Liberty House

LIBERTY HOUSE (AMFAC CORP) 869 Liberty House (AMFAC Corp.) and Phyllis M. Mey- ers, Petitioner and Retail Store Employees Union Local 367, Chartered by Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. Case 19-RD-869 August 9, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On January 30, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Union filed a timely request for re- view of the Regional Director's decision, contending that there exists a collective-bargaining agreement which bars the further processing of the petition. By telegraphic order dated March 2, 1976, the Board granted the Union's request for review. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union filed briefs on review. 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 entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review, including the briefs on review, and makes the following find- ings: The Employer is a Hawaii corporation engaged in the operation of two retail department stores in Ta- coma, Washington. One of the stores is located in the Tacoma Mall Shopping Center and the other is locat- ed in the Lakewood Villa Plaza Shopping Center. At both of its stores, the Employer employs salesclerks and office employees. At each of these two stores the Union represents separate units consisting of the salesclerks and office employees, respectively. Prior to June 1, 1975, the most recent expiration date of the contracts covering the employees in these units, the Union and the Em- ployer commenced negotiations for a new agree- ment. On November 3, 1975, the Employer and the Union executed a collective-bargaining agreement covering the salesclerks at the Employer's two stores. With respect to the office employees, on December 4, 1975, the Employer wrote to the Union stating, in part, that "Pursuant to our telephone conversation, we are preparing the new labor agreements for Liber- ty House-Villa Plaza and Liberty House-Tacoma Mall." That letter also set forth the new wage scale and asserted that it would make other appropriate changes to conform the office employees agreement to the clerks' agreement. On December 9, 1975, a ratification meeting was held at the Union's office at 7:30 a.m. Although the employees of both stores were notified of the meet- ing, only those from the Tacoma Mall store attended. Those employees in attendance voted unanimously to accept the Employer's proposal and the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 a.m. Immediately thereafter, the Union's president signed the Employer' s letter, accepting the Employer's proposal, and the Tacoma Mall store was notified of the Union's acceptance and that a contract existed. However, there was no evidence that the Villa Plaza store was contacted.' On the same day, at 8:57 a.m., the instant petition was docketed in the Regional Office for the office unit at the Villa Plaza store. In concluding that there was no existing contract which would bar the instant petition, the Regional Director found that there existed neither a formal- ized document executed by both parties nor an ex- change of a signed written proposal and acceptance which set forth in sufficient particularity the terms and conditions of employment. We disagree. As noted supra, the Employer set forth an offer to the Union in a letter dated December 4, 1975. The Employer's proposals included not only a wage scale, but also incorporated by reference certain other terms and conditions of employment which were contained in the previously executed salesclerks con- tract. The Union indicated its acceptance of the Employer's offer by signing, at the ratification meet- ing, the Employer's letter containing the offer.2 By signing the Employer's offer, which contained sub- stantial terms and conditions of employment, the Union formed a contract which we find is sufficient to bar the instant petition.' Accordingly, we shall or- der that the petition herein be dismissed. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1 The union representative who allegedly contacted the Villa Plaza store was hospitalized at the time of the hearing and did not testify 2 We need not determine whether the Union signed the Employer 's letter prior to the filing of the petition as there is no evidence that the Union was aware of the petition at the time it signed the agreement See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 999 (1958) 3See, eg , Valley Doctors Hospital, Inc, d/b/a Riverside Hospital, 222 NLRB 907 (1976), Appalachian Shale Products Co, 121 NLRB 1160 (1958) 225 NLRB No. 119