Cam Industries

CAMINDUSTRIES I I Cam Industries, Inc. and Millmen-Industrial Carpen- ters Local 262. Case 32-CA-1996 August 11, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE On April 29, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Millmen-Industrial Carpenters Local 262, herein called the Union, filed exceptions and sup- porting briefs, and Cam Industries, Inc., herein called the Respondent, filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. 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, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent agreed to recognize and bargain with the Union in the event that it demon- strated its majority status by a card check conduct- ed by the California Conciliation Service. Howev- er, we disagree with his conclusion that, following the card check, the Respondent lawfully refused to bargain solely on the grounds that the authoriza- tion cards used to establish that majority status des- ignated only the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and not the Union, a local thereof. As the Administrative Law Judge noted, the Board has long held, with court approval, that an authorization card designating a parent labor orga- nization serves as a valid designation of its affili- ate.2 However, the Administrative Law Judge de- clined to follow this long line of precedent. Rather, he found that the United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America is a different and more powerful labor organization than its Local, the Union, and reasoned that, absent a showing of knowledge or consent, it does not follow that an i The Board has also considered an amicus curiae brief filed on July 17 1980, by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America VL.R.B. v. Bradford Dyeing .4sroctaion LS.4 e au. 310 U.S. 318 (1940); N L.RR v Franks Bros. Company, 137 F2d 98Q (Ist Cir 1943). affd. 321 L S 702 1944). and cases cited by the Administrative Law Judge. See also Local Union No. 707. Highway and Local Mor Freight Drivers. Dockmen and Helpers, International Brotherhood of 7amsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of .4mrica (Clarnmont Polvcheni- col Corporation), 196 NLRB 613 (1972) 7Trea Elciric Cooperaives Inc. Treating Division. 160 NLRB 440 (1966) 251 NLRB No. 4 employee who signs a card designating the former intends to allow a substitution of the latter as the bargaining representative. The Administrative Law Judge found such substitution to be inconsistent with the concerns of Sections 7 and 9(a) of the Act, inasmuch as the ultimate right to select the actual bargaining representative rests with the em- ployees. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we cannot conclude that, by signing the authorization cards, the employees intended to designate as their representative any labor organization other than the Union. The Union is a branch of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and was the sole Union seeking to organize and represent the employees. 3 Moreover, there is no evidence that the card signers were, in fact, con- fused, or believed that they were designating the International union as an organization separate from the Union, which was requesting their signa- tures. We therefore find the authorization cards sufficient to evidence the employees' desire to be represented by the Union. The decisions relied on by the Administrative Law Judge in reaching a contrary result are clearly distinguishable. In 0 & T Warehousing Co., a Divi- sion of Bowline Corporation, 240 NLRB 386 (1979), a representation case, the Board refused to allow a petitioner to appear on the election ballot as "AFL-CIO and/or its Appropriate Affiliate," since that designation failed to identify sufficiently a labor organization so as to accord employees their Section 7 right to select a bargaining representative of their own choosing. The Board noted that the petitioner's proposed designation necessarily en- compassed three possible representatives-the AFL-CIO, the AFL-CIO and an affiliate, or an af- filiate of the AFL-CIO. However, in this case there is no reason to believe that employees were either presented with different possible representa- tives or were being requested to choose a yet-to-be determined representative. In M. A. Norden Company, Inc., 159 NLRB 1730 (1966), the Board refused to allow an International union to amend its certification as bargaining repre- sentative in favor of an affiliated local. The Board noted the absence of any evidence that the employ- ees' choice of the parent organization as their certi- fied representative was intended to encompass the a Claremont Polychemical Corp.. supra. 7Texas Elctric Cooperaitve. supra. In this regard, sne note that sec I of the cross-check election agreement entered into by the parties provide, the following I ) No Other ()rganizationl The Fmploor and the Unioll each ex- pressly represents that there is no other labor organization hich claims to represent the employees wilhis the unit indicated herein Cam Industri3s, Inc. and Millmen-Industrial Carpen- CAM INDUSTRIES II 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD local, as well as the employer's uncontroverted al- legation that, at the time of the petition to amend the certification, it was engaged in bargaining with the International. Unlike M. A. Norden, this case does not involve an attempt to substitute another organization for a functioning bargaining repre- sentative which originally sought and acquired rec- ognition by means of a Board election. Here, the union seeking recognition was the one which sought designation by the employees as their exclu- sive representative. Accordingly, we find that, fol- lowing the card check establishing the Union's ma- jority status, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union at its request. 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Cam Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Millmen-Industrial Carpenters Local 262 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Since on or about July 5, 1979, the Union has been and is, the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All warehousemen, production employees, maintenance employees, and drivers employed by Respondent at its Santa Clara, California, s facility; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. 4. Since on or about July 10, 1979, the Respond- ent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative of all employees in the above-de- scribed appropriate unit. 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 engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain 4 See Idaho Pacific Steel Warchouve Co.. Inc., 227 NLRB 32th l976). We find it unnecessary to pass on that portion of the complaint alleging that the Respondent, on or about July 19, 1979, withdrew recognition from the Union. S We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's Decision lto re- flect Respondent's business location as Santa Clara instead of Santa Rosa, California affirmative action necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cam Industries Inc., Santa Clara, California, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Millmen-Industrial Carpenters Local 262 as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All warehousemen, production employees, maintenance employees, and drivers employed by Respondent at its Santa Clara, California, facility; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Mill- men-Industrial Carpenters Local 262 as the exclu- sive representative of all employees in the appro- priate unit set forth above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in Santa Clara, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it 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 said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In tile eent that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment o a United States (ourt of Appeals, the words in the notice readinig "Posted by Order of the Nationlal labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted P'ursu- ant to a Judgmnent of the United States Court of Appeals Enfiorcing an Order f' the National lahor Relations Board" CAM INDUSTRIES, INC. 13 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Millmen-Industrial Carpenters Local 262 as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the following appropriate unit: All warehousemen, production employees, maintenance employees, and drivers em- ployed by us at our Santa Clara, California, facility; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees in the above-de- scribed unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody any understand- ing reached in a signed agreement. CAM INDUSTRIES, INC. DECISION SrATEMENT OF THE CASE JERROLD H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding, in which a hearing was conducted on December 12, 1979, is based on an unfair labor practice charge filed August 2, 1979, by Millmen-Industrial Car- penters Local 262, herein called the Union, against Cam Industries, Inc., herein called the Respondent. On August 29, 1979, a complaint was issued against Re- spondent by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, Region 32, on behalf of the Board's General Counsel which alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to meet with the Union to negotiate the terms of a contract and by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.' Upon the entire record, from my observation of the demeanor of Gordon Franco and Colin Moreton, the only witnesses, and having considered the post-hearing briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respond- ent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The Evidence Respondent sells aluminum windows and patio doors. It has business facilities in Santa Rosa, California, and Sacramento, California. During the time material herein Respondent's Santa Rosa facility, the only facility in- volved in this case, employed approximately 10 employ- ees: I salesperson; 2 office clericals; and 7 other employ- ees, one of whom was a temporary employee, who per- formed warehouse, production, and delivery work. The record establishes, and it is undisputed, that during the time material herein a majority of the Re- spondent's employees in Santa Rosa who performed the warehouse, production and delivery work signed "Au- thorization Cards" which read in pertinent part as fol- lows: I hereby authorize the UNITED BROTHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA to act as my collective bargaining agent in regard to wages, hours and other condi- tions of employment .... No evidence was presented about the circumstances sur- rounding the signing of these cards or what if anything the card signers were told about the Union that would represent them. On June 28, 1979,2 Gordon Franco, a union business representative, wrote Respondent, on the stationery of the Santa Clara Valley District Council of Carpenters, herein called the District Council of Carpenters, that the District Council of Carpenters, "had obtained authoriza- tion cards from a majority of the employees employed by [Respondent] in a unit that is appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining" and demanded "immedi- ate recognition of the Local Union as the collective-bar- gaining agent of [Respondent's] employees" and asked for negotiation meeting, but stated that if Respondent doubted the majority status of "our Union" that the Union was "willing to have an independent third party check out the authorization cards signed by your em- ployees against your personnel records." On July 2, Franco, on behalf of the District Council of Carpenters, filed a petition with the National Labor Re- lations Board seeking a representation election among the Respondent's Santa Rosa employees. This petition was withdrawn by the District Council of Carpenters In its ansAer Respondent admits that the Union is a labor organiza- tion within tihe meaning of Sec 25i) of the Act and that he Respondenl mees the Board's applicable discretiolnarN juridictional standard and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning orf Sec 2(6) and 17) of the Act 2 nlcs olhcr.isc specified, all dates herein refer to the year 1979 CAM INDUSTRIES, INC 13 . _ 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after the July 5 "cross-check" which took place, as de- scribed infra. On July 2, the Respondent's president, Colin Moreton, upon receipt of Franco's June 28 letter, telephoned him. He asked Franco how long the Union had been organiz- ing the employees and threatened to close the Santa Rosa facility before he would sign a oontract with the Union. Franco stated that it sounded as if Moreton was interfering with the rights of the employees. Moreton stated he would not be able to pay the high wages the Union was demanding. Franco pointed out that Moreton was premature inasmuch as the Union had not made any wage demands. Moreton asked how the employees' wages would be established if the Respondent recog- nized the Union. Franco explained that he and Moreton would sit down and negotiate the wages. Moreton asked Franco to explain about the third party card check re- ferred to in Franco's letter. Franco stated that either a state conciliator or a Federal mediator or a minister or a notary could conduct the card check and that the person who checked the employees' signatures on the cards would compare them with the signatures on the W-2 forms signed by the employees and that only the em- ployees working at the time would be eligible to have their names checked. Franco also indicated that the person who conducted the card check would contact Moreton and arrange for a mutually convenient time to conduct the card check. Moreton asked, "What does this particularly mean when you tell me you are going to have somebody check these cards? Do I understand it means they are merely going to check and verify these people do in fact work for our company?" Franco an- swered: "Yes that's right." The conversation, which lasted not more than 10 minutes, ended with Moreton agreeing to a card check and that Franco would make the necessary arrangements. 3 On July 2, Franco, immediately after his phone con- versation with Moreton, contacted John Jaeger of the California Conciliation Service and arranged for him to conduct a card check on July 5 at Respondent's place of business in Santa Rosa. Jaeger, Moreton, and Franco met on the morning of July 5 in Moreton's office at which time Moreton for Respondent, Franco for the Union, and Jaeger for the Califorr.ia State Conciliation Service, af- fixed their signatures to a cross-check election agree- ment. Pursuant to the terms of the cross-check election agreement the Respondent and the Union agreed that on that same day, July 5, Jaeger would conduct a cross- check among the current warehousemen, production and maintenance employees and drivers employed by Re- spondent at its Santa Rosa facility who were employed during the payroll period ending June 22 "to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Union for purposes of collective bargaining" and that the cross-check would be conducted by comparing the em- ployee signatures on the authorization cards submitted by the Union with the payroll records and W-2 forms furnished by the Respondent. In signing the cross-check 3 The description of this phone conversation is based on a composite of Franco's and Moreton's testimony inasmuch as their testimony con- cerning the conversation was not in conflict. election agreement the parties also represented that no other labor organizations claimed to represent any of the unit employees covered by the agreement and that the parties had voluntarily entered into the agreement. In so- lution, sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 of the cross-check election agreement reads as follows: 2. Cross-Check: A cross-check of appropriate Union and Employer records shall be made by a State conciliator from the California State Concilia- tion Service jointly requested by the Employer and the Union to make such cross-check among all em- ployees in the Unit who appear on the Employer's payroll for the period indicated below, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Union for purposes of collective bargaining. The undersigned Employer and Union further agree that the determination of the Election Super- visor shall be final and binding upon any question (including questions as to eligibility) raised by either party hereto relating in any manner to the cross- check and not specifically covered in this Agree- ment. 7. Notice of Cross-Check Election: The Election Supervisor shall prepare a suitable Notice of Cross- Check Election. The Employer and the Union shall jointly approve such notice. This Notice of Cross- Check Election shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises of the Employer for--days. An Affidavit of Posting will be required. 4 8. Report on Cross-Check Election: At the con- clusion of this posting period, the Election Supervi- sor shall conduct the cross-check and will issue a Report on Cross-Check Election, finding and deter- mining whether the Union has been designated and selected as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the Unit. 9. Binding results: It is agreed that the results of this Cross-Check Election shall be accepted as bind- ing on both parties. In the event the Union establishes a majority in the cross-check, the Employer agrees to bargain, upon request, with the Union as exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees in the above Unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment; and if any understanding is reached on such matters, embody such understanding, upon request, in a signed agree- ment. In the event the Union loses the election it agrees to refrain from raising the question of representation for a period of--from the date of issuance of the report on Cross-Check Election.5 4 Jaeger, during the July 5 meeting, as described inJra, placed the figure "O" in the blank space. s Jaeger, during the July 5 meeting. as described infra. placed the phrase "twelve months" ill the blank space. CAM INDUSTRIES. INC. 15 On July 5, pursuant to the terms of the cross-check election agreement, State Conciliator Jaeger compared the authorization cards furnished by the Union with the payroll records and W-2 forms furnished by the Re- spondent and after doing this stated that he was satisfied the Union had demonstrated its "majority status" and issued to the parties a REPORT ON CROSS CHECK ELEC- TION wherein he found, "that the [Union] has been desig- nated and selected as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit designated in the Cross-Check Election Agreement." Franco and Moreton testified about the July 5 meeting and and the card check which took place at that time. They each testified that they read the cross-check elec- tion agreement before signing it and discussed those sec- tions of the agreement which dealt with the time and place of the card check, the description of the bargaining unit, the payroll eligibility period, and whether any other union was involved. Their testimony conflicts on the question of whether there was any discussion concerning sections 7 through 9 of the agreement and about the nature of Franco's remarks to Moreton at the end of the meeting. Franco testified Jaeger read section 7 of the card- check election agreement to Franco and Moreton and told them that if they did not object he would waive the posting period required by that section. Franco and Mor- eton each replied they had no objection at which point Jaeger placed the figure "0" in the appropriate space. And in connection with section 9 Franco testified that Jaeger specifically told Franco and Moreton that if the Union proved its majority status in the card check that the Respondent would be obliged to bargain with the Union as the employees' bargaining representative but that if the Union failed to establish majority status it could not organize the Respondent's employees for an- other 12 months. Franco indicated he understood this and Jaeger marked "twelve months" in the appropriate space. Moreton testified that he had no memory that sec- tion 7 was discussed and did not "remember" whether Jaeger either read or directed the parties' attention to paragraphs 7, 8, or 9 and further testified that "nothing was discussed regarding [sections] seven, eight, or nine" of the agreement. However, elsewhere in his testimony he inconsistently testified that there was a discussion about that part of section 9 which referred to the fact that if the Union lost the card check it would have to refrain from organizing the employees for an unspecified period of time, which Jaeger said was 12 months and wrote this into that section. On the subject of how the meeting ended Franco testi- fied that as he left he advised Moreton that he would be away on his vacation until July 25 and would contact Moreton upon his return to arrange for a suitable time and place to start negotiations. Moreton testified that he did not remember Franco saying he would be in contact with him about negotiations but that Franco simply stated he would contact Moreton when he returned from vacation. In resolving the conflicts between Moreton's and Franco's testimony I have considered the fact that Franco appeared to be a sincere witness whereas I re- ceived the impression from Moreton's demeanor that he was not a reliable witness. In addition, there was a sig- nificant self-contradiction in Moreton's testimony on the question of whether Jaeger discussed the contents of Section 9. Lastly, the letter of confirmation which Franco wrote to Moreton immediately after the July 5 card check makes it highly probable that Franco on July 5 did in fact notify Moreton he would contact him at a later date to arrange for a negotiation meeting. It is for all of these reasons that I have rejected Moreton's testi- mony and credited Franco's whenever their testimony conflicts. On July 5, Franco, immediately after the conclusion of the card check, wrote Moreton: This is to confirm my conversation with you on this date re: a date, time and place where we can com- mence negotiations. We will be ready to meet with you and present proposals on rates of pay, wages, fringe benefits . . . and other conditions of employ- ment. I shall be away from my office until the 25th of July at which time I shall call you so we can mu- tually agree on dates, etc. 6 Also, on July 5, following the card check, Moreton who at this time had not as yet received a copy of the District Council of Carpenters representation petition was notified by an agent of the Board about the filing of the petition and the fact that it had been withdrawn. At this point Moreton sought legal advice. On or about July 10 the lawyer whom Moreton re- tained informed Franco that Respondent was declining at that time to bargain or meet with the Union as the em- ployees' collective-bargaining representative. Thereafter on July 19 Respondent, through its lawyer, filed its own representation petition with the Board and wrote the Union advising it of this and that negotiations between the parties would not be appropriate until the Board had ruled on Respondent's representation petition. On August 29, by letter, the Union renewed its demand that Respondent commence contract negotia- tions with the Union. In reply Respondent refused to bargain or meet with the Union to discuss the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. B. Discussion and Conclusions I. The validity of the card check Respondent contends that the July 5 card check elec- tion conducted by the State of California Conciliator was invalid because Moreton "was mislead [sic]. .. as to the nature of the card check proceeding." Moreton, Re- spondent's president, testified that when he signed the cross-check election agreement he thought he was only agreeing to a procedure whereby the state conciliator would verify that the employees who had signed the au- thorization cards were in fact employed by the Respond- ent. Moreton in effect testified that he believed this be- cause Franco, in their July 2 phone conversation, an- swered "yes" when Moreton asked whether the card 6 This letter swas written on the Union's stalionery CAM INDUSTRIES. INC. 15 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD check meant merely that the cards would be checked to verify that the card signers worked for the Respondent. I reject Moreton's testimony that he did not under- stand the import of what he was signing when he signed the cross-check election agreement. I do so because I re- ceived the impression from his demeanor that he was not a credible witness. In addition, the record as a whole demonstrates that his testimony was inherently implausi- ble. Union Representative Franco's June 28 letter which prompted Moreton's July 2 conversation with Franco was phrased so as to specifically alert Moreton to the fact that the reason the Union was asking for the card check was to establish its majority status thereby obligat- ing Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union. During the July 5 meeting the state conciliator in dis- cussing the terms of the cross-check election agreement made it perfectly clear to both Moreton and Franco that by signing the agreement Moreton was agreeing to a procedure which would result in Respondent being obli- gated to recognize and bargain with the Union if the card check established the Union's majority status and that if the card check did not establish this then the Union would have to forego organizing the employees for another year. Likewise the terms of the cross-check election agreement, which Moreton admittedly read before signing, made all of this abundantly clear. Lastly, on July 5 at the conclusion of the card check Moreton did not object when the state conciliator, after checking the authorization cards against the employees' W-2 forms and the Respondent's payroll record, stated that the Union had demonstrated its "majority status." Nor did Moreton object when Franco indicated he would contact him to arrange for a contract negotiation meet- ing. Based on the foregoing I find that when Moreton signed the cross-check election agreement he was not misled about the nature of the agreement but knew that he was agreeing to a procedure whereby the state concil- iator would determine whether or not the Union repre- sented a majority of Respondent's employees and knew that if the conciliator found that the Union was the ma- jority representative that Respondent would then be obli- gated to recognize and bargain with the Union under the terms of the agreement. 2. Respondent's obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union On July 5 an agent of the California State Conciliation Service conducted a card check election pursuant to an agreement entered into on that date by the Respondent and the Union. As a result of the card check election the state conciliator found that the Union had been selected as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a unit consisting of the Respondent's Santa Rosa warehou- semen, production and maintenance employees, and driv- ers. Thereafter the Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of these em- ployees. It is this refusal to bargain which the complaint alleges constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The law is settled that an employer is not required to recognize and bargain with a union wholly upon the strength of the union's assertion that it represented a ma- jority of the employees involved, notwithstanding that the union predicated its assertion upon an adequate showing of signed authorization cards. See Linder Lumber Div., Summer & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 419 U.S. 301 (1974). In this respect the Board has held that an em- ployer may, in the face of a union demand or recogni- tion, insist that the question concerning representation be resolved by means of a Board-conducted election, absent agreement between the parties on an alternative means for resolving the question or misconduct on the part of an employer which is of such a character as to have a lingering and distorting effect on any future election. Sullivan Electric Company, 199 NLRB 809, 810 (1972). Thus where, as in the instant case, an employer in re- sponse to a union's request for recognition agrees to rec- ognize and bargain with the union, if the union is able to demonstrate its majority status through a card check conducted by an impartial third party the employer is bound by the results of the card check unless it can es- tablish that the union did not represent a majority of the employees involved or that for some other reason the re- sults of the card check are repugnant to the policies and purposes of the Act. See Idaho Pacific Steel Warehouse Co., Inc., 227 NLRB 326 (1976); Harding Glass Industries, Inc., 216 NLRB 331 (1975). In the instant case the Respondent, as stated in its post-hearing brief, "makes no contention that the unit in which the card check was conducted/ was inappropriate nor that [Respondent] would have won the election [re- ferring to the card check] if all potential voters had been included." 7 Rather, Respondent defends its refusal to bargain on the ground that "the authorization cards run in favor of the international only, while the card check report, charge and complaint all refer to the local."8 The evidence pertinent to Respondent's claim that no duty to bargain exists because the authorization cards were signed on behalf of the Union's International union is undisputed. The authorization cards which the em- ployees signed did not designate the Union, instead they designated the Union's parent, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the Carpenters International Union, to act as their collective- bargaining representative. There is no evidence that the employees who signed these cards were ever told they would be represented by the Union instead of the Car- penters International Union, the labor organization which they had specifically chosen as their bargaining 7 In any event the bargaining unit in which the card check was con- ducted and hich is alleged in the complaint as the appropriate unit -all warehousemen, production employees, maintenance employees and driv- ers emploscd at he Respondent's Santa Rosa facility is not repugnant to the Ip'licies of the Act Therefore, since the Respondent voluntarily agreed to recoglizc the Ulnion's representative status in his unit, it con- stitLites all appropriate one See Pinieer Inn .-lssociale. d/b/u Pioneer Inn and Piolner Innl (Cuino,. 228 NLRI 1263, 1272 (1977), enfd 578 F2d 835 9tlh Cir 1978). Anid as I havre found upra. a majority of the employees ecnplocd in this unit signed t he aulhorizalion cards relied on ill the card check Responldent also defends its refusal to bargain in the ground that "the emlplo)er was mislead [sicl as to the nature of the card check proceedilgs. I have considered and re ected this defense foi reasons al- ready set forth in this Decisiin CAM INDUSTRIES. INC. 17 representative. Nor is there any evidence that they were advised either directly or indirectly that they would be represented by one of the local unions affiliated with the Carpenters International Union. The law is settled that for purposes of the Act the Union is a separate legal entity apart from the Carpenters International Union and that it is not a mere branch or administrative arm of the latter, e.g., International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al. (Franklin Electric Construction Company), 121 NLRB 143, 146 (1958), and cases cited therein. The Carpenters Interna- tional Union is a different and a more powerful labor or- ganization than one of its affiliated local unions such as the Union. It does not follow that an employee who signs an authorization card designating the more power- ful Carpenters International Union to act as his or her bargaining representative intends to allow the Carpenters International Union to substitute the Union as his or her bargaining representative, absent a showing of the knowledge and consent of the card signer to the substitu- tion. Thus for the National Labor Relations Board to allow the Carpenters International Union to designate one of its local affiliates, the Union, to represent the em- ployees involved in this case even though they have des- ignated the Carpenters International Union and not the Union to represent them, would be contrary to the poli- cies embodied in Sections 7 and 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. In 0 & T Warehousing Co., .4 Divi- sion of Bowline Corp., 240 NLRB 386 (1979), the Board refused to allow the petitioners, "AFL-CIO and/or its Appropriate Affiliate" to appear on the election ballot because, as the Board explained: Under the current designation, if the employees select Petitioner, they would, in effect, delegate to the AFL-CIO the authority to choose, in its discre- tion, which entity would become the exclusive bar- gaining representative. Such a delegation would be. in our judgment, contrary to the concerns inherent in Sections 7 and 9(a) of the Act inasmuch as the ultimate right to select the actual bargaining repre- sentative would rest not with the employees, but with the AFL-CIO. And in M. A. Vorden Company, Inc., 159 NLRB 1730 (1966), cited with approval in 0 & T Warehousing, the Board held that a petition to amend a certification by substituting as bargaining representative a local union for the International union should be denied, absent a show- ing of the knowledge and consent of the unit employees to the substitution. The Board dismissed the petition without prejudice to another request showing that the amendment reflected the desires of the employees in the certified unit. Guided by the Board's decision in 0 & T Warehousing and M. A. orden, particularly the holding in M. A. Norden, I am of the opinion that to permit the Carpen- ters International Union to substitute the Union in place of itself as the employees' exclusive collective-bargaining representative would, as the Board stated in 0 & T War- ehousing, be "contrary to the concerns inherent in Sec- tion 7 and 9(a) of the Act inasmuch as the ultimate right to select the actual bargaining representative would rest not with the employees, but with the [Carpenters Inter- national Union]." It is for this reason that I find that the Union did not represent a majority of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit and I shall therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed. In reaching the conclusion that the designation of the Carpenters International Union was not a valid designa- tion of its local affiliate, the Union, absent a showing that the employees consented to such a substitution, I have carefully considered the cases where the Board, with court approval, has held that the designation of a parent labor organization is a valid designation of its affiliate, even where there has been no showing that the employ- ees consented to such a substitution. V.:L.R.B. v. Brad- ford Dyeing Association, 310 U.S. 318, 338-339 (1940); V.L.R.B. v. Franks Bros. Company, 137 F.2d 989, 992 (Ist Cir. 1943), affd. 321 U.8. 702 (1944); Nubone Compa- ny, Inc., 62 NLRB 322, 325-326, fil. 9 (1945), enfd. per curiam 155 F.2d 523 (3d Cir.); Knickerbocker Plastic Co., 104 NLRB 514, f. 3 (1953), enfd. 218 F.2d 917 (9th Cir.); Cummer-Graham Company, 90 NLRB 722, 725, fn. 8 (1950); Dolores, Inc., 98 NLRB 550, 554 (1952); Thur- ston Motor Lines, Inc., 159 NLRB 1265, 1270, fn. 16 (1966). I recognize that as an administrative law judge of the Board I am obligated to apply established Board pre- cedent which the Supreme Court or the Board has not reversed. However, Bradford Dyeing Association and its progeny cannot be reconciled with the rationale of O & T Warehousing and ,M. A. Norden and with the holding of M. A. Vorden. The fact that these latter cases involved representation elections whereas Bradford Dyeing Associ- ation and its progeny involved the signing of authoriza- tion cards is not significant for the purposes of this case inasmuch as Sections 7 and 9(a) of the Act grant employ- ees the freedom to select a bargaining representative of their own choice regardless of whether they exercise this right through a Board-conducted election or the signing of authorization cards. Lastly, I am constrained to note that in neither Bradford Dyeing Association nor its prog- eny has the Board or a court ever enunciated the ration- ale which allows a parent labor organization to substitute an affiliated union in its place as the employees' collec- tive-bargaining agent, absent the consent of the employees. I realize that very often an organizational campaign is conducted by an International union or even by the AFL-CIO itself, and it is only after a sufficient number of employees have signed cards, and have expressed an interest in union representation that a specific local as- sumes the representation function. Nonetheless the substi- tution of a local affiliate by the parent organization, even in these circumstances, absent evidence that the employ- ees consented to such a substitution, infringes on the stat- utory right of the employees to select a bargaining repre- sentative of their own choice. In short, absent a persua- sive reason for allowing the Carpenters International Union to substitute in its place the Union as the employ- ees collective-bargaining agent, I have been guided by the Board's decisions in O & 7' Uarehousing and .M. 4. NVorden, rather than Bradford Dyeing Association and its progeny, in concluding that the authorization cards CAM INDUSTRIES. INC. '7~ 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein were not sufficient to support the Union's demand [Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub- for recognition. lication.]