Clothing Workers Local 187

CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187 831 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CI- O, CLC and Local 187, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc . Case 1-CB-2345 May 23, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On January 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge John G. Gregg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Section 8(b)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat. 136); and upon an answer timely filed by Respondents denying the commission of any unfair labor practices and further asserting that the complaint herein is barred by the limitation period prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act. All parties appeared by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Timely briefs were filed by all parties. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness stand, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION The complaint alleges, it is admitted, and I find that Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, with principal office and place of business in Lawrence, Massachusetts, is and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the parties admit, and I find that Respondents herein, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondents, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondents unlawfully refused to sign the agreed-upon contract , we find that the initial refusal to sign the contract occurred on February 5, 1973, rather than on June 15, 1973, as found by him In any event, whether the refusal occurred on February 5 or June 15, or both of those dates, it took place within the 10(b) period, and, therefore, we find it unnecessary to consider the "continuing obligation" theory set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision DECISION JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me on October 16 and 17, 1973, at Boston, Massachusetts, and is based upon a charge filed by Lawrence Shutzer on June 28, 1973, and complaint issued on August 8, 1973, by the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, against Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, hereinaft- er referred to as the Respondents, alleging violations of H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges essentially that since June 15, 1973, the Respondents have refused to execute a written collective-bargaining agreement which was concluded on September 7, 1972, between the Respondents and Shutzer, thereby violating Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. For the reasons explicated more fully hereinafter I am convinced and find that the Respondents did indeed refuse to execute a written collective-bargaining agreement as charged in the complaint and did thereby violate Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. A. Background Facts On or about May 1, 1953, the Company then doing business as William Barry Inc., recognized the Respondent Local as the collective-bargaining agent for certain of its employees. The record establishes and I find that at all times material herein the Respondents have been the recognized collective-bargaining agent of all the production employees of Shutzer employed at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, plant, including stitchers, pressers, cutters, thread pullers, perma- nent shippers, cutting room assemblers, examiners, and repair girls but excluding repair machinists, floor boys, floor girls, office and clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constituting a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, and that the Respondents have at all times material herein been the representatives for the 210 NLRB No. 135 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purpose of collective bargaining of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid unit. The record also discloses that on May 1, 1953, the parties signed a basic collective-bargaining agreement with the stated purpose of providing for wages, hours of work and conditions of employment of the employees of the employer. The foregoing basic collective-bargaining agreement was supplemented by two separate written and executed supplemental agreements covering contributions to the union trust fund for retirement benefits and one for insurance benefits. Article 17 of the agreement provides in part: Modification of Contract 17. The standards of wages, hours and other condi- tions of employment established by this agreement shall not be changed during the life of this agreement, except as provided in this clause. The Union and the Employer hereby agree that during the life of this agreement (and any renewal thereof) whatever increase or decrease in wages the Union will negotiate with Employers in contractual relations on a nation-wide scale in this branch of the industry, a similar increase or decrease shall be applied to the employees covered by this agreement effective on the same date. This also applies to health insurance benefits, old age pension benefits, vacations with pay, holidays with pay and other fringe benefits as well as wages .. . On April 7,1955, the basic collective-bargaining agree- ment of 1953 was extended for 3 years with provision that it be self-renewing from year to year thereafter unless sooner terminated, and the basic agreement was amended in several regards, all this written and executed by the Union. Subsequently on June 27, 1956, the basic agreement of May 1, 1953, and of April 7, 1955, was supplemented to uncorporate increases in pay and other benefits, reduced to writing and executed. The record then discloses an undated subsequent Memorandum of Agreement between Barry and the Union "in order to promote a better understanding between labor and management in the plant in addition to the now existing union contract." The agreement encompassed several conditions of employment and procedures to be followed in the settlement of grievances in the plant. There are additional items of requests by the Union for modification of the basic agreement followed by written, executed supplemental agreements embodying the terms of such agreement. B. The Negotiations By letter of August 21, 1972, the Respondent Amalga- mated requested Shutzer to come to "Collective bargaining negotiations between the Outerwear Manufacturers and our Union on Thursday, August 24, 1972 at 2 p.m. at the ACWA Headquarters, 15 Union Square, New York City, New York. Enclosed please find copy of our union demands to the industry." The demands listed encompassed a variety of subjects including wages, vacation pay, holiday pay, jury duty pay, health insurance, and retirement benefits, pensions, and such subjects as imports, right to strike and use of the union label. Lawrence Shutzer, vice president and general manager of Shutzer testified that he personally participated in negotia- tions which resulted in collective-bargaining agreements with the Respondents. He stated that earlier the method by which those agreements were arrived at was that Mr. Salerno, a vice president of the Amalgamated Union, would come to Shutzer when the existing contract was about to expire, would inform Shutzer that agreement had been reached in New York and that "here is what you are going to pay, so much an hour, extra vacations, or whatever, extra holidays or any extra percent here or an extra percent there. And here is the agreement all made out, sign it and that would be the end of it." According to Shutzer this method had been followed on each occasion leading to collective-bargaining agreements over a period starting from May 1953, with the Respondents presenting Shutzer with a complete agreement for signature. Lawrence Shutzer testified that pursuant to the letter of August 21 inviting him to a meeting of the Outerware Manufacturers to be held at the Respondents office in New York, he attended the first two negotiating sessions and his brother Sidney Shutzer attended the third. At the first session attended by about 40 manufacturers and about 15 union representatives, Finley, the president of the Amalga- mated Clothing Workers outlined the union demands. There were questions by some of the individual manufac- turers. Following this meeting, the manufacturers decided that rather then negotiating as individuals they would hire a lawyer to represent them. An executive committee was formed, including Lawrence Shutzer and others from various geographic areas. Subsequently Bernard Ferster an attorney was retained. Ferster also represented another industry group known as the shirt workers which was also engaged in negotiations with the Respondent Amalgamat- ed at that time. At the second meeting the manufacturers were represent- ed by Ferster who indicated that these negotiations would not be completed until the shirt workers' negotiations were finalized. According to Shutzer, at this meeting Finley indicated approval of dealing with one representative for the group and they went on to discuss the demands back and forth. According to Shutzer at no time during the two meetings did any of the Respondents' representatives communicate to him an intention to present any other issues which were not the subject of the discussions at these meetings and which were included as an enclosure to the invitation to negotiate dated August 21, 1972, as the Union demands. According to Lawrence Shutzer the third meeting took place in September 7, 1972, and was attended by Sidney Shutzer as Lawrence was unable to attend. According to Sidney Shutzer, Finley went over the bargaining demands for the Union with Ferster representing the manufacturers. Sidney Shutzer testified that reports were coming to the CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187 833 meeting that some manufacturers who were not at the session were concluding negotiations out in the field while the negotiations were being concluded in New York. Finally, after deliberations by the manufacturers in attendance it was decided to have Ferster advise Finley that the manufacturers felt that they were entitled to the same terms that were given to the shirt industry . Finley would not agree to this and the possibility of a strike was raised. Subsequently, Finley was advised that the manufac- turers would go along with the terms presented by Finley. According to Sidney Shutzer at no time during the session did any representative of the Respondents commu- nicate to him an intention to present to Shutzer any other issues for negotiation other than those discussed and agreed to at the meeting. Lawrence Shutzer testified further that subsequent to the foregoing negotiations, the Respondent Amalgamated by letter dated September 19, 1972, requested that he implement the terms of the agreement that had been reached "by the union and the industry." Subsequently, on or about October 4, 1972, Frank Luongo, business agent for the Union , and Diana Nunes, national vice president and New England director for the Respondent Amalgamated , came to the Shutzer factory and requested Shutzer to implement the terms of the agreement that had been reached in New York in September . According to Lawrence Shutzer they told him that the other manufacturers were implementing the agreement. He then called two manufacturers who had been in attendance at the negotiations and was advised that they had not implemented the terms of the contract at that time . Shutzer did not comply . Subsequently, on October 11 , Luongo again sought to have Shutzer implement the contract terms . Shutzer asked Luongo where the contract was, and was informed that the Union had internal problems, was swamped with paperwork, but that agreement had been reached. Shutzer then told Luongo that it was not his fault if increases in pay were being delayed, to which Luongo responded that it was the fault of the Union. Lawrence Shutzer testified further that he asked Luongo to notify the workers in the factory that agreement had been reached, and that the only thing holding up the signing of the contract was the Union's delay in completing its paperwork . According to Shutzer , 2 weeks later Luongo came to the factory and addressed a meeting of the employees telling thr m that the Union and Company were on "wonderful" terms, that agreement had been reached in New York early in September on all the terms of the agreement and that the only thing delaying the actual signing of the contract was the fact that the Union had not been able to overcome the mountain of paperwork; and that the Company would now on the basis of this talk start implementing the terms of the agreement. Shutzer testified further that subsequently he, Luongo, and Nunes had another meeting at which time they discussed the method of converting the retroactive pay raise to so many cents an hour . The rate was converted into piece work and discussion was had as to when the workers would receive their increase . The workers were subsequent- ly paid the increases retroactively to September 1, 1972. On November 15, 1972 , according to Shutzer, Ferster, the attorney representing the manufacturers, forwarded printed copies of the agreement with a covering letter asking Shutzer to sign four or five copies and return them to him, and that he would take them over to the Union for their signature. Shutzer signed and returned the agree- ments to Ferster. Shutzer testified that subsequently , when he did not receive an executed contract he called Ferster many times but was advised that Ferster had not received the excuted contracts from the Union. Finally, according to Shutzer, he became aware that the Union was taking a position that the negotiations in New York had not resulted in a final and binding contract, and that the Amalgamated would not execute the supplemental and extension agreement when he received a letter from Ferster dated February 6, 1973, forwarding a letter from Finley of the Amalgamated to Ferster reading in part as follows: While the Outerwear agreements were negotiated on a National basis you are aware that these agreements are between the employers and the local markets. Accordingly, the international union is not in a position to execute local agreements. We have executed the enclosed agreement with the understanding that it embodies only the National Agreement which was reached in negotiation between the National Outerwear Bargaining Committee and the National officers of the Amalgamated. There may be additional items of negotiation on local matters which are subject to agreement between the individual firm and the local Joint Board Manager. Subsequently by letter dated June 15, 1973, to the Respondent Amalgamated, Shutzer requested that the appropriate authorized representatives (local, regional- or national) of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, sign and return to said Company a copy of the Supplemental and Extension Agreement both of which are dated Septem- ber I, 1972. This request was not complied with. Subsequently by letter dated August 6, 1973 , Shutzer received another letter from the Respondent Amalgamated reminding it to pay the increase in contributions to the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund "in accordance with the Supplemental Agreement dated 9/ l/72." Diana Nunes testified that she took office as vice president of the Respondent Amalgamated, on November 1, 1972, and that she administered some of the cotton garment contracts as business agent and New England director, later as vice president. Diana Nunes testified that she was present at the three meetings encompassing the negotiations with the Outerwear Manufacturer group at the end of August and the beginning of September 1972. According to Nunes, at the afternoon meeting of the last day Ferster spoke at length about the fact that certain employers who were supposed to have been with the 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization were not there that day, but were out making what he called their own private deals, and he felt that the Union was to blame for this. According to Nunes, Finley was very sympathetic about this problem feeling that the manufacturers were not well organized to present their plans and their demands. According to Nunes, Ferster did not know who he was representing so the final agreement that day, after two caucuses by the manufacturers, was to go along with the 60-cent rate rather than 55 cents because it was announced at that meeting that some of the manufacturers had already signed in their individual areas. Because of this, according to Nunes, these negotiations were adjourned very abruptly with nothing actually being settled but that. Nunes testified that she had a conversation with Sidney Shutzer during the lunch period that day. At that time according to Nunes, Shutzer was going back into the conference room. Nunes testified that she said to Shutzer, "I believe this will be over sometime today." Shutzer said, "Yes, I think so." Nunes said, "When this is through, we will have to get together because we have local things to talk about and by the way, Sidney, I am a little disturbed today about some of the reports that I have gotten from the South about remarks that were made by the company." Shutzer replied, "Don't talk about it here. We will talk about it back in Lawrence." Nunes testified further that about a week afterward, she had a call from Luongo, the business agent, who was upset because Shutzer had told him that he was not going to go along with the national negotiations on the economic package that had been agreed on the previous week. Shutzer's reason for being disturbed was because he had read an article in the paper that London Fog had given 55 cents that had been granted to the Cotton Garment workers and not the 60 cents agreed to at the national negotiations. Nunes then proceeded to Lawrence, Massa- chusetts, to meet with Shutzer and Luongo on Wednesday, a week after the negotiations were over. Nunes told Shutzer that in New York at the national negotiations the economic package was adopted, and that Shutzer was a party to it, "so we are not going to talk about this at all. We have enough local things to talk about on local demands." Nunes stated that she told Shutzer that as far as New England was concerned, "everyone who is under Outer Wear is going to pay the 60 cents. This was the agreement that was made." Nunes stated that at that meeting, she also told Shutzer that she was concerned about other matters such as the shops in the south and inadequacies in insurance payments. According to Nunes, the next meeting she had with Shutzer at the plant was November 6 where she met with Larry Shutzer, Luongo, and Attorney Reznicek in Shut- zer's office. Nunes stated that she thought she was starting to negotiate, that Shutzer asked for the agreements, but she said, "We have local things to discuss." Shutzer discussed his need for additional workers. Nunes reminded Shutzer that a plant had closed in Leomister, Massachusetts, "and let's not have one here." Nunes told Shutzer she was concerned because the plant was working full force on leather work and what would happen if there was no leather work. Nunes wanted some assurance that work would continue even if the demand for leather garments or leather itself fell off. According to Nunes, there was further discussion in regard to the minimums , wages and fringes that had been negotiated in New York. Q. Can you tell us about that discussion and what was said? A. Every-Mr. Shutzer was told that day too, that the contracts had not been completed in New York because for some reason or other they left in such a hurry that those that didn't stay with the association ended up with some kinds of contracts with minimums and others not and this is what is holding all this up. This was the confusion, mostly to blame by their Attorney. These minimums have not been completed. It is not anything against the Shutzer Company. We have contracts that are not signed, that are in fact .... some of these with the association have not been signed because their minimums have not come down and they have to be negotiated. Others have not been signed because we are still negotiating certain issues and this is . . . . as long as the national and economic part of the contract has been given out, we are not questioning the signing of the contract until we get through with all these things . So, it is not dust one contract that isn't signed. According to Nunes, there was no specific discussion about the minimums at that meeting on November 6. Nunes stated that the contracts had come into her possession and she sent them back, the simple reason being that the minimums were not included in the contract. According to Nunes, they were both in agreement that there was agreement on the wages and fringes in New York, and Shutzer asked for some time to calculate the retroactive pay and to put it into effect. According to Nunes, she returned to the plant on November 1 with Mr. Wachtel of the Union, strictly on the insurance matter and nothing else. Subsequently in January, she attended a meeting for all of the shops in Lawrence to explain to the employees that the contracts had not been signed because local negotiations still remained to take place although the economics had been agreed on at the New York meeting, what remained to be negotiated were local issues plus minimums. Nunes testified further to a meeting on April 18 or 19 at the plant where she met with Larry Shutzer, Frank Luongo, and Ronald Ax, attorney for the Respondent. According to Nunes, at that meeting two documents were presented by Ax to Shutzer. One a request for information and the other a request for information and for certain language to be put into the contract for job protection. According to Nunes, Shutzer said he could not comment on anything, he would look into it, and call his lawyer, and get back to them. Subsequently sometime in June, according to Nunes, she met at the office of the attorney for Shutzer together with Luongo and the Shutzers. At this meeting Nunes requested some information. Nunes testified that there are still employers in the Lawrence area, members of the Outerwear group who have not yet completed their negotiations, and with whom local CLOThING WORKERS LOCAL 187 835 issues continue to be negotiated and there are other plants where all signed and all the issues have been resolved When queried, Mrs. Nunes stated that she did not know whether or not at any time in 1972 Shutzer received any written demands from the Union other than the demands which are attached to the letter of August " t, 1972, other than the ones she made herself which '.i , re not in writing. In her testimony Mrs. Nunes refe, ed to the demands at the New York meeting as economic demands. When asked to refer to the demands which were listed in connection with the New York meetings. Mrs. Nunes agreed that some of the demands were not "economic" demands. According to Nunes, it was at the meeting with Shutzer on November 6 that she indicated to Shutzer that there had to be some resolution of the minimum question. According to Nunes she had no proposal at that time because "we already have existing minimums. They were left out of the negotiations between the manufacturers and the Union in New York. They didn't take care of that, that is the only things I was-I said I was waiting until the association got together in New York and brought down-set down the minimums. This is the only explanation I gave. We weren't going to negotiate the minimums. The minimums have been negotiated as a National agreement that modified our local levels because everyone has different minimums." According to Mrs. Nunes in addition to the minimum issue thi i c were two other issues which had to be negotiated with Shutzer, specifically those were the classification of which workers were under the union agreement, and language that would protect the workers of the Lawrence giant. After some testimony Mrs. Nunes agreed that her discussions relevant to classification were considered a step in the grievance procedure rather than contract negotiations but what was to be negotiated was overall language which would clarify who was in and out of the unit When querried as to whether she ever submitted a written proposal to amend the contract she answered "no." Nunes stated that the reason she did not serve notice on Shutzer that the s.,-ning of the agreement in New York would not take -,:ace until local matteis were negotiated, was because of the past practice. Mrs. Nunes stated that she did r: !.now whether her predecessor had told Shutzer that the agreement reached in New York 0 would not be signed until local issues were resolved. Analysis, Findings and Conclusions It is well settled that a refusal on request to execute a written contract incorporating agreement concerning wages, hours, and working conditions reached as a result of collective bargaining constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of the Act. H. J. Heinz Co. v. N L. R B, 311 U.S. 514. The record herein clearly establishes such request by Shutzer and a refusal by the Respondent to execute a written agreement. The question for determination is whether or not the parties had in fact reached a collective- bargaining agreement. I am convinced on this record and I find that they did. The Respondent contends it should not be compelled to sign the New York master agreement because it was an incomplete document requiring further local negotiations, contingent on the negotiation of local issues, that the pattern of bargaining which existed prior to the 1972 negotiations between the Company and the Union was that master agreements were negotiated subject to modifi- cation in order to conform them to the Company' s local operations and that such pattern was applicable to the 1972 negotiations between the Outerwear Association and the ACWA, that is that although an agreement was negotiated it was a national economic package, subject to further local bargaining, and further that the Company was cognizant of this based not only on past bargaining history with the Union but also based on communications made to the Outerwear Association at the commencement of the negotiating session by Fuller, president of the Union and to Shutzer by Nunes. Turning directly to the resolution of conflicting testimo- ny, Diana Nunes testified that during the lunch period on September 7, 1972, she a had conversation with Sidney Shutzer in which she notified him they had local matters to discuss. Sidney Shutzer denied that this conversation included such notification. Based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I credit the version of Sidney Shutzer who testified in a direct and sincere manner and I do not credit the version of Nunes whose testimony at times convinced me that it was contrived to achieve accommodation between fact and legal requirement. I am convinced that Nunes did not notify Sidney Shutzer that the negotiations completed that morning with the acceptance by the industry of the Respondent's demands were to be continued subsequently at the local level, or that such agreement was contingent on additional and further negotiations at the local level. In any event assuming, arguendo, that Nunes' testimony was to be credited, in my view it simply would not form a valid basis for notice to Shutzer that the negotiations at that time were incomplete and that they would be completed only at such time as local matters were further negotiated to .1 nreement. Lawrence Shutzer testified in a direct, uncontrived and straightforward manner. His responses on cross-examina- tion were prompt and I was impressed with his sincerity. I credit his version of the negotiations and his subsequent discussions with Nunes and Luongo relative to the implementation of the agreement reached in New York on September 7, 1972. There was much testimony of record by Diana Nunes concerning her meetings with the Shutzers subsequent to September 7, 1972, which in effect she characterized as negotiations of local issues presumably requiring resolution prior to the completion and execution of the national supplemental and extension agreement. In the course of her testimony Nunes adverted to discussions with Shutzer over such matters as minimums, the scope of the bargaining unit, and job security. In her testimony relative to the matter of minimums Nunes' testimony had an unmistakable flavor of contrivance and inconsistency. While asserting that she was negotiating minimums locally with Shutzer she also testified that the minimums were to be set nationally, that she had no proposal for Shutzer locally, that the Respondents already had existing mini- 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABO`t RELATIONS BOARD mums but that "they were left out of the negotiations between the manufacturers and the Union in New York, They didn't take care of that." Similarly with respect to the local negotiations on the scope of the bargaining unit no proposal was submitted to Shutzer on this matter but discussions as to specific individuals were conducted as a step in the grievance procedure under the basic contract. As for the issue of job security this matter had been the subject of discussions for a period of several years and according to Nunes what was involved was a requirement to modify the language of the contract. However the issue of job security appears from the record to have finally become the subject of a written demand to Shutzer on April 18, 1973, nearly 8 months after the negotiations took place. The foregoing would indicate a pattern of continu- ing discussion and negotiation without clear definition in terms of time over matters relating to the contract and do not convince me that the national agreement was in any way contingent on the resolution of such matters. In this regard the record clearly establishes that the negotiations in New York were initiated by the Respon- dent with a clearly defined broad set of demands. The record establishes that these demands were negotiated, and that agreement was reached on a basic economic package. In my view the record establishes that the parties had entered on and concluded collective-bargaining negotia- tions and had reached agreement on September 7, 1972, and that at no time did the Respondents advise or notify Shutzer that no agreement had been concluded at that time or that the agreement so concluded was incomplete and contingent on further local negotiations. This conclusion is bolstered by the acts of Respondents subsequent to September 7, 1972. The record is replete with ample evidence to establish the fact that the Respondents viewed and openly treated the negotiations in New York as having resulted in a collective-bargaining agreement, a completed supplemental and extension agreement. Iii thi- regard the record establishes a prior pattern of executiii nationally negotiated supplemental and extension ag' ments aside from complete resolution of local issues wh,,,. could if the parties so desired then be further negotiated and reduced to writing and executed at the local level. The record discloses numerous supplemental and extension agreements entered into by various manufacturers as the employer and executed for both Respondents as the Union by Joseph Salerno, representative of the Respondent Amalgamated. Finally, both the letters of the Respondents to Shutzer on this record, and the actions of the Respondents' represent- atives as portrayed on this record in seeking implementa- tions of the terms agreed on at the national negotiations in New York, together with a speech by the Respondents' representative Luongo to Shutzer's employees make it crystal clear that the Respondents considered the national negotiations to have resulted in a collective-bargaining agreement binding on Shutzer. At no time until the belated letter of February 5, 1973, from the Respondent Amalga- mated to Ferster was notice given that the Respondents considered the agreement incomplete or contingent on additional negotiations. The Respondents are in the position on the one hand of insisting on the implementa- tion of an agreement , while on the other hand insisting that no final agreement has been consummated. Finally, he Respondent herein contends that the Company should be dismissed because the alleged conduct forming the basis of the disputed unfair labor practice herein occurwvi moie than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge hem. !, by Shutzer on June 28, 1973. The Respondent contends that Shutzer filed the charges on June 28, 1973, almost 10 months after the Respondent's initial refusal to execute an agreement , basing this on their contention that Diana Nunes had testified that the Company had knowledge of the Union's refusal to execute the agreement reached in New York as early as September 7, 1972. 1 reject this contention as I have rejected the version of her conversation with Shutzer by Mrs. Nunes as explicated herein above . While there were undoubtedly discussions at the local level between Shutzer and Mrs. Nunes, in my view these do not provide sufficient clear evidence of notification to Shutzer that the Union considered the negotiations in New York as having been contingent on local agreements and that no written agreement was to be executed until such local agreements had been concluded. As for the Respondent's contention that the Union frequently requested information from the Company relative to an intelligent discussion of such issues, again such request began sometime after the agreement in New York had been concluded in December 1972 and in January and April 1973. In any event the statute of limitations bep s ax i un from the date that an unfair labor practice i ,ommitted. Since the record discloses that an agre;iaient was reached between the Charging Party and the Respondent on September 7, 1972, and since there is no dispute that the Respondent refused to execute the agreement on June 15, 1973, I conclude that the 10(b) period herein began to run from the time of the initial refusal to execute the contract which would be June 15 , 1973. Therefore I am convinced and I find that Se-tion 10(b) does not bar the proceeding herein, as there was a demanu by Shutzer and a refusal to execute on June 15, 1972 and the charge was filed well within the 6-month period. Under present Board law, the Board has consistently utilized the "continuing obligation " theory with respect to applying th ; atute of limitations to a complaint alleging a refusal to execute a written collective-bargaining agree- ment. Therefore while the agreement was entered into herein on September 7, 1972, the obligation to enter into and execute a written contract continued until the Respondent's refusal to execute on June 15 , 1973, and it is at that time the statute begins to run. Serv-All Company, Inc., 199 NLRB 1131 (1972); Joseph T. Strong, 152 NLRB 9 (1965). Accordingly the contention of the Respondents herein that the complaint is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act is rejected. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By refusing on June 15, 1973, to sign and execute the collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondents and the representative of Shutzer concluded on September 7, 1972, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, CLOTHING WORKERS LOCAL 187 which affect commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The complaint herein is not barred by the 6-month limitation period prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Having found that the Respondents have unlawfully refused to sign and execute the September 7, 1972, agreement between Respondents and Shutzer, it will be recommended that Respondents be directed to forthwith sign said agreement; and to forward to Shutzer a copy or copies thereof signed by an appropriate official or officials of Respondents authorized to execute collective agree- ments on their behalf. Upon 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: ORDER' Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 187 ACWA, AFL-CIO, CLC, their officers, representatives, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing to sign and execute the September 7, 1972, collective agreement, embodying all the terms and conditions reached at that time between Respondent and Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Forthwith sign the above-mentioned collective agreement of September 7, 1972. (b) Forthwith forward to Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc., a duly executed copy or copies of said agreement. (c) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached Notice marked "Appendix.."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting if desired by Shutzer Manufacturing Co., Inc., at places where it customarily posts notices to employees. 837 (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. I 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, and recommended Order which follows shall , as provided in Sec. 10248 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. 2 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 Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence before an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, it has been found that we have violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice and abide by its terms. WE WILL without delay have an appropriate official or officials sign and deliver to Shutzer Manufacturing Company, Inc., the collective agreement negotiated and concluded on September 7, 1972. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC AND LOCAL 187 AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC (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. or covered by any other material. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's office, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street , Boston, Massachusetts 02114. Telephone 617-223-3300.