Extract
Sunderland's Inc., 118 (1971)
Sunderland's Incorporated and International Jewelry Workers Union, Local 30, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-5004
November 10, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINSAND KENNEDYOn June 24, 1971, Trial Examiner Maurice M.Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.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 Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions,' and to adopt his recommended Order.2 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.1 We agree with the Trial Examiner that those cases in which the Board has found that ratification is a gratuitous process which union negotiators impose upon themselves, or in which employers have attempted to rely upon some defect in the ratification process, are not applicable here. The record in this proceeding discloses that during bargaining negotiations Riviera, Respondent's attorney and bargaining agent, sought specifically to determine whether the Union's representatives had the final authority to accept or reject a contract, and insisted that they come, to bargaining armed with such authority. The union negotiators, in turn, took this question back to the union membership but, upon a vote taken among the members, they were given only the authority to take Respondent's best offer and bung it back to the membership for ratification. It is thus clear that, the Union negotiators did not have final authority to accept or reject a contract offer, and, as the Trial Examiner found, ratification was made a precondition of arrival at a binding agreement. Here such ratification did not take place prior to Respondent's withdrawal of assent to proposed contract terms.2 We do not adopt or pass upon the Trial Examiner's 'Postscript,' section III, D, of his Decision, as it is unnecessary to the determination of the issues in the present case TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEMAURICE M. MILLER, Trial Examiner...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
