Local 44, United Plumbers & Pipefitters

LOCAL 44, UNITED PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS 225 Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and John R. Morris. Case 19-CB-1532 January 31, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On April 22, 1971, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There- after, Respondents and the Charging Party filed excep- tions and supporting briefs. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order2 with the following modifications. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that all 14 Spokane area employers involved herein timely and unequivocally withdrew from the Washington State Employers' Council and requested that Respondents bargain with them individually. We do not agree with his conclusion that Respondents, by refusing to bargain on this basis, violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. It is clear to us that the only unit in which the employees of these 14 employers wished to bargain was the historical multiemployer unit and that they had no desire to be represented by Respondents in negotiations with individual employers. In these circumstances, Re- spondents were obligated to act in accordance with the wishes of the employees whom they represent, and since these employees did not want to bargain in units consisting only of their own employers on an individual basis Respondents could lawfully refuse the requests of the above-mentioned 14 employers to do so. Thus, the employees of these 14 employers, through their collec- tive-bargaining representative, cannot be compelled to bargain in a unit not to their liking, nor can Respond- ents be compelled to represent them in such a unit. Similarly, by these employers' actions of withdraw- ing from the Council they could lawfully resist Re- spondents' demands that they return to the multiem- ployer unit. Consequently, the net result of our decision is that we cannot compel bargaining to take place herein unless one of the parties changes its position, and agreement is reached as to the unit appropriate for bargaining. We are of the view that this result neces- sarily follows from the choice employees are free to make under the Act, and we shall dismiss this portion of the complaint. It also follows that Respondents were not free to coerce these employers into reassigning their bargain- ing authority to the Employers' Council. For this rea- son, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respond- ents, by their actions with respect to Standard Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., and by striking the 12 other named Spokane area employers (excluding Gale) on June 2, 1970, violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.' Based upon the Trial Examiner's findings of fact and on the record as a whole, we substitute the following conclusion of law for the Trial Examiner's third con- clusion of law: "3. All persons employed as journeymen or appren- tice plumbers or pipefitters by each of the above-named employers (with the exception of Gale) excluding all other crafts and classifications of employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act."' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond- ents, Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, their 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): "(a) Enforcing any collective-bargaining agreement with the Washington State Employers' Council against the above-named employers (with the exception of Gale)." 2. Substitute the attached notice marked "Appen- dix" for the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision. ' Inasmuch as violations of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act were neither al- leged in the complaint nor litigated at the hearing, we decline the Charging Party's request to make such findings ' Although the Trial Examiner recommended that Respondents cease and desist from restraining or coercing employers in the Spokane area whose employees they represent in the choice of a bargaining representative, he did not include any such provision in the Appendix to his Decision Accord- ingly, we shall grant the Charging Party's request to include such a provision therein ' Gale Mechanical Contractors, Inc , reassigned its bargaining authority to the Employers' Council on May 19, 1970 Inasmuch as the record is silent as to any coercion by Respondents to achieve this reassignment, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's 8(b)(1)(B) finding insofar as it concerns this alleged coercion of Gale ' The above-described single-employer units are substantially the same as in the recently expired multi-employer agreement between Respondents and the Washington State Employers' Council 195 NLRB No. 27 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER KENNEDY , dissenting in part: I disagree with my colleagues' failure to find that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to bargain separately with each of the 14 Spo- kane area employers involved herein. Respondents here are not asserting that some other single-employer unit is appropriate under Section 9(b) of the Act, or that a question of representation exists within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act.' Rather, Respondents insist that they are entitled to bargain with these employers only in a statewide multiemployer unit, despite these employers' timely withdrawal from that unit. The majority construes Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, erroneously in my view, as not obligating Respondents to bargain with any of these employers in any unit. The fact that these employers timely and unequivocally withdrew from the multiemployer unit makes, as the majority concedes, single-employer units appropriate. Yet the majority concludes that Respondents, although duly selected by the employees as their collective-bar- gaining representative, are under no obligation to bar- gain with these employers in such units. In my view this result would perhaps be justified if Respondents had disclaimed any interest in represent- ing the employees of the employers. But this is not the case here. On the contrary, Respondents continue to insist that they represent the employees and that these employers bargain with them as such representative- but only on Respondents' own terms. Employers' refusals to bargain individually with un- ions who have timely withdrawn from multiemployer units have long been held to be violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.' The refusal of the majority to find that unions violate Section 8(b)(3) under identical fac- tual situations appears to me to be an unwarranted double-standard application of the Act. Moreover, the rationale of the majority, that "the employees of these 14 employers, through their collective-bargaining rep- resentative, cannot be compelled to bargain in a unit not to their liking, nor can Respondents be compelled to represent them in such a unit, "flies in the face of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, and Local 59, International Brotherhood of Elec- ' Indeed, it is undisputed that the employees of these 14 employers have at all material times been members of Local 44 and represented by Respond- ents The testimony of General Counsel's witnesses to this effect stands unrefuted There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the parties herein failed to comply with the hiring hall provisions in the collective- bargaining agreement between Respondents and the Council These em- ployees' continued allegiance to and membership in Respondents was graphically demonstrated by their support of the strike action called by Respondents on June 2, 1970 ' Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc,etal, 156 NLRB 210, enfd 364 F 2d 293 (C A 2, 1966), cert denied 385 US 971, The Evening News Association, The Owner and Publisher of "The Detroit News" 154 NLRB 1482, 154 NLRB 1494, enfd 372 F 2d 569 (C A 6, 1967) trical Workers, AFL-CIO (Texlite, Inc.),' wherein the Board stated: A union which is the statutory representative of employees in an appropriate unit has the obliga- tion, as does the employer, to bargain in good faith with respect to terms and conditions of employ- ment for employees in that unit. A refusal "to enter into a collective bargaining agreement, un- less the other party to the negotiations agrees to a provision or takes some action which is unlawful or inconsistent with the basic policy of the Act is a refusal to bargain in violation of the Act." [Cit- ing American Radio Association, 82 NLRB 1344, 1346.] Hence a union which insists upon bargaining only for an inappropriate unit does not fulfill its obligation to bargain as defined in the act. [Empha- sis supplied.] Finally, while I am in agreement with the majority that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by coercing these employers into reassigning their bar- gaining authority to the Employers' Council, unlike the majority, I would find that this action was also violative of Section 8(b)(3). I reach this result because Respond- ents' coercion also had a purpose of forcing the employ- ers to forego collective bargaining and, instead, to ac- cept the agreement negotiated between Respondents and the Employers' Council. Such actions by unions have been held to constitute bad-faith bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(3).8 In view of the foregoing, I would find that Respond- ents violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 119 NLRB 1792, enfd. 266 F 2d 349 (C.A 5, 1959) Southern California Pipe Trades District Council No. 16 of the United Association (Aero Plumbing Co.), 167 NLRB 1004, and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, et al, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 280, et al. (Aero Plumbing Company), 184 NLRB No 44, enfd 449 F 2d 668 (C A 9), Operative Plasterers'& Cement Masons' International Association Local No. 2, AFL-CIO (Arnold M Hansen), 149 NLRB 1264 APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Arnold & Jeff- ers, Inc.; F & S Plumbing and Heating Co.; Glenn's Mechanical, Inc.; Hall Plumbing and Heating, Inc.; Lester N. Johnson Co.; McClintock and Turk, Inc.; Powell Plumbing and Heating; Senna Service, Inc.; Spokane Plumbing and Heat- ing Co., Inc.; Standard Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc.; Warren, Little & Lund, Inc.; Western Mechanical Contractors, Inc.; and Womack and Conboy, Inc., in the choice of a collective-bargain- ing representative. LOCAL 44, UNITED PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS 227 WE WILL NOT enforce any collective-bargain- ing agreement with Washington State Employers' Council against the above -named employers. practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) and (1)(B) of the Act. Briefs have been submitted by all parties. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) LOCAL 44 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (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, Republic Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Ave- nue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 206-583- 7473. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTIN S BENNETT, Trial Examiner. This matter was heard at Spokane, Washington, on January 19, 1971. The complaint, issued September 15 and based upon charges filed May 15 and September 9, 1970, by John R. Morris in behalf of a group of employers more fully described below, alleges that Respondents Local 44 and Washington State Associa- tion of the United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein respectively Local 44 and Washington Association, had engaged in unfair labor FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS This case involves a dispute between Respondents and 14 employers in the Spokane, Washington, area. The commerce facts as to the latter, herein the employers, are as follows: Arnold & Jeffers, Inc., a Washington corporation engaged in mechanical contracting, annually receives in excess of $50,000 for services performed outside the State of Washing- ton and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside that State. F & S Plumbing and Heating Co., a Washington corpora- tion engaged in mechanical and electrical contracting on both a wholesale and retail basis, annually grosses in excess of $500,000 and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Wash- ington. Gale Mechanical Contractors, Inc., a Washington corpora- tion engaged in mechanical contracting and repair on both a wholesale and retail basis, annually grosses in excess of $500,000, receives $50,000 for services performed outside the State of Washington and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside that State. Glenn's Mechanical, Inc., a Washington corporation en- gaged in mechanical contracting, annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Washington or from suppliers within the State who have purchased same directly from sources outside that State. Hall Plumbing and Heating, Inc., an Idaho corporation engaged in mechanical contracting and servicing on a whole- sale and retail basis, annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Idaho or from suppliers within that State who pur- chase same directly from sources outside the State. Lester N. Johnson Co., a Washington corporation engaged in pipeline construction, annually receives in excess of $50,000 for services performed for customers located outside the State of Washington or for customers within that State who perform services valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State. McClintock and Turk, Inc., a Washington corporation en- gaged in mechanical contracting and plumbing repair on both a retail and wholesale basis, annually grosses in excess of $500,000 and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Wash- ington. Powell Plumbing and Heating is a partnership, composed of Byron W. Adams, Jessie May Adams, and Robert F. Adams, which is engaged in mechanical contracting. It annu- ally receives in excess of $50,000 for services performed out- side the State of Washington and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of that sum directly from sources outside that State. Senna Service, Inc., a Washington corporation engaged in mechanical contracting, annually receives in excess of $50,000 for services performed outside the State of Washing- ton and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of that sum directly from sources outside that State Spokane Plumbing and Heating Co. is a partnership com- posed of George C. Laue and Jane E. Laue which is engaged in mechanical contracting and repair. It annually purchases 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Washington. Standard Plumbing and Heating Co ., Inc., a Washington corporation engaged in mechanical contracting and repair on both a wholesale and retail basis, annually grosses in excess of $500,000, of which $50,000 is received for services per- formed outside the State of Washington . It also purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside that State. Warren, Little & Lund, Inc., a Washington corporation engaged in mechanical contracting , annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Washington. Western Mechanical Contractors , Inc., a Washington cor- poration engaged in mechanical contracting, annually re- ceives in excess of $50,000 for services performed outside the State of Washington and purchases goods and materials valued in excess of that sum directly from sources outside that State. Womack and Conboy, Inc., a Washington corporation en- gaged in mechanical contracting, annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Washington. Respondents admit and I find that the operations of the above named employers affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein respectively Local 44 and Washington As- sociation, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. Washington Association is the bargain- ing agent for its constituent Local 44 which has jurisdiction over the Spokane, Washington, area. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the Issues Since 1954, the bargaining pattern for the plumbing indus- try in the State of Washington has been as follows. After a Board certification in Case 19-RC-1507, Respondent Wash- ington Association has represented all plumbers' local unions in the State in negotiations with Washington State Employ- ers' Council for the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry , herein Employers' Council.' The last industry agreement between the two groups ran from May 27, 1967, through May 28, 1970. There is some conflict as to whether this contract expired on May 28, 1970, but this is not a dispositive factor herein . Be that as it may, the contract provided that it would renew absent a 60-day notice and such notice was duly given. It should be noted initially that the so-called statewide agreement is really not that at the present time. This is so because the Seattle area , which is the largest metropolitan area in the State, is not party to the last statewide agreement. The record does not supply the precise date that the Seattle local and its attendant employers parted company with their brethren, although it would appear that it was in the last few years. The instant dispute stems from the efforts of employers in the Spokane area to break away from the broader pattern of bargaining. Dissatisfied for many years with their representa- tion, and rejecting the concept of everlasting matrimony, they herein attempted to follow a separate pattern . The General Counsel alleges that they accomplished their objective and that Respondents refused to bargain in good faith , individu- ally, with these employers. It is further alleged that Respond- ents restrained and coerced 14 individual employers in the selection of a representative for the purpose of collective bar- gaining by forcing them to join and bargain through said Employers' Council. B. Sequence of Events The employers in the Spokane , Washington, area who were signatory to or bound to the so-called statewide contract and are involved herein became disenchanted with their bargain- ing representative.' In December of 1969, 12 of them, with 2 others on January 12 and February 11, 1970, served notice of revocation and termination of the contract upon Respond- ents and upon the Employers' Council. These 14 employers had been covered by the so-called statewide contract which provided that it would renew on May 28, 1970, from year to year absent 60-day written notice to amend, modify, supplement, revise, or terminate. It is undisputed that they, together with other employers in the Spokane area, sought to form their own employer association under the name of "44 Area Employers." There is uncontroverted testimony that the Spokane area employers attempted a twofold ploy . Initially, they timely withdrew from the Employers' Council. As a two-step strate- gem, they then formed an employer association known as "44 Area Employers," manifestly an employer group consistent with the geographical jurisdiction of Local 44; this was headed by their agent , John R. Morris, who has been con nected with and has represented other employer groups in the industry in this area. On February 18, 1970, Morris, as acting director for 44 Area Employers, wrote to Washington Association in Spo- kane and requested it to enter into collective bargaining. Secretary-Treasurer W. J. Linahan of the latter declined, on February 26, on the basis that this was a fragmented unit which did not correspond with the Board's certification and declared that Washington State would resist this effort by the involved Employers. On March 3, Morris, in behalf of this same group, filed a petition to establish a Spokane area unit in Case 19-RM-821; this was dismissed on March 17 . In addition, on March 19, a charge was filed in Case 19-CB-1509 alleging the same type of unfair labor practices as in the instant case, although tail- ored to the group instead of the individual employers as herein. The Regional Director declined to issue a complaint on April 1 , 1970. Both administrative decisions were later upheld on appeal. In the interim, on March 5, Washington Association notified Employers' Council that it was opening the state contract negotiations. On March 6, Morris requested Local 44 to bargain with the 44 Area Employers and, on March 13, Business Manager Frank Forrest declined, pointing out that Local 44 was represented by the certified Washington As- sociation . Then, on April 21, negotiations did commence between Employers' Council and Washington Association. The second part of the plan of the Spokane employers was to attempt to bargain individually if the broader plan did not succeed. Hence, between April 9 and 27, 1970, each of the 14 Employers sent separate letters on their own letterheads to Washington Association and Local 44 jointly Each re- The Employer group was originally identified otherwise and the present 2 As noted, with Seattle the largest city in the State not party thereto, I entity recognized in Case 19-AC-1 seriously question the concept of a statewide contract LOCAL 44, UNITED PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS 229 quested bargaining for a new contract, named John Moms as authorized agent for such bargaining, and stated that the respective employer would participate in the bargaining with Morris. Secretary Linahan of Washington Association replied to each on May 1 in behalf of both Respondents. He stated that Washington Association represented the broad certified unit and that it would not bargain with the respective Employers "on a separate basis." He added that Washington Association was the agent for its affiliate Local 44 and claimed that there was no showing of an unequivocal attempt to engage in sepa- rate bargaining. During this period, bargaining between Em- ployers' Council and Washington Association was carried on to the point where on May 28 there was agreement on new wage rates but not on other issues. The General Counsel has developed evidence how 1 of the 14 individual employers, Standard Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., herein Standard, fared. Standard had a subcontract with J.A. Jones Construction Company to perform some re- pairs on the nuclear reactor at the Atomic Energy Commis- sion plant in Hanford, Washington . Time was of essence as the plant was to be shut down for 3 months on June 1. The Atomic Energy Commission contacted Standard on April 17 seeking assurance of a continued supply of manpower. Stan- dard sought such assurance from Local 598 at Hanford which is a member of Washington Association. The reply later that month came in the form of a letter from Washington Association to the Atomic Energy Commission. Reference was made to Standard's April 17 letter. Washing- ton Association then stated that it had considered special approval for the repair project on the nuclear reactor, at the request of Local 598, but pointed out that Standard no longer recognized the approved bargaining structure in the industry and therefore, under the circumstances, neither Washington Association nor Local 598 could guarantee continuity of manpower on June 1. There followed some correspondence between Standard and Respondents in an effort by Standard to bail out of this predicament. Thus, on April 29, Standard asked if reappoint- ment of Employers' Council as bargaining agent would result in approval of the manning of the Atomic Energy Commis- sion Project. On May 5, Respondents pointed out that reap- pointment of Employers' Council would be welcome. On May 6, Standard agreed to return to the provisions of the Washington Association agreement and reassigned its collective-bargaining agency to Employers' Council. This was accepted by Washington Association on May 8 and, on May 11, Respondents guaranteed Standard a continuation of manpower at the Atomic Energy Commission Project at Hanford. The record amply demonstrates that on June 1, 1970, Busi- ness Agents Forrest and Bud Gerlach of Local 44 com- municated with 9 of the 14 employers involved herein. They are Arnold & Jeffers, Inc.; F & S Plumbing; McClintock and Turk; Senna Service, Inc.; Spokane Plumbing; Warren, Little and Lund; Western Mechanical Contractors, Inc.; and Wo- mack and Conboy, Inc. Each was informed that on penalty of a strike the following day he was to sign a prepared form agreeing to be bound by any agreement reached by Washing- ton Association and Employers' Council in the pending 1970 negotiations. The employers involved met with Morris and drafted a letter for each to send agreeing only to the wage scales arrived at between Washington Association and Employers' Council early on the morning of May 29 and noting further that the Employers' Council represented the other Employers in the State of Washington. This was unsatisfactory to Respondents and 12 of the Employers were struck the following day.' Morris contacted Linahan and they worked out the follow- ing compromise. The respective employers signed a form agreeing to be bound to all terms and conditions of any contract reached by Washington Association and Employers' Council in the pending negotiations and, in turn, received a statement from Linahan in behalf of Washington Association that any employer binding himself to the 1970 contract "re- serves the right to take a position consistant (sic) with law in a timely way with respect to bargaining structure in the in- dustry." On the following day, June 3, all strikers returned to work. C. Analysis and Conclusions While the case has been ably defended and briefed by Re- spondents, the simple answer is that the 14 employers made a timely and unequivocal withdrawal from Washington As- sociation and from associationwide bargaining at a time prior to the commencement of bargaining for a new contract. Twelve of these notices were sent in December of 1969, 1 in January, and 1 in February of 1970, all to be effective within 60 days or on March 1, 1970, whichever date was the sooner. It is clear and I find that these notices were effective prior to March 5, 1970, the date when Respondents gave notice to open the contract and to commence negotiations for a new contract; indeed, the first negotiating meeting was not held until April 21, 1970. It is by now well established that an employer is free to withdraw at will from multiemployer bargaining, provided this is done prior to the date set by the contract for modifica- tion thereof or before an agreed-on date to commence mul- tiemployer negotiations. The multiemployer unit is rooted in consent and neither an employer's motive nor the impact of the withdrawal upon the bargaining representative or upon other members of the unit is relevant. Evening News Association, 154 NLRB 1482, 1494. See also Lenox Grill, 170 NLRB No. 120, and Eberle Builders Inc., d/b/a Sav-More Foods, 186 NLRB No. 8. Thus, the arguments of Respondents that the Spokane Area Employers sought initially to establish a new and smaller employer association is not relevant under Board precedent. There is substantial uncontroverted evidence in this record that the involved employers opted to (1) attempt to bargain on a smaller association basis and (2) failing this, to bargain individually. True, there is evidence that Morris wore several hats herein, in connection with employer groups in the Spokane area, as Respondents stress. While his role in the negotiations may perhaps have been a calculated one, I find, on a prepon- derance of the evidence, that the 14 employers involved herein permanently and unequivocally chose, directly or in- directly as the case may be, to proceed on the separate em- ployer route as a permanent and not as a temporary bargain- ing strategy. Stated otherwise, they preferred to go the smaller employer association route but, if necessary, they preferred to bargain individually, and attempted to rather than adhere to the statewide association. They were willing to go the individual employer route in bargaining, chose to do so and were rejected. I find, therefore, that the 14 employ- ers involved herein withdrew from multiemployer association bargaining at a time appropriate for doing so. ' Excluding Standard whose case is discussed above and Gale Mechani- cal Contractors, Inc., herein Gale Gale had similarly reassigned its rights to Employers' Council on or about May 19 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Indeed, each employer stated that he intended to take part in the bargaining. Obviously Washington Association desired to maintain its well-entrenched bargaining pattern. But a single employer unit is manifestly appropriate and, as stated, the only issue was one of timely withdrawal from multiem- ployer bargaining. On June 1, 1970, Respondents threatened 9 of the 14 em- ployers with a strike if they did not reassign their bargaining rights from Morris to Employers' Council and then did strike them on the following day. They thus forced the Employers on June 3 to bind themselves to the industry contract which designated Employers' Council as their bargaining represent- ative. I find that this constituted restraint and coercion of the employers in the choice of a bargaining representative and that it was therefore violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The General Counsel has further argued and I agree that the treatment of Standard is another violation of said Section. Standard required a guarantee of manpower for the Atomic Energy Commission project in the event of an anticipated industry strike as of June 1. But Washington Association replied that the guarantee was not forthcoming because Stan- dard had left Employers' Council. Standard duly reassigned its collective-bargaining agency to Employers' Council on May 6, on May 9 agreed to be bound by any statewide con- tract, and on May 11 was advised that manpower would be guaranteed. The evidence preponderates that this was a threat to withhold manpower not in the event of an industry strike but because Standard chose to bargain through Morris rather than Employers' Council. I find that this was violative also of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. As for the allegation of refusal to bargain, it is undisputed that the employees of the 14 employers have been members of Local 44 and represented by Respondents. Each of the 14 is a separate and distinct entity and the employees of each are manifestly appropriate bargaining units. I find that the re- spective employees of each of the 14 employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. I further find that at all times material herein Respondents were the bar- gaining representatives within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondents flatly declined to bargain with the 14 employ- ers on an individual basis on May 1. This was later imple- mented by the June 2 strike against 9 of them. In sum, Re- spondents refused to bargain with the employers for employees they represent in appropriate units and coerced them to bargain for a different unit and with a representative not of their choosing. I find that this constituted conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. It follows therefore, as in a case where an employer has foisted a labor organization without employee support and an attending contract upon his employees, that recognition should be withdrawn from Employers' Council and that any contract between Employers' Council and Re- spondents not be applicable to the 14 employers herein. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Arnold & Jeffers, Inc.; F & S Plumbing and Heating Co.; Gale Mechanical Contractors, Inc.; Glenn's Mechanical, Inc.; Hall Plumbing and Heating, Inc.; Lester N. Johnson Co.; McClintock and Turk, Inc.; Powell Plumbing and Heat- ing; Senna Service, Inc.; Spokane Plumbing and Heating Co.; Standard Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc.; Warren, Little & Lund, Inc.; Western Mechanical Contractors, Inc.; and Wo- mack and Conboy, Inc., are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The employees of each of the above-named employers constitute units appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Respondents represent the above-described employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain with the above-named employers on an individual basis, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 6. By restraining and coercing employers in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of collective bargain- ing, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:` ORDER Respondents, Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, representa- tives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain with the employers named herein on an individual basis for the employees they represent. (b) Restraining or coercing employers in the Spokane, Washington, area whose employees they represent in the choice of a bargaining representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their respective offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondents, shall be posted by them immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including IV THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. While the General Counsel and the Charging Party have urged a remedy broader than that provided herein, the record will not support same. In any event, if the recommendations herein are upheld, manifestly they would dictate change in the operational procedures of Respondents with respect to all employers with whom they negotiate. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 a 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 OR- DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " LOCAL 44, UNITED PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS 231 all places where notices to members are customarily posted. within 20 days from the date of receipt of this decision what Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that steps they have taken to comply herewith.' said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 19 respec- tively signed copies of said notice for posting, the employers c In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after willing, in all locations where notices to employees are cus- exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify tomarily posted. the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from the date (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "