Extract
Avila Group, Inc., 633 (1975)
AVILA GROUP, INC.
Avila Group, Inc.' and District ' 65, Distributive Workers of America. Case 2-CA-13136June 18, 1975 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND PENELLOOn May 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Josephine H. Klein issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.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 of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.Respondent is a fabric converter which purchases greige goods at fabric mills, which are shipped to dyers for processing and sold usually to clothing manufacturers but occasionally to retailers of piece goods. These fabrics are stored by the producing mills, the dyers, or in independent warehouses at various locations ^ throughout the country. Respondent has also maintained one warehouse itself in leased premises at 39 West 19th Street in New York City, where it has stored both current and 'obsolete' fabrics, and employed approximately eight employees represented by the Union whose contract was due to expire on April 30, 1973. The parties met on several occasions, in April 1973 to negotiate a new contract covering the warehouse employees. At a meeting on April 27, a union representative announced that a strike would commence on May 1, 1973, under the ' Union's 'no contract, no work' policy. Respondent's counsel, Steinman, took the position that the company had a current lease and a convenient facility in its New York City warehouse and that it was prepared to execute a reasonable contract applicable to its employees there. The Union representative declined to call off the strike and have the employees remain on the job while negotiations for a new contract continued-and the strike accordingly began on May 1, 1973.The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when in April 1973 (and before its collective-bargaining agreement with District 65 expired) it made a definite arrangement to subcontract the unit work (sample cutting 218 NLRB No. 110633 and shipping) being performed at its New York City warehouse to Consolidated without consulting or bargaining with the Union concerning that decision, or its effects upon the unit employees. She further found that Respondent, having made such an 'undisclosed' subcontracting arrangement, engaged in bad-faith bargaining at later negotiating sessions with the Union during April 1973, in violation of Section 8(a)(5), being already aware, but not having notified the Union that after expiration of that contract on April 30 it would have its sample-cutting and shipping work performed solely by Consolidated.The record shows that Respondent's need to maintain in operation the 19th Street warehouse no longer 'existed although limited operating convenience, as regards New York City customers, would continue if the facility were retained. This...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
