Extract
Sanitation Salvage Corp., 449 (2006)
Sanitation Salvage Corporation and Local 813, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 2–CA–35481–1
July 12, 2004DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and WalshOn March 8, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed an answering brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the judge’s decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2BackgroundThe issue presented in this case is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to sign a contract submitted to it by the Union for execution. Section 8(d) of the Act requires the parties to a collective-bargaining relationship, once they have reached agreement on the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, to execute that agreement at the request of either party. Hempstead Park Nursing Home, 341 NLRB No. 41, slip op. at 2 (2004) (citing H. J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941)). A failure to do so constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5). The judge found that the Respondent and the Union reached an agreement binding the Respondent to the terms and conditions of a collective-bargaining agreement to be negotiated between the Union and one of the two major companies in the waste disposal industry in New York City.3 This type of agreement is commonly referred to as a “me-too” agreement. The me-too agreement obligated the Respondent to sign and be bound by the collective-bargaining agreement that would be reached between the Union and employer A or B. Subsequently, the Union reached agreements with employers A and B. The Union then tendered the “A” contract to the Respondent. The Respondent refused to sign the agreement. The judge found that this refusal violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent defends, on two grounds, its refusal to execute the collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. First, the Respondent argues that no authorized agent ever signed the me-too agreement on the Respondent’s behalf. Second, the Respondent contends that, even if the Respondent did sign the me-too agreement, the terms of that agreement were so ambiguous as to render it unenforceable.We find, as explained below, ...See the full content of this document
