II. Case No. 838
The Union alleges that the City's refusal to ratify the ten-
tative agreement previously ratified by the Union violated Sections
10.1, 10.2(a), 10.2(e) and 10.2(f) of the Act.
The disagrement here centers around the question of whether
the parties had actually reached total agreement on July 6, 1976,
and if total agreement was reached, whether the City's refusal to
ratify and sign the contract constitutes a violation of its duty to
bargain.
The NLRB has dealt with an identical issue in Printing Indus-
tries of Northern California. In that case the NLRB ruled that the
employer did not refuse to bargain when it refused to execute an
agreement allegedly reached with the union, since the refusal to
sign was grounded solely on the employer's contention that the con-
tract contained overtime provisions to which the employer had not
agreed.-
In Trade Mart, Inc., however, the NLRB found that the employer
had violated its duty to bargain by refusing to sign the agreement
negotiated with the union. The Board found no merit to the employer's
contention that no final agreement had been reached on holiday pay
9/
at the time of the employer's refusal.-'
Thus, the determining factor is whether or not the parties had
actually reached agreement on all areas of the contract. In the
instant case, the testimony from the Union's own witness, Knopka,
indicated that disagreement still existed between the parties after
July 6, as to the method of implementation of the wage increase and
8/ Printing Industries of Northern California, 83 LRRM 1638 (1973) .
9/ Trade Mart, Inc., 83 LRRM 1568 (1973).
