Central Plumbing Co.

CENTRAL PLUMBING COMPANY 925 Central Plumbing Company and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 162, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-6097 August 16, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 18, 1972, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions' and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Central Plumbing Company, Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. I Respondent contends that the agreement orally reached in May 1970 ant4 reduced to writing and signed in October 1970 was not a complete agreement as some of the necessary terms were left unresolved . We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the agreement signed in October 1970 as a complete agreement as it contained all the necessary terms including wage and other terms with respect to residential plumbers. The fact that the parties also agreed to negotiate a modification of these terms as to residential plumbers does not negate this finding. Moreover, even were we to find\the October 1970 agreement incomplete in some respect, we would nevertheless find Respondent bound by the multiemployer bargain- ing as its attempted withdrawal during negotiations was not timely or consented to by the Union. TI.IAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed February 17, 1971, by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 162, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Union), against Central Plumbing Company (hereinafter called the Respondent or Central), a complaint and notice of hearing was issued by the Regional Director for Region 9 in Case 9-CA-6097 on 198 NLRB No. 135 April 14, 1971. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent was a member of a multiemployer association, which, among other things, existed for the purposes of engaging in collective bargaining with the Union on behalf of the employer-members. The complaint further alleged that the Respondent failed to execute a collective-bargain- ing agreement negotiated by the Association with the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. On March 22, 1971, a charge was filed by Central against the Union in Case 9-CB-1962. The Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing in the latter case on September 22, 1971. That complaint alleged that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (a) of the Act in that the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated with the em- ployer association contained an unlawful security clause. On the same date the Regional Director issued an order consolidating both cases for purposes of trial. The consolidated matter was tried before me in Dayton, Ohio, on January 4 and 5, 1972. All parties were represented by counsel and afforded an opportunity to be heard and to present relevant evidence on all of the issues in question. Shortly after the trial commenced, counsel for the Union offered to settle the case against it by agreeing to remove the unlawful provisions in the union-security clause of the collective-bargaining agreement. Counsel for Central agreed to the settlement provided it would not be construed as a waiver of its assertion that the unlawful union security clause was part of its affirmative defense in the remaining case. All parties verbally agreed to a settlement in the case involving the Union and to submit a formal settlement agreement for approval at a subsequent date. The formal settlement agreement was submitted on February 16, 1972, and an order was issued on March 21, 1972, severing that case from the consolidated proceedings and approving the terms of the settlement. At the appointed time, briefs were submitted by counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel. They have been duly considered by me in arriving at my decision in this case. Upon. the entire record herein, including my evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses based upon my observation of their demeanor and upon consideration of the relevant evidence, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS The complaint alleges, and the Respondent admits, that it is an Ohio corporation engaged in the business of a plumbing contractor in Dayton, Ohio. During the 12- month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located in the State of Ohio, who in turn purchased said goods and materials from companies located outside the State of Ohio and caused them to be shipped directly to their respective places of business. On the basis of the above, I find that the Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED acceptable and agreed to take back to its membership for ratification. At a special meeting on April 27, the union membership ratified the proposal agreed to by the negotiating commit- tees. The proposal primarily concerned itself with the wage package for journeymen and foremen performing commer- cial work. It was verbally agreed between the two negotiating committees that a supplemental agreement would be negotiated by the Union and the Association covering residential work. It was also verbally agreed that in the interim, the residential wage scale would be 15 cents an hour less than the agreed-upon wage for commercial work. On May 5, the Association's negotiating committee presented the proposal to a meeting of its membership. Wilfred Elking, a vice president of the Respondent and its representative in the Association, attended this meeting but voted to reject the proposal. However, a majority of the plumbing contractors present voted to accept the terms? The parties agreed that the wage rates of the new agreement would become effective May 1, and the contract would terminate July 1, 1972. . The parties also verbally agreed to continue to meet in an effort to work out the language of a welder-safety provision to be included in the current contract, as well as the terms of the residential agreement. As an incentive to hasten agreement on the terms, the Association agreed to increase the journeymen wage rate by 25 cents an hour, if the parties could resolve their differences on the welder safety clause and the supplemental residential agreement prior to January 1, 1971.3 The Union and the Association negotiating committees continued to meet periodically during the summer in an effort to work out the residential agreement and the welder-safety provision. However, they were unable to agree in either area. In addition, the commercial wage rates had never been reduced to writing or signed by the parties. On October 26, the Union and the Association finally put in writing the terms of the agreement reached in April. This document contained the amendments and changes in the 1968-70 contract relating to commercial work. It way' signed by Brill on behalf of the Union and by Burrell for the Association. The parties agreed that the document would be incorporated in the existing 1968-70 contract and subsequently printed up as one integrated contra-bt. The document also set forth the agreement to increase .he wage scale by 25 cents provided a satisfactory weler-safety provision and the supplemental residential agreement were negotiated not later than January 1, 1971. The document classified commercial work as work performed; under wage schedule A and residential work as work;, under wage schedule B. It was also agreed that the existing negotiating committees consisted of contractors and union members mainly concerned with commercial work, and that new refine the language through telephone communication and/or an exchange of correspondence. As this procedure usually took 2 to 3 months, there was a substantial time lag before a contract was finally reduced to writing. 3 The 25-cent-an-hour wage increase was to be granted in three successive stages, the first payment beginning January 1, 1971, and the final payment becoming due January 1, 1972. This amount was the sum considered necessary to allow the Union to maintain its position as fourth in the State of Ohio with respect to wages, with the exception of the city of Cleveland. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 162, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts The Employer Association consisted of plumbing con- tractors in the Dayton, Ohio, area. The Association was originally formed in 1900 as the Master Plumbers Associa- tion. In 1957 the name was changed and the Association became known as the Dayton Association of Plumbing Contractors. Beginning in 1920, the Association and the Union established the practice of negotiating 2-year collective bargaining agreements which became the stand- ard for union contractors in the Dayton area. Each successive 2-year period thereafter the parties negotiated collective-bargaining agreements. The Respondent's predecessor (Peter's Plumbing Co.) had been a member of the Employer Association since 1950, and the Respondent became a member in 1964 when it succeeded Peter's. As a member of the Association the Respondent signed collective-bargaining agreements nego- tiated between the Association and the Union for the years 1964-66, 1966-68, and 1968-70. These agreements set the wages, terms, and conditions of employment for all plumbing contractors employing union members in the Dayton area. B. The Events Surrounding the Negotiations of the Current Contract As noted, the Association and the Union customarily negotiated collective-bargaining agreements for 2-year periods. In March 1970, negotiating committees from each organization met to commence bargaining about the terms of the new agreement which would succeed the then current contract scheduled to expire on June 30, 1970. Ralph Brill, president of the Union, was chairman of his organization's negotiating committee and Guy Burrell, vice president of one of the member firms in the Association, headed up the negotiating team for that group. The Association's initial proposal was rejected by the Union. It dealt with the wage rates for journeymen plumbers and foremen working on commercial and industrial jobs and did not address itself to residential work.' The Associa- tion's first proposal was contigent upon negotiating a supplemental agreement for the residential work. The parties continued to meet and in April the Association submitted a proposal which the union committee found 1 The agreement made a distinction between commercial and residential work. Until the 1970-72 contract, commercial work encompassed all new work on residential units larger than four-family dwellings and all new and remodeling work performed on commercial and industrial projects. Residential work was defined as work on residential units up to and including four-family dwellings and commercial and industrial repair and maintenance . Traditionally, the wage scale for commercial work was higher than the wages received by plumbers performing residential work. 2 It was the practice of the parties to verbally agree to terms and then CENTRAL PLUMBING COMPANY special committees composed of contractors and journey- men performing residential work should negotiate the residential agreement. The parties continued to meet in an effort to work out the language of the welder-safety provision; the special committees to deal with the residential agreement were selected. Brill no longer headed the negotiating team for the Union, but sat in as an advisor to those negotiating the residential contract. Elking was selected by the Association to be the chairman of that group's special committee dealing with the terms of the residential contract.4 The first meeting of the residential special committees took place sometime in November. It consisted mainly of an exchange of verbal proposals. The second meeting was held early in December. Elking stated at this meeting that the only terms he would be willing to accept would consist of a package of $6 an hour with the employees to furnish their own tools and trucks and the Respondent free to hire whom it pleased.5 Brill testified that Elking commented to him during this meeting that in view of the Union's demands, the Respondent could save thousands of dollars if it went nonunion and performed residential work. Brill testified that he told Elking that if he could keep his employees and save money he should go nonunion. Elking testified that when he insisted that the residential contrac- tors could pay no more than the prevailing rate, Brill replied he should go nonunion, if he couldn't do any better than that. Freeze, a union member of the negotiating committee, testified that when Elking stated his position, Brill said the Union could not agree to it and it would be best for the Respondent to go nonunion .6 The two negotiating committees were unable to come to an agreement and a subsequent meeting was scheduled. Elking, however, withdrew from the negotiations and was replaced as chairman of the employer committee by another contractor. There were a series of meetings carrying over into January and February of the following year, but Elking never attended any of these subsequent bargaining sessions. On December 17, Elking went to a Christmas affair given by a welding unit in the industry and there met Hass, business manager of the Union. Elking told Haas that the Respondent intended to go nonunion. Haas replied that "we will wait and see," Elking also told the executive secretary of the Association of the Respondent's intention to go nonunion, but never formally notified the Union in any way concerning this matter. The Respondent had been abiding by the terms of the agreement governing commercial work and had been submitting payments to the welfare and various other funds. After December 17, however, the Respondent no longer made payments under the terms of the contract nor did it pay the wage scale verbally agreed upon for 4 In 1970, approximately 52 percent of the jobs performed by the Respondent consisted of residential work. 5 The prevailing rate in the Dayton area at that time for residential work was $6.13 an hour. Elkings took the position that contractors doing a residential work could not compete with nonunion contractors in the field if they had to pay more than the prevailing rate. 6 Most of the residential work in the Dayton area was performed by nonunion contractors who paid less than the contract scale, and who did not make contributions to the various pension and welfare funds as required 927 residential work. Whenever the Respondent did perform commercial work, it paid the contract rate to the employees. On December 30, the Union and the Associa- tion finally agreed to the language of the welder-safety provision. On March 16, 1971, the parties agreed to and executed the residential addendum to their contract. Under the new negotiated terms, residential work was redefined to include the following: (1) All single-family residences: (2) All garden type and walkup apartments used as a residence, not to excede 2-1/2 stories in height; and (3) All repair, remodel, and maintenance work on the aforemen- tioned types of structures.? Although the Association and the Union had formally agreed to the modifications to the commercial agreement in October and to the welder-safety provision in Decem- ber, 1970, it was not until July 1, 1971, that all of these agreements were integrated into a single document and signed by Brill and Burrell. The final document, however, did not contain the date of signature and on its face gave the appearance of being executed on May 1, 1970. The residential addendum remained a separate document. C. The Union-Security Clause The commercial agreement between the parties contains a union-security clause which is identical to a similar provision contained in the 1966-68 and the 1968-70 contracts. This clause provides as follows: Article V. UNION SECURITY All journeymen and apprentices hereunder, members of the union now in the employ of the employer shall remain members in good standing in the union during the term of this agreement. All journeymen and apprentices covered by this agreement, hereinafter employed by the employer shall become members of the union from and after the eighth (8th) day following the date of their employment or the effective date of this agreement whichever is later and shall remain members of the union in good standing during the term of this agreement. Further, should a journeymen employee fail to pass the United Association Local # 162 examination required for qualification as a member, (such examination shall be given within a three month period from the date of initial employ- ment), he shall, as a condition of continued employ- ment, pay to the union as support to and compensation of the union in exchange for representation by the union an amount of money equal to that paid by other journeymen who are members of the union, which shall be limited to an amount of money equal to the union's regular and usual initiation fees and its regular and usual dues and its general and uniform assessments. All such journeymen now in the employ of the employer shall commence payments on the day following the by the collective-bargaining agreement . There were also some employer- members of the Association who did not abide by the agreements negotiated between the Association and the Union . Finch, executive secretary of the Association, testified that of 58 employer-members, 23 were nonunion and never signed or abided by the terms of the contracts negotiated by the employer group and the Union. 7 Under the new definition. 98 percent of the work performed by the Respondent became residential. 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD date of execution of this agreement and all such employees hired after the date of this agreement shall commence such payments the day following the date on which they fail to pass the union examination required as a qualification for membership, and all such employees mentioned above shall continue such payments during the term of this agreement. Concluding Findings Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the Respondent is a member of an employer association which has traditionally bargained over the years with the Union, and that the collective-bargaining agreements resulting from these negotiations are binding on its members. It is further contended that the Respondent neither made a timely withdrawal from the group negotiations, nor were the circumstances such as to allow the Respondent to refuse to honor terms of the current agreement, or to refuse to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees. The Respondent offers a number of defenses to the allegations of the complaint. First, the Respondent states that the members of the Association are not bound by the results of the negotia- tions with the Union, as the Association was never authorized to represent its members for purposes of collective bargaining. Secondly, the Respondent argues that it made a timely withdrawal from the group bargain- ing, and further that the Union consented to this withdrawal, thereby relieving it of any obligation to be bound by the results of the group negotiations. Finally, the Respondent states that the contract negotiated by the Association and the Union contains an unlawful union- security provision which relieves it of any duty to honor and be bound by the agreement. The threshold question here is whether the Respondent, as a member of the Association, is bound by the collective- bargaining agreement negotiated by that organization and the Union. There is nothing in the Association constitution and bylaws which confers authority upon the Association to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the member employers. Nor is it a requirement that the individual employers execute an authorization granting such authori- ty as a condition of membership in the Association. Indeed, the evidence discloses that of 58 members only 35 recognize the Union and abide by the collective-bargaining agreement. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historical practice in order to determine whether the Respondent in this instance is considered bound in collective bargaining by group action rather than by individual action. The undisputed facts show that the Respondent has been a member of the Association since 1964, and has been a party to successive collective bargaining negotiated by the Association from that period until the contract in question here. In 1966 and again in 1968 the Respondent did not actively participate in the negotiations, but accepted and honored the terms of the successive collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by the Association and the Union. While it is true that some of the Association members were considered "nonunion" and did not abide by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements, a large segment of the employer-members signed individual copies of the agreements negotiated by the Association until 1968, and after that date considered themselves bound by the agreements negotiated and signed by the Association committee. The Respondent was one of this group. As the Board stated in the Kroger case,8 the essential element to be considered in determining if an employer is part of a multiemployer bargaining unit is whether "the employer member has indicated from the outset an intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by individual action." In that case, the Board relied heavily upon its prior decision in Krist Gradis, et al, 121 NLRB 604, 609-6 10. There the Board held: [P]articipation for a substantial period of time in joint bargaining and uniform adoption of the agreements resulting therefrom constitutes an indication of intent to bargain jointly. . . . Such a unit [multiemployer] is appropriate under these circumstances even where .. . the association members have not specifically delegated to the association authority to represent them in collective bargaining; or given the association the power to execute final and binding agreements on their behalf; or where some of the contracts have not been signed by all members of the group. It is evident, therefore, that the historical pattern of collective bargaining in the instant case warrants the conclusion that the Respondent intended to be bound by the results of group negotiation rather than engaging in individual bargaining itself. It is also evident that the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining consisted of those employer-members of the Association who traditionally signed the agreements flowing from the results of the group effort. Hi-Way Billboards, Inc. Matteson Southwest Company 191 NLRB No. 37; N.L.R.B. v. Johnson Sheet Metal Inc., 442 F.2d 1056, 1059 (C.A. 10, 1971). Having found that the Respondent was part of a multiemployer bargaining unit and therefore bound by the results of group negotiation, the next question to be considered is whether the Respondent effectively withdrew from the group action; either by way of a timely withdrawal, or with the consent and acquiescence of the Union. It is well-settled that withdrawal from a multiem- ployer unit after commencement of negotiations is untime- ly and ineffective absent unusual circumstances or unless mutually agreed upon by the parties. N.L.R.B. v. Johnson Sheet Metal Inc., supra; Hi- Way Billboards Inc. Matteson Southwest Company, supra; Publicity Engravers, Inc., 161 NLRB 221; Sheridan Creations, Inc., 148 NLRB 1503, enfd. 357 F.2d 245 (C.A. 1966); Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388. The Respondent argues, however, that the negotiations here were at an impasse and on the rationale of the Tulsa Sheet Metal case it could effectuate a valid withdrawal from the group negotiations.9 The Respondent's claim in this regard is without merit. In Tulsa it was argued that the parties had not arrived at an 8 The Kroger Co., 148 NLRB 569, 573 . NLRB 1487. 9 Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 367 F.2d 55 (C.A. 10, 1966), enfg. 129 CENTRAL PLUMBING COMPANY 929 agreement although they continued to negotiate. The employer there contended that such circumstance justified his withdrawal from the group negotiations. The argument was rejected in that case and must be rejected here on the basis of the facts. As in Tulsa, the Union and the Association here continued to negotiate and finally arrived at a residential agreement in addition to resolving their differences over the language of the welder-safety provi- sion to be incorporated in the commercial agreement. At no time were the parties at an impasse nor did they refuse to meet and effectively negotiate their differences. The fact that the welder-safety provision was not agreed upon until December 1970, and the residential addendum was not finalized until March of the following year, does not in any way justify the conclusion that the parties were at an impasse in their negotiations. To the contrary, it demon- strates that the parties were willing to meet and bargain until they eventually resolved their differences. Therefore, the Respondent's claim of an impasse is totally unsupport- ed by the facts. Respondent also contends that the parties had not arrived at a complete agreement on December 17, 1970, when it withdrew from the group negotiations. The Respondent claims that this alone was sufficient to justify the withdrawal. This argument overlooks certain undisput- ed facts in the record. When a majority of the Association members ratified the terms agreed upon by the negotiating committees in May 1970, a collective-bargaining agree- ment came into existence. The mere fact that the parties agreed to ultimately modify the residential agreement and to work out the language of the welder-safety provision in no way vitiated the agreement in effect at that point in time. Nor does the fact that the verbal agreement was not reduced to writing and signed by the parties until October in any way alter the finding that a valid collective agreement was in effect. The Respondent claims that the contract was incomplete in its terms because of the matters left for further negotiations and agreement. This theory ignores the obvious fact that the parties were operating under a contractual agreement which they simply acknowl- edged was subject to further modification by mutual consent. The commercial agreement in toto, with the exception of the welder-safety clause, had been agreed upon by the parties. The welder-safety provision certainly was not so substantial or material to that agreement to justify a claim that the contract was incomplete. In addition, there was a verbal agreement regarding the interim residential wage rate in effect while the parties negotiated the final residential addendum. The parties not only understood but abided by this interim arrangement. That it was mutually agreed to add a 25-cent-an-hour incentive in order to hasten the conclusion of the final negotiations does not detract from the validity of the agreement between the parties. It was complete as to its terms subject to the modification of the residential addendum and the welder-safety provision. The Respondent further argues that the Union consented to its withdrawal from the group bargaining. In support of this contention the Respondent urges that, the facts of this case are analogous to the facts contained in Publicity Engravers, Inc., supra, wherein implied consent and acquiescence were found. In that case it was held that the Union impliedly consented to an employer's untimely withdrawal from association bargaining when it did not object to the withdrawal and where, after arriving at an agreement with the association, the Union sought to bargain separately with the employer without contending that the group agreement was binding on him. Unlike that case, however, the facts here indicate that the Union never considered the Respondents withdrawal as being effective. Elking was the chairman of the employer committee attempting to negotiate the residential addendum. He actively engaged in the negotiations over a period of two meetings before deciding not to participate. The Respon- dent claims that at the last meeting when Brill said if the Respondent could not offer better terms he may as well go nonunion, the Union was making an offer which the Respondent accepted on December 17. The Respondent also contends that the Union was notified of this acceptance of the alleged offer when Elking told Haas that the Respondent was going to go nonunion. Haas' reply was noncommittal, and I do not construe this to be implied consent or acquiescence to the Respondent's action of unilaterally withdrawing from the group negotiations. Unlike the facts in Publicity Engravers, I find that Brill's initial comment to Elking at the December meeting was nothing more than a comment made during the heat of negotiations. To consider it as being anything more would mean imposing serious constraints on the "give and take" discussions that occur at the bargaining table and would impede the entire bargaining process. It is evident under these circumstances that the Respondent decided to withdraw from group negotiations because it felt that the terms being insisted upon were economically burdensome to it. By seizing upon Brill's statement , the Respondent demonstrated that it was prepared to grasp at the slightest straw in order to avoid its obligation to engage in group bargaining. The mere fact that the negotiations were progressing toward a wage rate which the Respondent felt unexceptable to it is not sufficient justification to warrant allowing withdrawal from the group negotiations. Tulsa Sheet Metal Work, Inc., supra. Without more than appears in the record here, it cannot be said that the Union acquiesced or consented to the Respondent's withdrawal from group action. The Respondent's final argument rests on the illegality of the union-security clause. As indicated previously, a complaint was issued charging the Union with a violation of the Act for having an unlawful union-security provision in the collective-bargaining agreement . This case was settled at the time of trial, although the Respondent did not waive it as a defense to the matter presently under consideration. The evidence shows, however, that the Respondent raised this issue only after it was charged by the Union with refusing to honor and abide by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. The facts also show that this provision was contained in two prior contracts immediately preceding the current collective-bargaining agreement. The Respondent not only signed but also honored each of these agreements without complaining about the illegality of this provision. It was only after the Union insisted that the Respondent was obligated under 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the current collective-bargaining agreement that the Respondent sought to avoid its obligation by asserting the illegality of the union-security clause. These circumstances cause me to conclude that the Respondent raised the issue of the unlawful union-security clause as an afterthought. Consequently, I find that this defense was motivated solely by the Respondent's unwillingness to accept the Union's demand for increased wages in the residential addendum. Tulsa Sheet Metal Work, Inc., supra. As a result of the settlement of the case against the Union, the unlawful portions of the union-security provision will be deleted. Moreover, as the agreement contains a severability clause and the union-security provision is independent of other sections of the contract, the document as a whole is not rendered invalid by the illegality of this provision. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent is under a duty to honor and abide by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated through group action. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Central Plumbing Company, is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 162, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and is, and has been at all times material herein, the representative of employees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit consisting of all journeymen and appren- tices engaged in the installation of all plumbing, heating, pipefitting, and refrigeration and air-conditioning systems and component parts thereof, and all other work included in the jurisdictional claims of the Union. 3. By unilaterally withdrawing from the multiemployer unit found appropriate herein, and by refusing to accept and to be bound by the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated between the Union and the Dayton Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend the issuance of an order that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER10 bargaining agreement negotiated between the above- named Union and the Dayton Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., effective May 1, 1970, with respect to employees in the following bargaining unit: All journeymen and apprentices engaged in installation of all plumbing, heating, pipefitting and refrigeration and air conditioning systems and component parts thereof, and all other work included in the jurisdiction- al claims of the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Forthwith honor and implement the collective-bar- gaining agreement entered into by the Union and the Association, effective May 1, 1970, insofar as it applies to employees in the above-described unit and give retroactive effect thereto from its effective date. (b) Post at its plant in Dayton, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of such notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or otherwise covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days of the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint setting forth violations not specifically found herein be dismissed. 10 In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom- mended Order herein, shall as provided in Sec. 10(c) of the Act and 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. 11 In the event that this 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 read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 12 In the event this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Respondent, Central Plumbing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to honor and implement the collective- The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial before a duly designated Trial Examiner, that we violated Federal law by refusing to honor and implement the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated between CENTRAL PLUMBING COMPANY United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 162, AFL-CIO, and the Dayton Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., effec- tive May 1, 1970, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the above Union by failing to honor and implement the 1970 agreement between the Union and the Dayton Plumb- ing Contractors, Inc., nor in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act as amended. WE WILL forthwith honor and implement the 1970-72 collective-bargaining agreement between the above-named Union and the Dayton Association of Plumbing Contractors, Inc., and will give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions of said agreement from its effective date of May 1, 1970. CENTRAL PLUMBING COMPANY (Employer) Dated By 931 (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, Federal Office Building Rm. 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3621.