Koppers Co., Inc., 1212 (1962)

Docket Number:03-RD-00107

ness representative testified that his signature to a contract was, as a matter of practice, considered final and binding. There is no evidence to contradict the apparent authority of the business agent to represent the local in all respects as affecting the December 7 agreement. It is clear that the business agent had the requisite authority to execute the contract. We therefore find the contentions of the Petitioner with regard to the execution of the contract to be without merit.' There remains the Petitioner's contention that the December 7 agreement had no legal effect because it was not approved or ratified by the Intervenor's membership. However, the evidence shows that this step was not regarded as a condition precedent to the validity of the contract.4 In similar situations, the Board has held that the interpretation and application of such constitutional provisions constitute internal union matters and that the Board will not go behind a fully executed contract and thus inject itself into the internal operations of a union .5 Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the contract was not ratified in accordance with the Intervenor's constitution, the record shows that the contract was nevertheless put into effect and that the formality of ratification was not necessary to stabilize bargaining relations. Under such circumstances, we find that the December 7 agreement, for bar purposes at least, is valid and binding.6

In view of the foregoing, we find that the December 7 agreement superseded the automatically renewed 1953 contract' As the instant petition was filed after the Mill B date .of the original contract and after the execution of the December 7 agreement, which has still a substantial period to run, we find that the latter agreement is a bar, and we shall dismiss the petition.

[The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.

8 The Texas Company, Port Arthur Works and Port Arthur Terminal, 112 NLRB 169.

a There is nothing in the contract itself that requires ratification as a condition precedent to ,a valid execution thereof. Cf. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 111 NLRB 497.

The Texas Company, supra.

e Oswego Falls Corporation, 110 NLRB 621; Natona Mills, Inc., 112 NLRB 236.

+ General Electric Company, 82 NLRB 722.

Koppers Company, Inc., Wood Preserving Division and Ellis Martin, Petitioner and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local No...

To continue reading