Intl. Union of Elevator Constructors

INTL. UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO and National Elevator Industry, Inc., Area No. 14. Case 20-CB-2086 September 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On June 3, 1970, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in a certain unfair labor practice and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision accompanied by a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified ' We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Examin- er's Decision which in no way affects our adoption thereof In the last sentence of the last paragraph concerning Joseph Flynn 's testimony in Sec IIIB, of the Decision , the date that Flynn made his remark,"We brought out a bottle and had a drink It was a culmination of a year-" should be changed from July 9 to July 10 ' As a further basis for our conclusions herein, we note that according to the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Joseph Flynn, the Charging Party's chief negotiator, on July 10, 1968 , at the beginning of the negotia- tions, the Respondent's business agent, Henry Rueda, specifically said that he had full authority from his membership to negotiate and that he did not have to take any agreement back to them ' We reach our conclusion herein without reliance upon the matter in Trial Examiner's footnote 10, which for purposes of this case, we consider irrelevant In addition, we hereby delete the Trial Examiner's seventh and eighth conclusions of law which are merely repetitious 769 below, and orders that the Respondent, International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL- CIO, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a): "Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collec- tively with the Employer, as to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment covering employees in the appropriate unit, by failing and refusing to sign the collective-bargaining agreement upon which the parties agreed on July 9, 1969." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "As the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the above described appropriate unit, bargain collectively with the Employer by signing the collective-bargaining agreement upon which the parties agreed on July 9, 1969." 3. Delete paragraph 2(b) and renumber the follow- ing two paragraphs accordingly. 4. Substitute for the second indented paragraph in the notice the following: WE WILL sign the collective-bargaining agree- ment on which we reached agreement with the Employer on July 9, 1969. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HENRY S. SAHM, Trial Examiner - Upon a charge filed on September 15, 1969, by the Trade Association of the Elevator Manufacturers , herein called both the Association and NEII, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued his complaint dated December 4, 1969, against the International Union of Elevator Construc- tors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, referred to hereinafter as the Union. The complaint alleges that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act in that it refused to sign a document containing a collective-bargaining agreement whose terms had been agreed upon previously . The Respondent Union filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denied generally the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. At the hearing, Respondent contended that a binding agreement was never reached nor was the contract ratified by the membership of the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on February 11, 1970, before me. The General Counsel's representative and Respondent filed briefs on March 9, 1970, which have been fully consid- ered. Upon the entire record in the case, from observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, upon consideration of the arguments of counsel and citations' of cases alleged to be dispositive of the issues in this proceeding, there are hereby made the following: 185 NLRB No. 112 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION National Elevator Industry, Inc., herein referred to as both NEII and the Association, is a voluntary association of employers engaged in manufacturing , installing, repairing, and servicing elevators . It exists for the purpose, inter aha, of representing and assisting employer-members through the procedures of multiemployer collective bargain- ing in negotiating and entering into labor contracts with the collective-bargaining representative of their employees, one of whom is the International Union of Elevator Con- structors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, herein called interchange- ably the Union, the International and the Respondent NEII has various local employer groups including National Elevator Industry, Inc., Area No 14, herein called NEII Area 14, which is located in San Francisco , California. Annually the employer-members of NEII collectively pur- chase products valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped to them in one State directly from another State . Annually the employer-members of NEII collectively sell and ship products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from one State to customers in other States. No jurisdictional issue is involved as Respondent does not deny the allegations in the complaint averring that said members are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is found, accordingly, that said members are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act II THE RESPONDENT UNION International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act iii. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background There has been a long history of bargaining between the parties for many years past. The then-current multiem- ployer agreement under which various employers and the Union were operating was due to be reopened for negotia- tions with respect to the establishment of zones within the jurisdiction of the 11 western states, known as Area 14, as well as travel time and travel expenses for each zone. The standard agreement provides that Local unions and local manufacturers may establish zones and travel times and allowances for each zone. ' In anticipation of renegotiating these items, the Employers' group and the Union met for the first time on July 10, 1968. Periodic meetings were held thereafter until an impasse was reached on May 16, 1969. In order to obviate this impasse, recourse was had by the Employers' group to the International Union which resulted in a meeting being scheduled for 41 July 9 Z The following individuals who had not participated in the negotiations before July 9, joined the heretofore constituted union and employer members comprising the respective bargaining committees. Don Offerman, a member of the National Labor Committee of the National Elevator Industry, Jersey City, New Jersey, and for the Local Union, Thomas Fitzgerald, secretary-treasurer of the International Union, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and John E. Dowd, regional representative of the International Union. In addition to Fitzgerald and Dowd, Hector E. Rueda, who succeeded Fitzgerald as business representative of Local 8 within the past year and who was attending these negotiat- ing sessions for the first time, and the president of the Local, Thomas Grosch who had been a member of the union negotiating committee in 1964 and 1966 , also were present. The Employers of Area 14 were represented by Joseph Flynn, Kenneth Snow, and Delbert Wallace. The first negotiating meeting after the May 16 impasse which was attended by the additional employer and union representatives named above, resumed on July 9, 1969, after a hiatus of approximately two months. The General Counsel alleges agreement was reached on July 9, with respect to the substantive terms of a travel expense agree- ment The Union denies this, contending the "tentative" agreement reached by the parties could not be executed until its membership ratified it. It is undisputed that in the past agreements negotiated over the years had never before required ratification by the union membership No negotiating meetings were held after July 10, and as a consequence of the parties' failure to execute a written collective-bargaining contract, the multiemployer group filed a charge against the Union and this proceeding ensued The fundamental issue is whether a binding agreement was reached between the parties with respect to the establish- ment of zones and travel time and travel expense allowances for each zone. B. The Testimony Joseph Flynn is employed by the Otis Elevator Company as regional construction manager and has held that position for 6 years He is regional zone chairman for the multiem- ployer association for Area No. 14, for its subcommittee on labor for the National Elevator Industry, Inc. Geograph- ical or territorial jurisdiction of Area 14 encompasses the 11 far western States not including Texas but including Alaska and Hawaii Flynn was also the multiemployers' labor chairman for 6 years for Area 14 when agreements were negotiated in 1964 and 1966 for travel and expenses with Respondent Local 8. He testified that in all those meetings the union representatives never declared that there was any limit on their authority to negotiate travel expense ,agreements nor was there any statement made in these prior meetings by said union negotiators that any agreements arrived at by them were subject to ratification by the local union membership. Flynn testified that the final agreement that was reached on July 9, with respect to traveling items and expenses See art XIII, par 2 of the current agreement Resp Exh 2, p See Resp Exh 1, a letter dated May 16, 1969, from the Employers to the International Union. INTL. UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS 771 was the proposal offered by the union negotiators. It was their formula, he testified, that was embodied in the final agreement. Flynn's testimony was that this agreement was not signed on July 9, because. "There were some minor words which [were] ambiguous, or slight semantics that we were going to meet the following day and make the changes the following day and sign the contract " Flynn stated that at none of the meetings prior to July 9 or on July 9, did Rueda, the union business representative, or any other member of the union negotiating committee state that any agreements arrived at would be subject to ratification by the membership. The negotiators met the following day, July 10, 1969. The only changes made at this meeting had to do with respect to "Minor changes to wording" These minor changes were not of a substantive nature but merely reaf- firmed the terms of the agreement which had been reached the previous day. Flynn's testimony continues as follows: Mr. Rueda [for the first time on July 10] said that he couldn't sign this, it had to be put on the statement and needed to be ratified by the membership. He did say first of all it's got to be ratified, and when we got pretty upset, he said relax, it's a mere formality, there's no problem to it, we'll get the agree- ment approved. i f i t I was personally upset, and the international representa- tives were also upset, making a statement that they had to come all the way from Philadelphia . . . and not to know they didn't have the authority to sign Under date of August 18, 1969, Rueda, business represent- ative of Local No. 8, sent a letter to Flynn which reads, as follows: Please be advised that the tentative agreement, signed by us on Wednesday, July 9, 1969, was rejected by the members of Local 8, I.U E.C, by secret ballot vote Our present Traveling Time and Expense Agreement is still in effect and shall be in effect beyond the date of September 15, 1969 Flynn by letter dated September 4, 1969, to Rueda, stated: As you know, N.E I I. Labor Committee, Area #14 and I.U.E C. Local #8 reached a new traveling expense agreement at the meeting held on July 9 It was not until the night of July 10, when we met to execute a contract containing the agreed terms, that you first informed us that you proposed to submit the contract to the members of Local #8. Accordingly, it is clear that your duty to bargain in good faith obligates you to execute a contract contain- ing the terms of our agreement. We have executed two copies of that contract, which are enclosed herewith. We request that you execute both copies and return one copy to us no later than September 15, the effective date of our agreement. If you have not returned the contract by that date, we will have no choice but to pursue our legal remedies. It appears that the traveling expense agreement which was to become effective on September 15, 1969, was signed by all members of the NEII Labor Committee for Area 14, and that Fitzgerald, the International's representative, and Grosch, the Local's president, both signed this agree- ment as did Rueda but underneath Rueda's signature appears the following "Subject to ratification by the IUEC Local #8 membership "3 On cross-examination, Flynn stated: "we felt that the committee that was appointed by the union had the authority to sign, and had the authority beginning at that time. ... [on] July 10, or thereabouts, in 1968." Flynn continued that negotiations did not start "afresh" on July 9, and that it was not until July 10 that Rueda for the first time notified the Association's negotiating committee that is was necessary for the membership to ratify the agreement before a contract could be executed. It was at this point, testified Flynn, that he objected to Rueda pleading lack of requisite authority to execute the agreement arrived at the previous day. On further cross-examination, it was elicited that negotia- tions began on July 10, 1968, and when an impasse was reached on May 16, 1969, negotiations were suspended and not resumed until July 9, 1969. However, on May 16, Flynn, as chairman of NEIl's Area 14 negotiating committee, wrote a letter to the International Union request- ing the International to appoint a new committee which would not include Rueda and to start negotiations "afresh." See Respondent Exhibit No. 1. However, Flynn denied that "fresh negotiations started again on July 9," testifying as follows- When we sat down on July 9, if we had thrown out all of the previous j rk that we had done, and the agreements, or areas that agreements that had been reached, I would say yes, we were starting afresh. But on July 9, when we sat down with the representa- tives of the International, and with a representative of our national committee, we took from previous areas of agreement, and stated we would start afresh. We will have to eliminate those items which the Interna- tional felt were not negotiable items, so basically when we sat down on July the 9th, we embodied in our agreement those portions that we had within our authority to negotiate, and eliminated from these previ- ous agreements those items which the International, and the National Labor Committee did not feel was in the authority of either the union, or management to negotiate. If that's starting afresh, we took the previous areas of agreements, and reached a conclusion. Q All right. Now, sir, it is true, however, that in that May letter, which is Respondent's No. 1 for identification, you rescinded all prior offers? A. I offered to Q. Let me read it to you again: all offers originally made in past negotiations are herewith rescinded. Did you say that? THE WITNESS: It's written. Q. (By Mr. Van Bourg) It's written, and you signed it, right? A. Yes. I See G C Exh 5 and 6 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. And you dictated that letter, right? A. Yes, sir. Q And you read it before you signed it and sent it, didn't you? Q. I would assume so, yes. A. And you're asking them in this letter to appoint a committee with power to act, right? A. I said that. Q. Yes. So, it would seem to me that it was in your mind that the committee should have full power to act, right? A It could be a figure of speech that it would be like the other power to act on the other committee Q So, you overlooked asking them at the commence- ment of the meeting on July 9 as to whether they had full authority to act? A. The International was present when-we had the International there on July 9th- Q. Yes. A. We were actually following the procedures estab- lished by the standard agreement. Q. Mr. Flynn, I would like you to answer the ques- tion, you know you didn't file charges against the International, you didn't file charges against this local, I'd like you just to pay attention to that, and answer the question as I asked it. Did you ask this local committee at the commencement of the negotiations on July 9- A. No, I did not Q. -as to whether they had all power to act? A. No, I did not. Q. So the most you could do is assume that they didn't have to take it back to their membership? A. As far as present, yes. Q. Will you let me ask you another question. Aren't you aware of the fact that between this letter of May 19-May 16 rather-1969, and your first meeting in July that the local union membership held a meeting, and they specifically passed a motion prohibiting the union committee from entering into an agreement with- out bunging it back for ratification? A. I was not aware of that. Q. You didn't even know that by hearsay? A. No, wasn't aware of it until when Mr. Rueda made the statement on July 10th, not the 9th, the 10th, when he made the statement in front of our committee, everyone was astounded, everyone. On redirect examination, Flynn testified that Fitzgerald, vice president of the International, who had previously been business representative for the Local and who had represented the Local as its negotiator in 1964 and 1966, stated when Rueda announced that the agreement was subject to membership ratification: "You mean to say . [I] had to come all the way from Philadelphia and [Rueda] couldn't settle the issue once and for all." When Flynn was asked by the General Counsel's representative what his opinion was with respect to whether or not they had arrived at a binding contract on July 9, he answered: "We brought out a bottle and had a drink. It was a culmination of a year-" Kenneth Snow, Pacific coast regional manager of Westing- house Elevator, a member of NEII's Area 14 negotiating committee since October 1968, corroborated Flynn's testi- mony, stating that he attended all of the negotiating sessions and neither Rueda nor Grosch nor any other union repre- sentative ever announced that any agreement reached had to be submitted to the union membership for ratification until he heard Rueda so state for the first time on July 10 Delbert G Wallace, construction superintendent for the San Francisco District, Haughton Elevator Company, who attended the negotiating sessions on July 9 and 10, was called as a witness by Respondent. Wallace, a member of the NEII Area 14 multiemployer group, denied that Rueda notified the Employers' neogtiating committee mem- bers on July 9, that union membership ratification was necessary for any agreement reached Wallace also denied that due to the impasse new negotiations started "all over again" on July 9. Thomas Grosch, president of Respondent Local 8, testi- fied that as soon as the resumed meetings commenced on July 9, 1969, Rueda "made the first statement, and he said that we had had a floor motion from our local that we had to have ratification votes of the membership on any agreements made here. . . . Mr. Flynn was quite upset. . . . He didn't like it, but he thought he could live with it." Grosch also testified that the only thing Fitzgerald, secretary-treasurer of the International Union, said when Rueda stated ratification was necessary was: "At that time I don't think he said anything except, I think, if that's the way the membership wants it, that's the way it will have to be." C. Contentions The General Counsel alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign the agreed- upon contract. It is the contention of the Union that whatever "tentative" agreements were reached were subject to the ratification of the members, and the Union at no time during the negotiations in question had the authority to settle without the ratification of the members. The union negotiating committee, claims the Union, submitted the tentative agreement for a ratification vote with the knowl- edge and approval of the employers at the time the tentative agreement was reached and that such a ratification vote was required before the agreement could be finalized The members refused to ratify the agreement and therefore the Local Union has refused to sign the agreement. Under these circumstances, argues Respondent Union, it is clear that the complaint against the Respondent Union should be dismissed. D. Credibility Respondent's unexplained failure to have Rueda, the prime actor in the events which eventuated in this proceed- ing, take the witness stand and testify as to crucial matters which were peculiarly and solely within his own knowledge, INTL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS 773 "weighs heavily in favor of the General Counsel 's case."' The failure to have Rueda testify warrants drawing an inference that if he had, his testimony would not have been favorable to Respondent's case.' Indeed, a proximate consequence of this ommission renders Grosch's testimony hard to believe that Rueda announced at the outset of the July 9 meeting that membership ratification was required which is contrary to all the witnesses ' testimony that it was July 10. Moreover, the Union's assertion that the membership passed a resolution requiring ratification was not substantiated by introducing corroborative legal proof of such fact . Under such circumstances , this missing link may be as probative a basis for inference as words or deeds 6 This failure to produce the resolution or the minutes of the union meeting "not only strengthens the probative force" of its absence "but of itself is clothed with a certain probative force,"' and leads one to postulate whether it was advanced ex post facto. Accordingly, it is found that the membership ratification announcement was not made by Rueda until the July 10 negotiating session. E. Discussion In Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local No. 65 (Inland Steel Products Company), 120 NLRB 1678, it was held that the union unlawfully refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3) when the union's agents refused to sign a contract which had been agreed to by the parties It was the union's contention that its executive board and the membership of the local both had to ratify negotiated agreements . The Board held, however, that this defense did not justify the union negotiators' refusal to sign the contract because the union negotiators acted as if they had full authority to reach and execute a binding contract Moreover, held the Board, they exercised their apparent authority during these negotiations in a manner displayed during previous contract negotiations in prior years and when the current contract was being negotiated they did not notify the employer that their right to bind the union had been diminished. In Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (California Association of Employers), 123 NLRB 922, the Board held that the union unlawfully refused to bargain with an employ- ers' association by refusing to execute an agreement negotiat- ed jointly by the respondent union's representative and the representatives of three other unions The Board stated that the bargaining history established the respondent union's agents had authority to conclude a contract and that these agents had in fact reached an agreement with the employers' association which the union was obligated to execute Moreover, concluded the Board, the union was obligated to sign the wage agreement negotiated by two 4 J. C Penney Co, Inc., 172 NLRB No 134 Interstate Circuit v U S .306 U S 208, 225, 226, Homedale Tractor Co, 211 F 2d 309, 315 (C A 9), Gibbs Die Casting Aluminum Corp. 174 NLRBNo 15(TXD) Crane Co. v. James McHugh Sons, Inc., 108 F 2d 55, 59 (C A. 10) Cf. Electrical Workers (UE), Local 1113 v N.L.R B., 223 F 2d 338,343 (C A D C) Paudler v Paudler, 185 F 2d 901, 903 (C A 5), cert denied 341 U S. 920. of its business agents, notwithstanding the union 's contention that the business agents were authorized only to negotiate and to administer contracts, inasmuch as the business agents had previously concluded and executed contracts on the union's behalf, thereby clearly establishing their apparent authority to do so in the current negotiations. In Painters Union, Local No. 1385 (Associated Building Contractors of Evansville, Inc.), 143 NLRB 678, enfd. N.L.R.B. v. Painters Union, 334 F.2d 729 (C.A. 7), the court held that the Board was warranted in finding that the union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign a written collective-bargaining contract containing terms upon which the union and the employers ' association had agreed. The union contended that it could not sign the contract because, inter alia, the union membership had not ratified the contract as required by the constitution of the union . The Board in its decision stated at 680 that despite the provision in the respondent union's constitu- tion requiring membership ratification of collective-bargain- ing agreements, the facts clearly show that an agreement was reached between the parties. This was based upon the Board's finding that the union negotiators failed to state any reservations of authority at any of the negotiating meetings and furthermore, it was uncontradicted that during 30 years of negotiations between the respondent union and employers' association , that whatever was agreed upon orally was reduced to writing and signed by the parties without reference to membership approval . The Board con- cluded that the respondent union by refusing to sign the written agreement , the terms of which had been agreed upon previously , failed to bargain in good faith and thereby violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. In Glass Workers Union Local No. 1220 (Industrial Con- ference Board), 162 NLRB 168 , the Board held that the union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign a fully agreed-upon contract notwithstanding a failure to meet the union's constitutional requirement of ratification by the local's membership! F. Conclusions In the instant case, the facts constitute an a fortiori situation in that there was no constitutional requirement that ratification by the Local Union's membership was necessary or required. Moreover, the Respondent Union's negotiators in past negotiations over many years had never indicated implicitly or explicitly that such ratification was a prerequisite to the execution of a collective-bargaining agreement . In applying the teachings of the above-cited cases that past bargaining practices between a union and an employer are a significant indicium in determining wheth- er or not the union is bound by an agreement reached in negotiations by its representatives , it is found, based upon the circumstances in the case at bar , that the union negotiators had apparent authority 'to bind the Respondent Local 'Union. This holding is particularly clear when it is considered that the Board and courts have held that ' See also Los Angeles Mailers' Union No. 9 (Dow Jones & Co), 155 NLRB 684; Local 17, ILWU, 171 NLRB No 166, United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers (Nevada Cement Co), 173 NLRB No 214 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD even though the constitution of a union may require ratifica- tion by the membership, an employer may rely upon the apparent authority of the union representatives to conclude an agreement where there is a basis for such reliance, as in this case, where for a number of years the practice had been for a union representative to execute the contract without membership ratification. Moreover, under the pecul- iar circumstances here present, it would seem not too unreasonable to hold that the union representatives should have been clothed with sufficient authority to execute a contract in view of the cogent fact that in the past its representatives had authority to not only negotiate but to execute any contract without the necessity of subsequent membership ratification. Respondent's assertion that Rueda had no authority to execute the written agreement might be considered questionable after-the-fact rationalization insufficient to explain his conduct and, therefore, may prop- erly be regarded with some suspicion.' Furthermore, where the NEII had no notice of a change in this procedure until after agreement was reached, it would not only be inequitable but contrary to Board preced- ent to hold the Union not to be bound. Therefore, under these circumstances, the multiemployer bargaining associa- tion was justified in relying on the Respondent Union's representatives apparent authority to conclude and execute a contract embodying the agreement reached on July 9, 1969. It is found, accordingly, that refusal on the part of the union representatives to sign an agreement based on a claim that they had no authority and that the agreement must be ratified by the membership, when the above consid- erations obtain, is a violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act 10 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce 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 unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, it shall be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ' Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 351 F 2d 917 (CA 6), enfg 144 NLRB 1268 Cf N.LRB. v Lorillard Co., 117 F 2d 921, 924 (CA. 6), N.LR.B v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc, 339 U S 563, 565 10 George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, is quoted in an article, "Labor Leaders," in the Catholic Standard, Washington, D C., of March 5, 1970, by Msgr George G. Higgins that Mr Meany "urges that unions empower their negotiating committees to conclude binding agree- ments without the need for subsequent ratification " CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. National Elevator Industry, Inc., is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No 8, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 All elevator constructor mechanics and elevator con- structor helpers in the employ of NEII engaged in the installation, repair, maintenance and servicing of all equip- ment referred to in article IV, paragraph 2 of the said agreement, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. On July 10, 1969, and at all times material thereafter, the Union was and now is the exclusive representative of the above-designated Employers' employees in the said appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5 By failing and refusing to execute the written agreement of the parties, as agreed upon on July 9, 1969, the Respond- ent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. By failing and refusing to execute the written agreement of the parties, as agreed upon July 9, 1969, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, it is recommended that International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the National Elevator Industry, Inc., Area No. 14, as to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment covering employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate, by refusing to sign the collective-bargaining agreement upon which the parties have agreed, or from engaging in any like or related conduct in derogation of the statutory duty to bargain. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with National Ele- vator Industry, Inc., Area No. 14, as the exclusive represent- ative of the employees in the units heretofore found appropriate and embody any understanding which may be reached in a signed agreement. (b) If requested by National Elevator Industry, Inc., Area No. 14, execute the contract on which agreement was reached with the said Employers on July 9, 1969. INTL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS 775 (c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including such places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 " 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 , recommendations , 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 In the event that 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify you that- WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with National Elevator Industry, Inc., Area No 14, as the exclusive representative of the said Employ- ers' employees in the appropriate unit described below by refusing to sign the written collective-bargaining agreement to which we agreed, on July 9, 1969, and we will not engage in any like or related conduct in derogation of our statutory duty to bargain, provided we remain the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, as prescribed in Section 9 of the Act. WE WILL, if requested by National Elevator Industry, Inc, Area No. 14, execute the contract on which we reached agreement with the said Employers on July 9, 1969. The appropriate unit is All elevator constructor mechanics and elevator constructor helpers in the employ of NEII, Area 14, engaged in the installation, repair, maintenance and servicing of all equipment. Dated By INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS , LOCAL No 8, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.