Plumbers Local 669 (Lexington Fire Protection Group), 347 (1995)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Plumbers Local 669 (Lexington Fire Protection Group), 347 (1995)
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, affiliated with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Lexington Fire Protection Group, Inc. Case 9-CB-7890
August 15, 1995DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS, BROWNING, COHEN, AND TRUESDALEOn April 30, 1992, Administrative Law Judge George F. McInerny issued the attached decision. The Respondent, Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, affiliated with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the Charging Party, Lexington Fire Protection Group, Inc. (LFP Group) filed an answering brief. The Board determined that this and another case1 raised important questions concerning application of the rules regarding withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining units set forth in Retail Associates, 120 NLRB 388 (1958), and held oral argument on May 23, 1994. Participating in the oral argument were the Respondent, the General Counsel, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (the charging party in Chel Lacort), and a number of amici curiae.2The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, briefs, and oral argument and has decided, for the following reasons, to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.We agree with the judge that the Retail Associates3rules regarding withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining units are applicable to the facts in this case and that, under Retail Associates, Lexington Fire Protection Company (LFP Company) timely withdrew from the multiemployer unit in November 1987. Accordingly, we adopt the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to bargain on an individual basis with LFP Group, which had purchased the assets of LFP Company and continued its business operations.4The relevant facts are not in dispute. In 1975, LFP Company joined the National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. (Association) and granted the Association authority to bargain on its behalf as part of a multiemployer unit. By virtue of this designation, the Association placed LFP Company on its ''A'' list. That list set forth those members who had assigned the Association their collective-bargaining rights.From 1975 until late 1987, LFP Company was in the multiemployer unit, and the Association was its authorized representative to bargain with the Respondent. On October 23, 1987, LFP Company wrote the Association that it would represent itself in upcoming negotiations for a contract to succeed the one expiring in April 1988. The Association thereupon followed the customary procedures. It immediately removed LFP Company from the ''A'' list. Further, consistent with past practice, when the Respondent and the Association met in November 1987 to begin multiemployer bargaining, the Association handed the Respondent the updated ''A'' list.5 LFP Company was not on the list. After the list was tendered, the parties began bargaining for a new multiemployer agreement.On these facts, the judge found, and we agree, that the Association's tendering of this updated ''A'' list to the Respondent, prior to multiemployer bargaining, was adequate written notice that the Association was no longer bargaining on behalf of LFP Company.6 Wealso agree w...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
