Any distinction between the exit of the contract as opposed to the exit of the tariff category is a nice but frankly irreadrate argument. It is clear that the accused wanted to get out of that relationship, the period. It is in the interest of all parties not to delay these important contractual negotiations any further, since the compromise clause of our agreement stipulates that, if necessary, we must submit it before 1 May 1993. The Amtsgericht concluded in law that AdVin had indicated that it wished to withdraw from its relations with the Union and that it had in fact terminated its representation contract with the association and the collective agreement with Local 26. We agree that the minutes support the Court`s conclusion. If we dispel the doubt that AdVin`s communication to the association and Local 26 was legally appropriate, that doubt would be dispelled by Local 26`s proper interpretation of AdVin`s letters. In April 1993, Local 26 wrote to AdVin asking AdVin to negotiate a new collective agreement that bypasses traditional negotiations between Local 26 and the association, “because AdVin Electric, Inc., no longer wants to be represented by [the association].” Subsequently, the parties met for this purpose more than once. Local 26`s attempt to negotiate directly with AdVin and not with the association reveals more than just his knowledge of AdVin`s withdrawal from the association. It serves as a tolerance and consent to the withdrawal of the AdVin agency. See Hayden Electric, 693 F.2d to 1365. ”When a union expresses its willingness to meet and discuss concepts specific to the activity of a single employer and to listen to counter-proposals, such behaviour shows the tolerance of an otherwise obsolete withdrawal.” Id.
to 1366 (quote I.C. Koltedienst, 200 NLRB 687, 690, 1972 WL 4689 (1972)). The Tribunal therefore found that AdVin was not bound by KBA in 1993 and, to the extent that this agreement had a mandatory arbitration clause, it simply did not apply to AdVin. As a result, the Tribunal issued a summary judgment in favour of AdVin. Local 26, while not disputing these fundamental principles, argues that the association acted as AdVin`s collective bargaining representative when it joined the CBA in 1993, as adVin ended its relationship with the association. And, it continues, whether the question of whether the revocation of AdVin`s consent is contested is within the scope of the 1993 CBA compromise clause. According to Local 26, it is the arbitrator, not the court, who decides whether AdVin is bound by the 1993 agreement. As you know, [the collective agreement] expires on May 31, 1993. Given this idea and the lack of valuable time, I ask that the following dates be set aside so that we can go immediately.
To reach its conclusions, Local 26 reversed the necessary order of analysis. Before the benefits of the 1993 CBA compromise clause can be enjoyed, Local 26 must prove that AdVin Amconan was a party to the collective agreement. While it is indisputable that AdVin and Local 26 were the two parts of the 1990 CBA, Local 26 acknowledges that AdVin has terminated this agreement in due form.