United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 347

414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 347, AFL-CIO (Wabash Valley Contractors Association) and Associated General Contractors of Illinois. Case 14-CB-3006 June 30, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On January 19, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Bernard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings of the Adminis- trative Law Judge, but, for the reasons set forth be- low, has decided to dismiss the complaint in its en- tirety. Unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we do not think that the evidence in this case warrants the con- clusion that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act when it refused to execute, and be bound by, a recently negotiated multiemployer/multiunion agreement. Since the mid-1960's, various highway and bridge construction contractors in Illinois and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (herein Carpenters) have bargained over terms and conditions of employment on a multiemployer/mul- tiunion basis. Most of the substantive terms of these agreements have been negotiated on a statewide ba- sis between the Associated General Contractors of Illinois (herein AGC), on behalf of employer-mem- bers, and a union committee composed of represen- tatives of various Carpenters locals or councils throughout the State. Wages and fringe benefits, however, are negotiated on a "district" basis, be- tween the AGC and groups of Carpenters locals and councils comprising specific geographic districts cor- responding to administrative districts of the State of Illinois Department of Transportation. The present dispute involves the 1975 wage and fringe benefit negotiations between the AGC and Wabash Valley Contractors Association (herein Em- ployer) and a committee of various Carpenters locals and councils which represent employees working for contractors on projects in all 14 Illinois counties within District 7. As in prior negotiations, the chief spokesman of the Employer and head of its negotiat- ing committee was Richard Curren. The chairman of the Carpenters negotiating committee was George Meyer.' On January 21, 1975, Meyer, as chairman of the Carpenters negotiating committee, wrote a letter to Curren formally requesting opening of negotia- tions for a new 2-year agreement to succeed the 2- year agreement about to expire in April. The first bargaining session was held in Effing- ham, Illinois, on March 13, 1975. At the outset of the meeting, Curren, being aware that one of the District 7 Carpenters locals, Respondent Local 347, was un- happy with the wage rate to be proposed by Meyer and wished to seek a separate rate, asked Meyer re- peatedly whether he had the authority to negotiate a contract for the entire District. Meyer assured Cur- ren that he had such authority. Meyer then proposed an hourly wage increase of $1.02 effective April 1, 1975, and a 60-cent raise effective April 1, 1976, which would be applicable for all Carpenters locals throughout District 7, except Respondent Carpenters Local 347, to which such a wage rate was unaccept- able. Meyer then allowed Clarence Butcher, business agent of Respondent, and one of the members of the Carpenters negotiating committee, to make a sepa- rate proposal on behalf of Respondent, whereupon Butcher demanded that the wage rate for carpenters represented by Respondent be tied to the wage rate then being negotiated between AGC and the Carpen- ters locals comprising neighboring District 5 to the north.' Curren immediately rejected Butcher's pro- posal but said he would consider Meyer's. The meeting was then adjourned while Meyer and Curren met in private session in an attempt to reach agreement. When that effort proved unsuccessful, the two men reentered the meeting. Butcher then voiced his displeasure over the closed door private talks and suggested that there was no further point to his parti- cipation in the multiunion negotiations. Curren and Meyer, however, urged him to come to the future negotiating sessions in order to "keep negotiations going." The meeting broke up without agreement and a second meeting was scheduled for March 18. Before the March 18 meeting, the Carpenters ne- gotiating committee caucused, at which time Meyer asked for authority to sign a contract. Of the five 1 The record indicates that Meyer has always been selected as chairman by the District 7 Carpenters local delegates at a prenegotiation strategy meeting where Carpenters initial bargaining proposals are formulated Whether, however, Meyer has been clothed with the authority to bind vari- ous District 7 locals at the bargaining table is a matter of dispute and will be discussed below 2 Respondent had overlapping jurisdiction in both districts , with the ma- jority of employees it represented working in District 5 Butcher had in- formed Meyer on a number of occasions prior to the 1975 negotiations that he wanted to negotiate a separate wage package 225 NLRB No. 53 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS , LOCAL 347 415 delegates of various locals and councils present, two gave Meyer such authority,' two others gave Meyer a limited authority to execute an agreement as long as it contained the wage package their respective locals wanted; i.e., the 2-year $1.02-plus-60-cent package proposed at the original meeting. Butcher, however, denied Meyer the authority, telling him instead that he would have to submit any agreement arrived at to the membership of his local for approval. The actual March 18 negotiation meeting opened with a coun- terproposal by the Employer for a wage package, which Carpenters rejected. Finally, the Employer of- fered to accept Carpenters initial wage proposal of $1.02 plus 60 cents on the condition that such pro- posal be made effective districtwide. Meyer accepted Curren's offer, whereupon Curren drafted a hand- written "Memorandum of Agreement" embodying the understanding of the two parties. After the mem- orandum was passed around among the Employer and Carpenters representatives, without any objec- tions from any of them, it was cosigned by both Cur- ren and Meyer. Later, however, as the negotiating session was breaking up, Butcher told Curren that as of that moment, as far as Respondent Local 347 was concerned, "he didn't have an agreement," since the agreement was subject to ratification by Respon- dent's membership. Subsequent thereto Butcher brought the contract before his membership for rati- fication, whereupon it was unanimously voted down. Butcher subsequently notified Curren of Respon- dent's rejection of the contract and its refusal to be bound thereby .4 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent's actions on March 18 and thereafter in refusing to be bound by the contract executed by the Employer and the Carpenters negotiating committee violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. The primary basis for his conclusion was his finding that Meyer, as chairman of the Carpenters bargaining committee, had authority to enter into a contract with the Em- ployer binding Respondent and other constituent Carpenters locals having territorial jurisdiction in District 7. The Administrative Law Judge relied on bargaining history which showed that Meyer had, since 1967, always acted as Carpenters spokesman during negotiations. The fact that Meyer had carried out such functions without objection by any other Carpenters delegates, and had executed numerous agreements which had been honored by all District 7 3 Meyer testified to having received , prior to the meeting, powers of attor- ney from three other delegates not at the March 18 meeting , giving him authority to execute an agreement on behalf of their respective locals or councils. ° Curren testified, without contradiction, that Butcher threatened to strike and picket contractors in District 7 until the Employer negotiated a separate agreement with Respondent locals, gave Curren every reason to believe that Mey- er had the actual and apparent authority to bind all members of the multiunion unit.' Furthermore, if Butcher or any other Carpenters delegate did not want to be bound by Meyer, he should have made this fact known to Curren. This failure to do so in the current negotiations reinforced Curren' s reliance on Meyer's authority. As to whether a ratification re- quirement did indeed exist, the Administrative Law Judge noted a conflict in testimony but credited testi- mony of Meyer that he had authority to sign a con- tract only "if he got for them what their members wanted." Since Meyer's negotiation efforts were guided by the wage demands his bargaining commit- tee had formulated at its prenegotiation caucus, the Administrative Law Judge reasoned that further rati- fication after a contract embodying such demands had been agreed to would be unnecessary. As final proof of Meyer's authority, the Administrative Law Judge cited the failure of Butcher or any other Car- penters representative to object to, or try to "stop," the execution of the memorandum of agreement by Meyer and Curren, and the absence in the memoran- dum of any reference to the necessity of subsequent ratification. While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Meyer's authority to sign an agreement binding the District 7 Carpenters locals in general, and Re- spondent in particular, is the key issue of this case, we do not believe that the preponderance of the evi- dence warrants his conclusion that Meyer indeed possessed such authority. While the evidence relied upon by the Administrative Law Judge tends to es- tablish Meyer's authority to speak for and bind con- tractually the local unions throughout District 7, there is other evidence, not considered by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge, which depicts Meyer as nothing more than, as Respondent argues, a negotia- tion coordinator who set up meetings and led discus- sions. Regarding the all-important issue of the necessity of ratification, the evidence is anything but clear. While the Administrative Law Judge credited certain testimony of Meyer which, in his opinion, would show that ratification of the memorandum agree- ment was not necessary, he ignored other testimony by Meyer to the effect that each local or council had the right to submit the agreement to its respective membership for ratification; and that District 7 would agree to the contract only if a majority of the member locals chose to ratify it. If these were the ground rules under which the Carpenters locals oper- 5 The Administrative Law Judge cited the testimony of Curren that he was unaware that various Carpenters delegates insisted on ratification by their respective memberships before they would agree to be bound by any contract negotiated by Meyer 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ated, it could still be argued that Respondent was bound by what Meyer negotiated for District 7 as all of the other locals agreed to abide by the new agree- ment. However, Respondent adduced testimony from Carpenters International Representative John Pruitt which directly contradicted that of Meyer. Pruitt testified that the District 7 ground rules were such that any Carpenters local unhappy with the re- sult of the multiunion bargaining could reject the contract and negotiate its own agreement with Em- ployer. The Administrative Law Judge never made a credibility resolution on this narrow issue. Therefore, Meyer's actual authority to sign an agreement with Employer on March 18 binding all of the District 7 Carpenters locals remains unresolved. Equally clouded is the question of Employer's awareness of Meyer's lack of authority. While it is true that, as Curren testified, Meyer assured him at the March 13 meeting that he had sole authority to speak for and negotiate on behalf of District 7, Cur- ren surely knew of Respondent's unhappiness with Meyer's districtwide wage package, and of its inten- tion to put forth a separate proposal. Meyer himself testified without contradiction that he told Curren at the first negotiation session on March 13 that "Mr. Butcher would not accept our offer and he was going to present his offer himself." And, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, Butcher proceeded to do just that. Furthermore, while Curren testified to being ignorant of any union challenge to Meyer's au- thority, Meyer testified, and Curren admitted, over- hearing the proceedings of the Union's prenegotia- tion caucus of March 18 wherein Butcher and others were questioning Meyer's power to sign a contract on their behalf without first consulting their respective locals.' This confusion over whether Curren was aware of Respondent's desire to strike its own deal outside the context of multiunion bargaining is best manifested in the Administrative Law Judge's Deci- sion itself . While the Administrative Law Judge at one point takes Respondent to task for not fulfilling its "affirmative duty" to notify Curren that it did not want to be bound by Meyer, he makes the crucial finding elsewhere in his Decision that "he [Meyer] and Curren knew that Butcher's people were not bound by these negotiations because Butcher wanted a separate deal for his members."' Whether a union is ever bound by the results of multiunion negotiation depends on the conduct of all the parties to the negotiation on both sides of the bargaining table.' Given the ambiguous and contra- dictory record of this case, both as to Meyer's actual authority to enter into multiunion negotiations and bind the member locals, and Respondent's an- nounced intention not to be bound by such negotia- tions, we are not prepared to find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) when it refused to be bound by the contract negotiated by Meyer. We shall there- fore dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 6 While Curren did not pay any attention to the details of this conversa- tion, he did hear references to Meyer's inability to sign for all of the unions and then admitted the union delegates must have had "internal problems " 7 General Counsel excepts to this finding of the Administrative Law Judge as "inexplicable counter to the entire thrust of the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision which is sound in principle " However, given the consistently outspoken position taken by Butcher throughout the negotia- tions, we think the Administrative Law Judge's finding has a basis in fact In light of this finding , we find it difficult to attach any significance, as did the Administrative Law Judge, to the failure of Butcher to "stop" Meyer from signing the memorandum of agreement of March 18 Unless Butcher was under a duty to stop Meyer physically, it is hard to conceive of anything more Butcher could have done to make his dissenting views known to Cur- ren 8 Local Union 525, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry (Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co, Inc), 171 NLRB 1607 (1968) DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J. SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me on October 22, 1975, at St. Louis, Missouri. The charge was filed on June 16, 1975, by the Associated General Contractors of Illinois, herein called the Employer. The complaint, which was issued on August 1, 1975, alleges that the Respondent Union violated Sec- tion 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Issues The primary issues in this case are (1) whether or not the chairman of the Respondent's bargaining committee, George Meyer, was without authority to make a binding contract; (2) whether the Respondents refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by the refusal of one of Respondent's locals, No. 347, to give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement reached in the bargaining among the Associated General Contractors of Illinois and the Carpenters district councils having territorial jurisdic- tion within the Illinois State Division of Highways District 7 as the union party to the bargaining. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS , LOCAL 347 417 Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER At all times material herein, Charging Party and Wabash Valley Contractors Association, herein sometimes called Wabash, each has been and is a voluntary association of employers engaging in the building and construction in- dustry as highway and heavy general contractors and spe- cialty subcontractors duly authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Illinois. The Charging Party has maintained its principal office and place of business at 3219 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois. Charging Party's and Wabash's Em- ployer-Members maintain their principal offices and places of business at different locations in the State of Illinois and adjoining States and are, and have been at all times materi- al herein, engaged in the business of constucting highway and other heavy construction projects. During the past year ending December 31, 1974, the Em- ployer-Members of the Charging Party, in the course and conduct of their business operations aforesaid, purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to their differ- ent offices and jobsites within the State of Illinois, con- struction materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were trans- ported and delivered to said offices andjobsites within Illi- nois directly from points outside said State. I find that the Charging Party and Wabash are now, and have been at all times material herein, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background All carpenter and millwright employees employed by the Employer-Members of the Charging Party and Wabash within the geographical area of Illinois Highway District 7, comprising the counties of Clay, Crawford, Edwards, Eff- ingham, Fayette, Hamilton, Jasper, Jefferson, Lawrence, Marion, Richland, Wabash, Wayne, and White, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit approprate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. It has been the invariable practice of the parties to hold bargaining sessions when notice has been received from the Respondent to reopen the contract for wages and fringe benefits. At each of the bargaining sessions that have taken place from 1967 to date, Respondent formulates carpenter wage and fringe demands for its schedule A; at a prelimi- nary meeting of carpenter delegates at which a bargaining committee invariably chaired by Meyer is also elected; Meyer contacts the Employer and sets up the first schedule A bargaining session at some mutually convenient time and place. The two parties then bargain through one or more bargaining sessions until they reach an agreement on the schedule A contract, which is then binding on all the carpenters unions having territorial jurisdiction within Dis- trict 7. After new agreements are reached, the Employer re- ceives copies signed by Meyer. The Associated General Contractors has never sought the signatures of individual unions and district councils on these District 7 contracts. The Employer consistently relied on Meyer's apparent and actual authority to bind the multiunion unit as signified by the course of conduct over almost a decade of time in which Meyer chaired and acted as spokesman for the Dis- trict 7 Carpenter Bargaining Committee and signed con- tracts negotiated with the Employer on behalf of all those unions without ever having received a challenge to his au- thority to do so. B. The Facts The instant case arises against the above -described back- ground and the Employer entered 1975 negotiations with the Carpenters whose bargaining committee was again chaired by Meyer, who had negotiated all previous multi- party contracts on behalf of and binding on Carpenters District 7. It is contended by Clarence Butcher, who was the Respondent's business representative at the time of the 1975 negotiations, and one Jim Pruett, business representa- tive from Vandalia and Salem, Illinois, that Mayer was not voted in as chairman at the commencement of the 1975 negotiations. Despite this contention, Butcher did not tell Meyer that he wanted to actively participate in the negotia- tions and raise any protest or take any steps to curtail Meyer's activity or exercise of authority as the negotiating committee chairman. Thus, whether elected each time a new contract was to be bargained or not, Meyer was clear- ly and constantly identified and recognized by everybody concerned as the chairman of and spokesman for the Dis- trict 7 Carpenters' bargaining committee. The first negotiating session took place on March 13, 1975,1 at the Holiday Inn located in Effingham, Illinois. Present at this meeting for the Employer was Richard Cur- ren, who was the director of labor relations for the contrac- tors, and George Drumm and Ron Shore. The Respondent was represented by a committee con- sisting of Mr. Butcher, Mr. Copple, Mr. Bathe, George Meyer, and John Pruitt. Curren identified himself as the spokesman for the General Contractors. George Meyer was the spokesman for and chairman of the union negoti- ating team. At this meeting, Meyer proposed the Respondent's wage 1 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demand as being a $1.02, effective April 1, 1975, and 60 cents effective April 1, 1976. The employer group count- erproposed a uniform wage increase of 70 cents throughout the District 7. Meyer rejected this proposal and another meeting was scheduled for March 18. During the course of the first meeting, Butcher requested a separate deal for Lo- cal 347, which was to be whatever District 5 (then involved in separate negotiations) would arrive at. District 5 is the next district to the north of District 7. During the course of a colloquy between union counsel and Mr. Curren, counsel asked if "Meyer was seeking indi- vidual authority from each of the unions to sign the con- tract-wasn't he, and you heard it?" A. I do not recall hearing that. Q. You do not recall people at the meeting saying Meyer has no authority to sign the contract or to bind us or to negotiate for us. He is just the chairman, he just arranges the meetings, he cannot bind us. A. No. Q. Do you know that Meyer called people and sent out letters seeking their authority to bind them? A. No. Q. And you did not hear Jim Pruett say that Meyer has no authority to bind me. A. No. n Q. Did you hear Butcher say no I will not give you the authority to sign for me. A. No. Q. We, if we agree, we don't have the authority to sign anything until it is voted on by our members and you heard them say that didn't you? A. No. Not that I remember. I do not think they did. Later, in the cross-examination, Curren said: "If Meyer said that he represented District 7 as he has in previous years, I had negotiated with him alone for all of District 7. There has never been any problem with it so that would have been all right with me, I would have believed him when he said he represented all of District 7." Later on in the cross-examination, Curren testified: I believe there was the resolution because I asked Meyer whether he had authority on behalf of these people to enter into the agreement with me, he said, "Yes" right in front of them and he did as I have testified before. I did not notice any furor following that. My assumption was that they had worked it out although they were not all happy about it. In his testimony George Meyer, on direct examination, was asked if he had ever been involved in negotiations with the AGC of Illinois. A. Yes sir. Q. In what particular highway district. A. Highway District 7. Q. This is your local. A. My local is located in Highway District 7. Q. When did you first become involved in negotia- tions within District 7 between the carpenters and the AGC? A. I guess I negotiated the first contract with them in 1967. Q. How did you happen to get involved? A. I was selected by our local as a member of the negotiating committee and they, in turn, sent me as a representative to the business agents' meeting prior to the meeting there with the contractors. Q. This is in 1967? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody else from your local go. This would be to that first meeting among the business agents. A. Not that I can recall sir at this time. Q. All right it was 8 years ago. When you got there, to this first meeting this preliminary meeting which involves only union people what happened then on that occasion? A. Well, the personnel that were there were there in the same capacity as I was, to represent their local union. At that time we selected a chairman, which unfortunately was me. Q. You won. A. I was selected. Q. This was for the chairman of what? A. The negotiating committee to negotiate a con- tract with the AGC and the Wabash Valley Contrac- tors Association. Q. Were other people also on the committee. A. They were. Q. Since then have you been involved in any other negotiations. If so in what capacity? A. I have. This is only with the AGC. Q. Only with the AGC? A. We negotiated in 1967 to 1971 when we had an- other negotiation session. Q. Were you involved? A. I was chairman of that also. Q. All right. How were you selected in that year? A. The same way. Each time I was selected that same way. Q. Did you get involved in the next negotiations? A. I got involved in the next negotiations, the next one was the same contract with the AGC and Wabash Valley Contractors Association. Q. And it ran until when? A. It was affective April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1975. Q. In what capacity were you involved in the nego- tiations in 1971, 1973 and 1975? A. I was selected chairman. Q. Is there any difference in the way you were se- lected in 1967 and in the subsequent years? A. No. Each time we had a meeting prior to our negotiating session, I offered my resignation and they renominated me to this position. Q. Was there any difference in the way you operat- ed as chairman in 1967, 1971, 1973 or 1975? A. When we arrived at solutions as to what our de- mands were from the contractors, I, in turn, notify the UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 347 419 contractors that we wished to terminate the present contract and begin negotiations for a new contract. Q. How were these determinations of what the van- ous locals and their representatives and officials want- ed, how did you come to an agreement on that? A. We would all meet prior to the date that we had to notify the contractor and we would argue it out right around the table and we would come to a conclu- sion of what our demands would be. In sum the testimony of Meyer was to the effect that locals authorized him to conclude the contract provided he got from them what they wanted. According to Meyer, nothing was ever said by representatives of the locals at the meetings with the contractors that no matter what arrange- ments Meyer could make, it was necessary for the repre- sentative then to go back to their several locals to secure ratification of what Meyer was able to get for them. His remarks were clear that he knew and Curren knew that Butcher's people were not bound by these negotiations be- cause Butcher wanted a separate deal for his members. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether ratifi- cation had to be secured from the separate locals. On bal- ance, I am persuaded that the testimony of Meyer and Curren, which I credit, is logical. Meyer testified without refutation that members of the committee went along with Meyer, "If he got for them what their members wanted." Since this is so it seems unlikely that after Meyer was suc- cessful the committee members then had to return to their locals to secure ratification. In effect, Meyer had preratifi- cation when he was able to get what the locals wanted. The extent of their demands were hammered out in the private meetings Meyer had with the other members of the com- mittee before meeting with the contractors. In the March 18 meeting the AGC offered and the Car- penters rejected a counterproposal. Meyer said that if no agreement were reached on the Respondent's offer he would withdraw the Carpenters original offer and submit a new proposal. The AGC caucused and later returned with an offer to pay the $1.02 and 60 cents for the forthcoming 2 years on condition that the rate be districtwide. Curren said he was going to make a wage proposal for District 7 accepting the $1.02 and 60 cents as you proposed provided you make it uniform throughout the district. Meyer agreed to accept a new contract with districtwide rates on behalf of the Carpenters. Since agreement had been reached with the Carpenters for a contract to bind everybody in the unit, Curren proceeded to draft a "Memorandum of Agree- ment." This was passed around among the Carpenters rep- resentatives at the bargaining table, including Re- spondent's business representative and bargaining com- mittee member, Butcher. It was then signed by Meyer and Curren. It is significant to point out that none of the Carpenter's representatives present, including Butcher, tried to stop Meyer from signing the Memorandum of Agreement which purported to, and in fact did, bind all District 7 carpenters, including Respondent. It should be further noted that this Memorandum of Agreement con- tained no stipulation suggesting that the agreement embod- ied in the contract, or the contract itself, was in any way contingent upon subsequent ratification by any or all the locals or district councils participating in the multiparty negotiations. So far as ratification is concerned, Curren credibly testified that never in his previous experience had the question of ratification ever come up, even though he had participated in negotiations on behalf of the AGC for about 10 years. In any event, nothing was stated at the time of the negotiations of March 18, 1975, to the effect that unless the agreements entered into by Meyer were subse- quently ratified that there would be no binding obligation on the part of the Respondent. Respondent places strong reliance on Local Union No. 525, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (Reynolds Electical & En- gineering Co.), 171 NLRB 1607 (1968), in which the Board reversed the Trial Examiner's decision, finding the union in that case in violation of Section 8(b)(3). The facts of the instant case are not apposite to the case at bar. In Plumbers Local 525, the record shows that Reeco and the respon- dent, as well as other craft unions at the Las Vegas, Ne- vada, missile site, had a history of bargaining on an indi- vidual craft basis for separate craft contracts. That case turned on the Baord's conclusion that respondent had re- fused to bargain in good faith. There is no such problem in the instant case. The major question in the case at bar was whether or not Meyer had authority to bind separate locals of the Carpenters Union. The totality of the course of bargaining between Re- spondent and the Employer shows that for almost 10 years Meyer represented the Carpenters, negotiated for them, and entered into a succession of contracts binding the lo- cals to the agreement reached between Curren and Meyer. Meyer had more than apparent authority to enter into binding contracts for the Carpenters Union. He had actual authority, and exercised it without his authority being questioned. Furthermore, at the point of signing the so- called Memorandum of Agreement, none of the participat- ing members of the negotiating committee voiced any ob- jection to Meyer's signing on their behalf. It is not disputed that Curren and Meyer had a longstanding relationship and took part in the bargaining over a period of almost a decade. If any of the representatives of the separate locals did not want to be bound by Meyer, they had an affirma- tive duty to so notify Curren. The record shows their assent by their silence at the point of Meyer's signing for them. It is no argument to contend that there was space at the end of the written contract for their respective signatures. They had not signed any of the previous agreements negotiated by Meyer. It is also not relevant that at the time Meyer did act for them he was in retirement. A union can be repre- sented by any individual, whether or not he is an active member of the said union. It is also significant that all the parties covered by the 1975 agreement did, in fact, abide by its terms. John Pruitt, general representative of the Carpenters Union, testified as follows: Q. What would be the benefit then of the contrac- tor negotiating with everybody and find out that he had a number of non-ratifications? A. Well, in the years we have had this this has never happened, in 10 years. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Never happened that somebody would not abide by a contract? A. Had refused to abide by the terms of the agree- ment. I do not think it's happened yet today. I don't believe anyone has refused to abide by the terms of the agreement. Q. Would Local 347 go by the terms of the agree- ment? A. I think they would have jobs in their territory. It is clear from the record that Meyer did, in fact, have actual authority to bind the local unions who participated in the bargaining sessions. I so find. As a result of this fact, I find that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Since agreement had been reached with the Car- penters for a contract to bind everybody in the unit, Cur- ren proceeded to draft a Memorandum of Agreement. This was passed around among the Carpenter representatives at the bargaining table. Meyer's action on March 18 was in strict accord with the past practice of the parties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 347, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of the Act. 2. Associated General Contractors of Illinois is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All carpenter and millwright employees employed by the Employer-Members of the Charging Party and Wabash within the geographical area of Illinois Highway District No. 7, comprised of the counties of Clay, Crawford, Ed- wards, Effingham, Fayette, Hamilton, Jasper, Jefferson, Lawrence, Marion, Richland, Wabash, Wayne, and White, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. On March 18, 1975, and at all times material thereaf- ter, Respondent has stated it is not bound by the contract and by so doing violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. It shall be required to notify the Associated General Contractors of Illinois in writing that it is bound by the contract execu- ted by its representative Meyer. 5. 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 stated that it is not bound by the contracts executed by its agent Meyer, it shall be ordered to notify the Associated General Contrac- tors that it is in fact bound by the contract. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]