The John J. Corbett Press Corp.

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