Local 26 argues that the communication exchanges between AdVin, the Association and Local 26 were “ambiguous and ambiguous” and “directly contested”, which precludes the registration of a summary judgment in favour of AdVin. The argument relies on adVin`s imprecise appeals to both agreements to support their assertion of ambiguity. Although AdVin`s references to the agreements were not specific, there is no doubt that AdVin intended to take all necessary measures to terminate its trade union relationship, referring both to its letter of demäss to the association and to the 1990 CBA with the Union. In accordance with the standards of the National Labor Relations Board of Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395 (1958), termination should only be “appropriate”. See also Action Electric, 856 F.2d at 1064-65; Hayden Electric, 693 F.2d at 1363-64. In addition, there should be no “obstacles to withdrawal before negotiations”. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 412, 102 p.ct.
720, 725, 70 L.Ed.2d 656 (1982). And if there were any doubts, it`s clear that Local 26 itself pretended to know that AdVin was trying to refuse both the deal and joining the bargaining unit with multiple employers. That is quite clear. The Tribunal therefore concluded that AdVin was not bound by the 1993 CBA and that adVin simply did not apply to AdVin to the extent that that agreement contained a binding arbitration clause. Accordingly, the Tribunal rendered a summary judgment in favour of AdVin. In July 1991, just over a year after the agreement, AdVin found that, for economic reasons, it could not afford to remain in contact with the union. On July 2, 1991, she wrote a letter to Local 26 with a copy to the Association, in which she stated, “This will serve as official notice that AdVin Electric, Inc. terminate the statute of the employers` union with effect from 11 July 1991. Both the association and Local 26 returned AdVin, stating that it was bound by the collective agreement until at least May 31, 1993, the last day of the 1990 CBA`s mandate entered into by the Association on behalf of AdVin. In its letter to AdVin, the association also referred to AdVin`s right to withdraw its approval from the association by making a communication at least 150 days before the anniversary of the collective agreement.dem 31 May 1993. And in its letter, Local 26 AdVin referred to the termination provision of the collective agreement, which required 90 days` notice before May 31, 1993.
The undisputed facts show that, on 11 July 1991, AdVin notified the federation and local 26 of its intention to “terminate its status as an employer trade unionist with immediate effect”. When adVin was informed that it could not do so before 31 May 1993, it sent letters on 4 November 1992 to both the association and Local 26. . . .