separately Board certified IBEW local unions took part in this pattern of bar- gaining with Respondent. The fact that they represented industrial- type local units, whereas Local 11, IBEW, represented only mainte- i Article XVII of the International's constitution requires that all agreements by local unions must be approved by the International president before becoming operative, and that locals cannot abrogate agreements without the prior approval of the president. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 983 nance electricians on more of a craft basis, does not destroy the legality or the utility of the national agreement procedure. Indeed, Local 11's willingness to accept almost all of the national agreement's 61 sections would seem to be clear evidence of the agreement's gen- eral appropriateness to the situation of the employees in the unit which it represented. At the same time, such important issues as rates of pay, work to be performed, and area craft rates were left to negotiation in the local agreement. This combination of national and local bargaining is commonplace, conforms to the Board's prior holding of the appropriateness of the local unit in this case, and accords to the local union, Local 11; IBEW, the benefits and the corresponding obligations which the employees in the unit chose when they designated a local with a clear, stated affilia- tion with the IBEW. This is more than a matter of mere "internal obligation" of Local 11 to its International under the union's constitution, as our dissenting colleagues refer to it. The binding quality of the national agreement upon Local 11, IBEW, was obviously a matter of concern to the Re- spondent. It could well have been considered by the Respondent as possibly affecting its relations with other locals of IBEW and with other unions as well as its operations vis-a-vis its employer compet- itors. The provisions binding subsequently recognized locals was also supported by the IBEW, which may well have negotiated the pro- vision with an eye to the interests of its other locals and its relations with the Respondent, as well as its position vis-a-vis other competing unions. . Surely the Board is not such a prisoner of a narrow interpretation of its own findings concerning appropriateness of a separate bargain- ing unit that it cannot recognize a workable pattern of bargaining developed by the parties which, while giving due recognition to such separate units, also seeks to accommodate the interests of local and national bargaining. The situation here is quite different from that in American Seating Company, 106 NLRB 250, cited by"the dissenting Members. In that case the contract which the Board held not binding on the newly certi- fied bargaining representative was the contract negotiated by a differ- ent union, representing the unit from which the new unit was severed. It was the contract of the unsuccessful, rival union. Here the na- tional contract is one negotiated by the union to which the new local is expressly affiliated. In sum, (1) the national contract which we hold the Respondent could rely upon here was executed by the International Union of which Local 11 is an affiliate; (2) this affiliation was explicity stated in the election and certification in which Local 11, IBEW, was designated as bargaining representative by and for these employees; (3) the various 984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD local bargaining units, including that of Local 11, are still recognized, but covered jointly by terms of the national agreement; and (4) the terms of the national agreement were apparently so consistent with Local 11's craft interests that it sought modifications only as to senior- ity, overtime on Saturday, and the term of the contract. Like the Trial Examiner, therefore, we do not find an unlawful refusal to bargain by the Respondent in these circumstances. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBERS FANNING and BROWN, dissenting : On June 28, 1960, in Case No. 21-RC-6236,2 the Board found appro- priate a craft unit composed of maintenance electricians, helpers, and leadmen at Respondent's Olympic Boulevard and Van Nuys, Cali- fornia, plants. Thereafter, on July 22, 1960, a majority of employees in the appropriate unit selected Local 11, IBEW, the Charging Party, as exclusive bargaining representative, and on August 1, 1960, Local 11 was certified by, the Regional Director. Since Local 11's certification, Respondent has admittedly refused to enter into normal bargaining with it, but has instead taken the position that the certified Local was bound by terms of a national agreement executed in May 1959 between Respondent and IBEW International, and that only a local supple- ment could be negotiated. Thus Respondent has been unwilling to engage in initial bargaining on such subjects as seniority, overtime, and the term of the proposed agreement, and Local 11 cannot, accord- ing to Respondent's view, strike over any disputed matters because of the no-strike clause in the national agreement. Despite this curious result, our colleagues in the majority find that Respondent has satis- fied its statutory duty to bargain with the certified representative. We cannot agree. Under the express terms of the statute,,a Board certification entitles the bargaining representative to bargain with the employer about wages, hours of employment, and other terms and con- ditions of employment. The Board has heretofore held that a newly certified representative is not bound in bargaining even by an out- standing contract in the same unit,' let alone, as here, that of an Inter- national in some other unit. On the contrary, the Board has held re- peatedly that parties to bargaining fulfill their statutory obligation only if they enter into negotiations with a willingness and intent to bargain about all matters covered by the employment relationship.' This the Respondent has refused to do. It is true that the International's contract with Respondent covering nine other plants contains a provision to the effect that "any location 2 Radio Corporation of America, 127 NLRB 1563. 2 American Seating Company, 106 NLRB 250. 4W. W. Cross and Company, Inc., 77 NLRB 1162, enfd. 174 F. 2d 875 (C.A. 1) ; Pool Manufacturing Company, 70 NLRB 540, 549, affd. on other grounds 339 U.S. 577. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 985 or locations in the Manufacturing Division of the Company at which IBEW, or any of its Local Unions shall hereafter be recognized, shall automatically be included in and be covered by the terms of this Agreement." But Local 11, the certified representative, was not a party to that agreement, did not negotiate, approve, or ratify its terms, and does not now choose to do so.' Under these circumstances, we do not believe Local 11 can fairly be held bound by its terms.' The result reached by the majority is particularly anomalous in the circumstances of this case. The Board specifically decided in the representation proceeding, supra, that a unit limited to the Olym- pic Boulevard and Van Nuys plants was appropriate. At that time, the International's contract covering other plants was not urged as a bar, as indeed it could not be, as another union was recognized as bargaining representative at these locations. That other labor organization, IUE, urged that its own "national agreement" 7 rendered the plants herein part of a multiplant unit of other RCA plants repre- sented by IUE. This contention was expressly rejected by the Board, and an election was directed among electricians in the smaller Olympic Boulevard-Van Nuys unit. Nonetheless, by its holding in this pro- ceeding, the majority is negating the Board's former unit finding, and requiring the Olympic-Van Nuys facilities to be bargained for, in effect, as an accretion to the already existing unit at other plants.' To add further to the inappropriateness of the majority's finding, Local 11, the certified representative, is a craft local, and was certified as the result of a craft severance proceeding. As stated in the original Board decision, the electricians' work herein "is that of skilled craft electricians. They are, therefore, entitled to separate representation 5 Cf. Radio Corporation of America, RCA Victor Division, 107 NLRB 993. O We agree with the majority that Local 11, the certified representative , is not a, "wholly separate" entity from its affiliated International. But neither is it, as the majority seems to think, the same entity as the International . As the Board has noted in another case involving IBEW and one of its locals, "the overwhelming weight of judicial authority, including the Supreme Court of the United States , is that a local union is a legal entity apart from its international and that it is not a mere branch or arm of the latter." International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, at al (Franklin Electric Construction Company, at al ), 121 NLRB 143, 146 . If the aforementioned case, and others cited therein, were not sufficient authority for this proposition, the Local's action in filing the instant unfair labor practice charge , in apparent opposition to its affiliated International, should sufficiently establish that proposition In any event, even if the Local were to be considered the same entity as the International, the Board has not yet held that an International, or any other labor organization , can bind in advance em- ployees who have not yet voted for it as representative. See footnote 7, infra. Obviously the employees in the craft unit here certified do not agree with the majority that the International 's earlier executed contract is "appropriate " to their situation 7 As with IBEW's national agreement, IUE's contract provided that any units for which IUE should thereafter be recognized would automatically be included and covered by the national agreement 8 Where, as here , no true accretion has been alleged or shown, the Board has in the past held that parties to bargaining may not make the terms of their contract applicable in futuro to employees, classifications, or units not yet in existence . See, e.g, Consoli- dated Cement Corporation, 117 NLRB 492 ; Fleming & Sons, Inc, 118 NLRB 1451. Cf. General Extrusion Company, Inc , at al, 121 NLRB 1165. The effect of permitting auto- matic coverage in the present case is to permit just such in futuro application. 986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if they so desire." Yet the nine IBEW locals which have participated in and voluntarily adopted the national agreement with Respondent are industrial-type locals, and represent employees at other RCA plants on an industrial basis. Respondent's position in the present case, as forthrightly conceded by its counsel at the hearing, is that electricians at' Va'n Nuys-Olympic Boulevard should be treated no differently from electricians who are part of production and mainte- nance units at other plants. Yet separate craft representation was the express purpose of permitting severance in the original proceed- ing. The majority is not only altering the appropriate unit heretofore found, but is also permitting Respondent to ignore the separate-craft status established in the prior proceeding. Th'e net result of the majority's holding is that Local 11 has achieved certification only to find its bargaining status severely if not totally restricted by an agreement executed (1) by another representative (2) before Local 11's certification (3) in a different unit (4) on a pro- duction and maintenance rather than craft basis. On those few items as to which Respondent is willing to bargain, towards reaching a sup- plemental-type agreement, Local 11 finds itself with no bargaining power because of a no-strike clause allegedly negotiated for it in the national agreement. As the Board has stated in a similar situation, "there is no provision in the statute for this kind of emasculated certi- fied bargaining representative. . . . There is little point in selecting a new bargaining representative which is unable to negotiate new terms and conditions of employment for an extended period of time."' We can see no justification for such a result in the present case," and therefore would order Respondent to bargain with Local 11 on all matters covered by the employment relationship, as required in the statute. 9 American Seating Company, supra, at p 255. 10 We can see no relevance to the argument advanced by the Trial Examiner, and appar- ently adopted by the majority , that Local 11 is required to accede to the national agree- ment because of the International ' s constitution and bylaws . Local 11 disputes that it is so required , under the circumstances of this case In any event, we do not believe the Board should interpret and apply what may be an internal obligation of the Local in such a manner as to restrict its bargaining rights expressly guaranteed in the statute. Such a defense should likewise not be available to the Employer , but should more appropriately be deemed a private matter between the Local and Its International. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding with all parties represented was tried before Trial Examiner David F. Doyle in Los Angeles, California , on January 24, 1961 , on complaint of the Gen- eral Counsel and answer of Radio Corporation of America , herein called the Com- pany. The issue litigated was whether or not the Company had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by certain conduct more particularly described hereinafter. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 987 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY It is admitted and I find that the Company is a Delaware corporation which main- tains its principal office and place of business in the city of Camden, New Jersey. The Company owns and operates approximately 21 plants located in various States of the United States and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic and other equipment. Its facilities located on Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, and on Balboa Boulevard in Van Nuys, California, are the only plants involved in this proceeding. It is likewise admitted, and I find, that the Company annually ships from its Los Angeles facilities directly to points outside the State of California, products valued in excess of $50,000, and said facilities annually produce products valued in excess of $1,000,000 which have a substantial impact on the national defense program. It is conceded, and I find, that at all times material hereto, the Company has been engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find , that Local 11 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 11, IBEW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issue It is the contention of the General Counsel that the Company on or about September 7, 1960, and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with Local 11, IBEW, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all em- ployees in a unit of maintenance electricians. The Company, in its answer and at the hearing, denied that it had refused to bargain with Local 11, IBEW, and affirmatively pleaded and contended at the hearing that the Company stood ready to continue to bargain with Local 11, IBEW, for a "Local Agreement," pursuant to the terms of a "National Agreement" existing between the Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, the parent of Local 11, IBEW. As will appear hereinafter, it is the "automatic coverage" of Local 11, IBEW, by the terms of the National Agreement which is the source of the present contro- versy, and presents the question for resolution herein. B. The evidence 1. The unit; majority of Local 11, IBEW, and its certification The evidence is undisputed and in the last analysis the case presents a question of law. It is undisputed that "all maintenance electricians, their helpers and apprentices, leadmen and working foremen employed at the Company's Olympic Boulevard and Van Nuys facilities, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act," constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. There are presently three or four electricians in this unit. It is also admitted that on July 22, 1960, a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, by a secret ballot election conducted by the Board, selected Local 11, IBEW, as bargaining representative and that on August 1, 1960, the Regional Director certified Local 11, IBEW, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in said unit. 2. The National Agreement It is undisputed that on May 26, 1959, the Company and the International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers entered into a contract, herein called the National Agreement, which covered collective-bargaining units in nine plants of the Company. This National Agreement is presently supplemented by nine Local Agreements, each Local Agreement being with the Local of IBEW at each plant.' 1 A book including the National Agreement and the nine Local Agreements is in evi- dence as Company's Exhibit No. 3, and a printed pamphlet including the National Agree- 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The National Agreement between the Company and the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers has the following provision in section 1.01: Section 1.01-Recognition. The Company recognizes the IBEW as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and other conditions of employment, for all employees of those locations where the IBEW or any of its affiliated Local Unions have been recognized, or shall be recognized, through appropriate means satisfactory to both parties hereto, as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representa- tive. The locations referred to above and for which IBEW is the recognized collective bargaining representative on the date this Agreement is entered into, are set forth in Appendix I attached hereto and made a part hereof. Any loca- tion or locations in the manufacturing Division of the Company at which IBEW, or any of its Local Unions shall hereafter be recognized, shall auto- matically be included' in and be covered by the terms of this Agreement. [Emphasis supplied.] It is undisputed that the Los Angeles plant of the Company is in the West Coast Missile and Surface Radar Division, a manufacturing division of the Company. Upon the basis of this contract between the Company and IBEW, the Company took the position, when Local 11, IBEW, was certified as bargaining agent for the unit of electricians at Los Angeles, that Local 11, IBEW, was bound by the National Agreement with its parent, and that the new unit of electricians was automatically covered by that document. Local 11, IBEW, and the General Counsel do not agree with this legal proposition of the Company, and contend that the Board's certification requires the Company to bargain with Local 11, IBEW, and no other, and that Local 11, IBEW, is not, and cannot be, bound by the National Agreement, absent its express ratification of the National Agreement. 3. The ;bargaining meetings At the hearing, counsel for the parties stipulated that representatives of the Company and Local 11, IBEW, met on various dates and discussed a variety of subjects. The first meeting of the parties was held on August 22, 1960. At this meeting, Local 11, IBEW, presented its original demands but there occurred no discussion concerning them. On September 7, 1960, representatives of the parties again met and for the first time they discussed the application of the National Agreement to the situation, the Company taking the position that both it and Local 11, IBEW, were bound by its terms. Local 11, IBEW, at this meeting took the position that the National Agree- ment did not apply to it, since it held a certification from the Board in its own name. The Company then offered to negotiate a Local Agreement pursuant to the National Agreement, as it had done with sister locals of IBEW. Local 11, IBEW, requested that the Company give consideration to an apprenticeship program and the Company agreed to do so. The next meeting of the representatives of the parties was held on September 20, 1960. Most of this meeting was devoted to a lengthy discussion of the subject matter set forth in the National Agreement. In the course of the discussion the Company suggested that a good number of problems might be solved by the Local Agreement. Purkaple, one of the representatives of Local 11, IBEW, suggested that the parties might assume, for the sake of discussion, without agreeing, that the National Agree- ment was acceptable, and then go ahead and discuss other issues. However, Gibson, another representative of Local 11, IBEW, disagreed with Purkaple's statement and said that the terms of the National Agreement were not acceptable to Local 11, IBEW. Pursuant to correspondence between the parties, their representatives again met on October 14, 1960. At this meeting the Company proposed that all subjects cov- ered by the National Agreement be reviewed and this was done subject by subject. On November 30, 1960, another meeting was held to discuss the questions at issue. Local 11, IBEW, took the position that there were only certain items of the National Agreement which it felt would give trouble, these being seniority, overtime for Saturday, and the term of the agreement. The parties also discussed to some extent the question of rates of pay, which would be a subject in the Local Agreement. They also discussed the work to be performed and the craft rates applicable to main- tenance electricians in the Los Angeles area. At this meeting, Local 11, IBEW, also ment and the Local Agreement for the Company's Cambridge plant is in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 2. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 989 raised the question as to the possible application of the "no strike" provisions of the National Agreement, and the Company stated that this provision would apply until the termination of the National Agreement, on June 1, 1961. At the close of this meeting it was agreed that there would be further meetings by the representatives in an attempt to settle the issues. At these proposed meetings, Javins was to represent the Company and Purkaple, the Union. Further meetings were held on December 2 and 8, 1960, by Javins and Purkaple; they discussed the subjects of the National Agreement which Purkaple had stated might give Local 11, IBEW, trouble; those being seniority, overtime for Saturday, and terms. The parties had some discussions concerning wages and there was a disagreement as to the work which would be performed by the maintenance elec- tricians and which might affect the question of wages. Meanwhile on October 27, 1960, Purkaple, the business representative of Local 11, IBEW, filed the instant charge of refusal to bargain. This charge states that the Com- pany refused "to bargain on local level for a unit of maintenance electricians with Local 11 who has an NLRB certification covering the same." From all the evidence adduced it is clear that the Union and the General Counsel base their complaint of refusal to bargain against the Company, on the fact that in all negotiations between Local 11, IBEW, and the Company, the Company has consist- ently taken the position that both the Company and Local 11, IBEW, were bound by the National Agreement. As the differences of the parties on the subject of wages, work, and working conditions became apparent in the bargaining negotiations, Local 11, IBEW, indicated that it considered the "no strike" provision of the National Agreement entirely unacceptable and especially not applicable to itself in the cir- cumstances then attendant. Thereafter the parties did not meet. 4. The position of IBEW The only witness presented at the hearing was Lawson Wimberly, assistant to the president of IBEW. He testified without contradiction, and I credit his testimony in its entirety. Wimberly testified that he had his office staff prepare the copies of the National Agreement, and the nine Local Agreements which were presented and received in evidence as Company's Exhibit No. 3. He testified that the ordinary bargaining procedure between the Company and IBEW was, first, to negotiate a National Agreement covering all plants and all locals, and then to supplement the National Agreement by a series of Local Agreements which would be not inconsistent with the National Agreement. He testified that the National Agreement had been applied to new locals in the case of three plants and three locals, located at Cambridge, Ohio, Rockaway, New Jersey, and Findley, Ohio. In each of these cases, the new local had negotiated its Local Agreement pursuant to the National Agreement, upon receipt of its certification from the Board. He stated that the IBEW considered new locals bound by the National Agreement because local unions are part of the International, hold a charter from the International, and are subject to its constitution and bylaws. He further testified that the constitution of IBEW requires that all Local Agreements be approved by the International president, and that the president would not approve a Local Agreement in conflict with the National Agreement. He testified that in the cases of the three locals mentioned previously they had accepted the National Agreement and negotiated their individual Local Agreements, without incident of strike or lockout. Wimberly also testified that the National Agreement was subject to termination by any party on June 1, 1961, by appropriate notice prior to that date. Upon such termination, all terms of the National Agreement and the Local Agreements became subject to negotiation. A new National Agreement would be negotiated at that time with all locals represented on the negotiating committee; thereafter each local would negotiate its own Local Agreement in terms not inconsistent with the National Agreement. The constitution of the IBEW was introduced into evidence and some of its pro- visions are relevant here? Article XVII, entitled "Rules for Local Unions," states in section 7 that all bylaws, amendments and rules, all agreements, jurisdiction, and so forth, of any kind or nature, must be submitted in duplicate form to the International president for approval. This section continues: No L. U. shall put into effect any by-law, amendment, rule or agreement of any kind without first securing such approval. All these shall be null and void with- 9 This document is 'Company's Exhibit No. 2. 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out I.P. approval. [Emphasis supplied. "L.U." means Local Union. "I.P." means International President.] The last sentence of section 7 provides that the International president "has the right to correct any by-laws, amendments, rules or agreements to conform to this - Constitution and the policies of the IBEW." Section 10 reads as follows: Except when decided otherwise by the I.P., agreements between L.U.'s and em- ployers must contain a condition that the L.U. is part of the I.B.E.W. and that a violation or annulment of agreement with any L.U. annuls all agreements entered into with the same employer, corporation or firm and any other L.U. of the I.B.E.W. [Emphasis supplied.] Section 11 of the IBEW constitution further provides that: All L.U.'s shall be compelled to live up to all approved agreements unless broken or terminated by the other party or Parties, which fact shall first be ascertained by the I.P. No agreement of any kind or nature shall be abrogated without sanction of the I.P. From these provisions it is clear that the International and the locals of IBEW act according to a unifying plan in their contractual arrangements, and in the en- forcement of both National and Local Agreements. The International supports Local Agreements to the extent that a violation of a Local Agreement is deemed to annul all agreements between the same employer and any other local. The locals are thus part of the plan, and the inference is that the locals will abide by the laws and regulations. of the International. In this connection, it is worthy of note that Local 11, IBEW, does not here claim that it is not a component of IBEW or that it is not bound by the constitution of the International; it merely claims that it is not bound by the National Agreement be- cause it was not a party to that agreement. The plan of contractual arrangement set forth in the constitution of IBEW also finds expression in section 15.01 of the National Agreement. It reads as follows: Section 15.01-Application. No provision shall be included in a Supplementary Local Agreement which is contrary to or inconsistent with any provision of the National Agreement. Provisions may be included in Supplementary Local Agreements to supplement, but not to change, provisions of the National Agreement. [Emphasis supplied.] Concluding Findings It is undisputed that the employees in this unit voted for, and selected, "Local 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO," as their bargaining representative. Certainly, the name of the International on the ballot of the election was not useless surplusage. Undoubtedly, the employees considered the advantages to be gained by selecting as their representative, a local of a strong International union, and one which had a large, vigorous membership in other plants of their em- ployer. In their selection they sought benefits which would be derived from affili- ation with the International. But now, because Local 11, IBEW, does not like a few specific provisions of the National Agreement, especially the no-strike, no-lockout clause, it seeks to act as an independent, unaffiliated union, and disavow the National Agreement of its parent. On this point it should be noted that the National Agree- ment confers many benefits on all Locals, including Local 11, such as checkoff, grievance procedures, holidays and holiday pay, layoff allowance and leaves of absence, night shift premium, overtime payments, seniority procedures, show-up and call-in pay, supplemental workmen's compensation payments, union shop, va- cation payments, and many other benefits. Apparently, Local 11 is prepared to accept these benefits, but not the corresponding duties of the contract. To permit Local 11 to act in that manner would be to dis- regard all fundamental principles of both law and equity. The employees in this unit chose Local 11, IBEW, as their representative, and they must be held to accept both the benefits and the responsibilities and duties that flow from the relationship between their Local and its parent. Affiliation is not a handy overcoat that can be put on in stormy weather, and discarded when the sun begins to shine. Affiliation is a constant, stabilizing influence in labor relations and it is of such a serious nature that disaffiliation can be accomplished only by some formal, legal act. Local 11 cannot be allowed to act like an independent union on some days, and like Local 11, IBEW, on others. Such a situation would bring chaos into orderly procedures of collective bargaining, which have been tested by time and found to be effective. The Board has considered one case which is nearly on all fours with the instant case. In Radio Corporation of America, RCA Victor Division, 107 NLRB 993, the LOCAL 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ETC. 991 Board has a provision similar to that in the instant case before it. 'he last sentence of paragraph 3.01 of the National Agreement in that case reads as follows: Any units for which IUE shall hereafter be recognized shall automatically be included and covered by this Agreement. In that case, the company had signed a stipulation recognizing IUE as the sole collective-bargaining agency for a group of clerical employees. Thereafter, the Office Employees International Union, AFL, filed a petition for representation of the group. The company and the IUE contended that immediately on signing of the stipulation, the National Agreement with IUE became effective and was a bar to the OEIU petition, although a supplementary local agreement had not yet been negoti- ated. The Board upheld the Company's position in the TUE case. The IUE case differs from the present one in one respect, and that is, that the local in that case did not object to coverage by the National Agreement . However, that National Agree- ment was with the International of IUE and if it was effective as against another union, the OEIU, so as to bar an election, it would seem to be equally effective against a local of IUE. Certainly, applying the same holding to the present case, if the Na- tional Agreement of the International IBEW would be effective immediately upon certification of Local 11 as against another union, so as to bar an election , it would also be effective to bind Local 11, when the applicable provisions of the IBEW con- stitution are taken into account. The instant case is not like the case of N.L.R.B. v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U.S. 342, in which it was held to constitute an unfair labor practice for the employer to insist on excluding from the contract the International which had been certified. In that case the employer was seeking to exclude a certified repre- sentative from the collective-bargaining agreement. Here, there is no refusal to bargain or to sign an agreement with the certified Local. The Company asks only that the Local Agreement, signed with Local 11 , IBEW, be consistent with, and give respect to its National Agreement with the parent of, Local 11, IBEW. The Board and the courts , since the earliest days of the Act, have recognized the legal effect of constitutional provisions and rules of intemational unions upon local unions of the same International,3 and this relationship of the local to its International is one of the foundation stones upon which many procedures of collective bargaining are based. If the respective positions of the parties here are analyzed , we find that at all times the Company was ready and willing to bargain on the terms of a Local Agreement; and in fact did bargain on that subject . However, the Company made it clear to Local 11, IBEW, that it felt obligated to honor its National Agreement with IBEW, and to refrain from making any contract not consistent with the National Agreement. This position the Company was required to take by its contract with IBEW. On the other hand, Local 11 , IBEW, stated that it refused to honor the National Agreement of its parent, and repudiated its duty to cooperate with its parent, as clearly defined in the constitution of IBEW : Thus, as a local of IBEW, it sought a contract in terms which could not be approved by its parent , and which ran contrary to the action of its sister locals. As stated previously, such conduct, if condoned, would unhinge many orderly procedures of collective bargaining which are the basis of our administration of the Act. Upon all the evidence, I am constrained to find that upon the facts here presented, the Company did not refuse to bargain as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 8 American Newspaper Publishers Association v. N.L.R.B , et al , 193 F. 2d 782 (C.A. 7) ; The Cessna Aircraft Company, 123 NLRB 855. Local Union 154, International Typographical- Union, AFL-CIO, Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council and Ypsilanti Press, Inc. Case No. 7-CC-159.. February 13, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On November 14, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene' E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 135 NLRB No. 96.