Accetta Millwork, Inc.

ACCETTA MILLWORK, INC Accetta Millwork, Inc. and Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee County and Vicinity, AFL-CIO Drexler-Schleiss, Inc. and Carpenters District Coun- cil of Milwaukee County and Vicinity, AFL- CIO Jeffers Millwork, Inc. and Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee County and Vicinity, AFL-CIO. Cases 30-RM-427, 30-RM-428, and 30-RM-430 20 February 1985 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 11 March 1983 the Regional Director for Region 30 issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the election petitions. The Petitioners filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's deci- sion and a supporting brief contending, inter alia, that the Regional Director erred in finding that a de facto multiemployer bargaining unit existed before the 1982 negotiations, that Petitioners failed to make a timely and unequivocal withdrawal from this unit, and that the Union did not acquiesce in the dissolution of this unit.I The Union filed a brief in opposition. By telegraphic order dated 13 June 1983 the National Labor Relations Board granted the Petitioners' request for review. The Board has considered the record in light of the request for review and the briefs and makes the following findings: Until the 1968-1970 contract negotiations, a formal multiemployer bargaining as- sociation, Woodwork Industries of Milwaukee, bar- gained for and signed contracts on behalf of a number of industry employers. The formal associa- tion was disbanded after the 1968-1970 negotia- tions. From 1970 to 1982 various area woodwork industry employers engaged in informal group bar- gaining with the Union. The employers apparently joined and withdrew from the group without writ- ten notice to or formal consent by the Union. Con- tracts negotiated during this period named the indi- vidual employer in the recognition clause, and each employer signed a separate but identical document. Petitioners Accetta and Jeffers were consistently part of this informal employer group but Petitioner Drexler-Schleiss never joined. ' The other issue raised by the Petitioners , whether the Regional Di- rector erred in allowing testimony on the multiemployer issue in these proceedings in light of his dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges , is now moot because of the Regional Director 's subsequent rein- statement of the charges 141 At the beginning of the 1982 negotiations, an at- torney representing 12 industry employers, includ- ing all 3 Petitioners, announced that he was bar- gaining for the employers, but that they were not bargaining as a formal group. The employers' rep- resentative told the Union that they were engaging in coordinated, individual bargaining. Any employ- er could withdraw from the negotiations if it was dissatisfied with the group decisions. The Union's representative stated that it wanted to engage in multiemployer bargaining. On 16 June 1982 the employers' representative presented the Union with a contract proposal. The employees rejected the contract offer and went out on strike. Subsequently, a union representative sought indi- vidual bargaining with various employers that had been part of the group of 12. The Union entered into actual negotiations with three of these employ- ers, but no agreement was reached. Eventually, the Union entered into successful negotiations and signed a collective-bargaining agreement with 4 employers out of the original 12. None of the Peti- tioners was among the four employers that negoti- ated and signed this agreement. The Regional Director concluded that a multi- employer bargaining unit existed before the 1982 negotiations, that the Petitioners failed to make a timely and unequivocal withdrawal from this unit before the 1982 negotiations, and that the Union did not acquiesce in the dissolution of the multiem- ployer unit. The Regional Director also concluded that the collective-bargaining agreement signed by the 4 employers bound the entire 12-member multi- employer unit. Accordingly, the Regional Director dismissed the election petitions. We disagree with the Regional Director's dismissal. Once the formal multiemployer bargaining asso- ciation was disbanded after the 1968-1970 negotia- tions, no multiemployer unit was ever formed to take its place. All of the contracts entered into by industry employers between 1970-1982 were indi- vidual contracts, signed by each employer. Fur- thermore, during this period the employers and the Union ignored the strict rules governing withdraw- al from a multiemployer unit. Thus, employers joined and withdrew from negotiations at will, and there is no evidence that the Union protested such informality. There is also no clear evidence that the employers who participated in negotiations during this period ever agreed to be bound by group decisions. As the Board has consistently held, "[T]he essential element warranting the estab- lishment of multiple-employer units is clear evi- dence that the employers unequivocally intend to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by individual action." Ruan Transport Corp., 274 NLRB No. 20 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 234 NLRB 241, 242 (1978). Accordingly, we find that no multiemployer bargaining unit existed at the onset of the 1982 negotiations.2 We further find that it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the 12 employers who bar- gained together in 1982 formed a multiemployer unit because we find that, in any event, the Union acquiesced in individual bargaining. Thus, after the 12 employers' contract offer was rejected, the Union sought and actually engaged in bargaining with individual employers. The Union negotiated with a splinter group of three employers and then with another group of four employers with whom it eventually reached an agreement. Assuming, ar- guendo, that a 12-employer bargaining unit ever existed, it was effectively fragmented by the bar- 2 In any event, Petitioner Drexler-Schleiss never participated in the group negotiations between 1970-1982 and it could not be deemed to have been a member of any purported multiemployer unit gaining between the Union and these subgroups of employers. See L C. Refrigeration Service, 200 NLRB 687 (1972). The agreement the Union eventually reached with the 4 employers is also clearly not binding on the 12-employer group. The terms of this contract are substantially different from the terms of the offer made by the 12-employer group and there is no evidence that the Petitioners or the 12-employer group ever authorized those 4 employers to negoti- ate and sign contracts on their behalf. Thus, we find that the 1982 contract between the Union and four other employers is not binding on the Petition- ers. Accordingly, we shall reinstate the election pe- titions. ORDER It is ordered that the petitions filed herein be re- instated.