Ted Hicks and Associates, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3084,77-3084 |
| Citation | 572 F.2d 1024 |
| Parties | 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2487, 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,594 TED HICKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
G. Michael Pharis, Baton Rouge, La., for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Peter M. Bernstein, Ruah D. Lahey, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Petition for Review & Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
Ted Hicks & Associates, Inc. (Hicks), a building contractor, petitions to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The crux of the controversy concerns the interpretation of a prehire memorandum agreement between Hicks and Carpenters Local 1098 (Union). We agree with the NLRB's interpretation and enforce its order.
In 1969, the Union executed an areawide collective bargaining contract with the Baton Rouge Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (AGC), a multiemployer bargaining group. In May 1974, a new two-year contract went into effect between the Union and the AGC. It was negotiated pursuant to a provision in the 1969 contract that provided:
This agreement . . . shall remain in full force and effect through March 31, 1972, the anniversary date hereof and from year to year thereafter unless either party, at least ninety (90) days prior to any anniversary date, notify the other party of its desire to modify or terminate same.
Hicks, which was not a member of the AGC, signed a memorandum agreement with the Union on October 11, 1974, stating that both parties would be bound by all provisions of the 1969 collective bargaining contract between the Union and the AGC. 1 The memorandum, moreover, explained that Hicks would abide by "any modifications, extensions, or renewals" of that contract. From October 11, 1974 to May 21, 1976, Hicks adhered to the terms of the 1974 agreement, which was then in effect, and contributed to the Union's welfare, education, and pension funds.
In 1976, the Union notified the AGC that it wanted to terminate the expiring 1974 contract and negotiate a new agreement. In May 1976, the Union and AGC executed another collective bargaining contract covering a subsequent two-year period. Hicks refused to comply with this agreement, and as a result, the NLRB held the company in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, § 8(a)(1), (a)(5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), (a)(5).
Hicks argues that the memorandum agreement does not bind the company to all future agreements between the Union and the AGC. It contends, moreover, that the 1969 contract is irrelevant, and it is bound only by the 1974 agreement in effect at the time the memorandum was signed. The NLRB argues that the 1969 contract, which Hicks specifically agreed to follow, was the base contract, and the 1974 and 1976 agreements were only modifications. See NLRB v. R. J. Smith Construction Co., Inc., 1976, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 545 F.2d 187.
The Board's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement will stand if it is supported by the record and has a reasonable basis in law. Newspaper Production Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 821, 830. We believe that the NLRB's interpretation in this case meets this standard. Cf. NLRB v. Beckham, Inc., 5 Cir., 1977, 564 F.2d 190 (). Hicks offers no explanation, indeed it never attempts an explanation, why it would sign a memorandum agreement in October 1974, stating that it adhered to a 1969 contract, if the 1969 contract had no bearing on the 1974 agreement. Examination, furthermore, of the three Union-AGC contracts 1969, 1974, and 1976 reveals that they are nearly identical, except for changes in certain economic terms. It was reasonable, therefore, for the NLRB to conclude that the 1969 agreement was the base contract, and the 1974 and the 1976 agreements were modifications of that base. Thus, the Union's notice to the AGC in 1974 merely signaled an end to the terms in the 1974 contract and not an end to the Union's relation with Hicks.
In the alternative, Hicks contends that the 1974 contract is still in effect because it received no notice that the Union wanted to renegotiate this contract. Although Hicks did not receive notice, the Union complied with the requirements of the 1974 contract in notifying the AGC. More importantly, the memorandum agreement does not stipulate that the Union must notify Hicks if it seeks to alter the 1969 contract. Cf. NLRB v. R. J. Smith Construction Co., supra, 545 F.2d at 192 (). The memorandum in this case requires only that the Union and Hicks adhere to modifications of the 1969 agreement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenters 4 Northern Cal. Counties Conf. Bd. v. Jones & Anderson
...Form Const. Corp. (9th Cir.1981) 657 F.2d 1101; Seymour v. Coughlin Co. (9th Cir.1979) 609 F.2d 346; Ted Hicks and Associates, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., supra [5th Cir.1978], 572 F.2d 1024, 1025; N.L.R.B. v. R.J. Smith Const. Co., Inc. (D.C.Cir.1976) 545 F.2d 187; Bugher v. Southland Fabricators & ......
-
Thelin v. Mitchell
...that the Collective Bargaining Agreements terminated. Const. Teamsters v. Con. Form Const. Corp., supra; Ted Hicks and Associates, Inc. v. NLRB, 572 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir., 1976); McNeff v. Todd, supra. Further, notice to an auditor while refusing an audit as to questions concerning the Agreem......
-
Rebeiro v. Nor-Cal Integrated Ceilings, R-CAL
...(9th Cir.1979) 609 F.2d 346, (cert. den. 1980) 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2929, 64 L.Ed.2d 816, and also relies on Ted Hicks And Associates, Inc. v. NLRB (1978) 572 F.2d 1024. Nor-Cal maintains (a) The 1970 Memorandum Agreement did not specify any term for its duration. The 1968-1971 Master Ag......
-
Carpenters Local 1471 v. Bar-Con, Inc., Civ. A. J85-0924(L).
...and engage in individual bargaining. See N.L.R.B. v. Rayel Elec. Co., 709 F.2d 939 (5th Cir.1983); Ted Hicks & Associates, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 572 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1978). The CBA itself is related to, but separate from the letter of assent. It obligated Bar-Con to maintain specific wages, ......