This is an application to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which found respondent employers had violated Sec. 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with a Union on an individual, single-employer basis in the San Diego area.

Respondents are the individual employers of workmen (mainly carpenters), who have refused, as employers, to bargain with Carpenters Local Union No. 2020, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO — herein “Local 2020” — as “separate units at each respondent’s premises.” (Cf. 183 NLRB No. 100 ).

FACTS

Following their ten year practice, in 1966 Local 2020 and the San Diego Lumbermen’s Association (herein “S.D. Association”), negotiated a labor contract, expiring July 31, 1969. The nine respondents herein were not members of the Employer’s S.D. Association, but seven of the nine, with another 40 “independent employers” in the San Diego area, negotiated separate and individual contracts containing essentially the same terms with the Local 2020 for the same period of time. Two respondent employers (Randell and C. A. Homes) did not sign contracts. However, they complied with the terms and conditions of the 1966-69 S.D. Association contract.

On May 29, 1969 the Union served the Lumbermen’s S.D. Association and each of the independent employers, including all respondents, with a 60 day notice of “our desire to-change, modify or terminate” the contract. The Union added: it stood ready, during June, 1969 to negotiate with employers, and added:

The Lumbermen’s S.D. Association and Local 2020 agreed on a settlement approved by Union vote on July 30, 1969. Later on that day, the Union notified all independents that it proposed to continue bargaining on “an individual employer basis,” and suggested an August 2d meeting.

Meanwhile, between July 26 and July 30, 1969, D & G (an individual employer not joined as a respondent), and the seven respondents, applied for membership in the “Southern California Association of Cabinet Manufacturers”, (herein the “S.C. Association”), a multi-employer bargaining association that had signed a “1968-71 Master Labor Agreement” with the “Twelve Southern California Counties Mill Conference of Unions” (herein the “Conference”).

Section 12(a) of that agreement (between “Southern California Association” and “Conference”), provided:

Notice of their membership in the “S. C. Association” was sent by it to the “Conference” and a copy to “Local 2020.”

One respondent (Cross), then wired Local 2020 that it was a member of “S. C. Association”, and that the “S.C. Association” was the sole bargaining agent for its members, hence Cross could not meet with Local 2020 to negotiate on August 2, 1969.

On August 2, 1969, some independents met with Local 2020, but no respondents. Those present signed an Interim Agreement with Local 2020. Before the meeting concluded C. A. Homes and Kent Cross appeared and Homes signed an interim agreement with Local 2020 for himself, and offered, as agent for the Association, to sign “under protest” an interim agreement as an agent for the Association, and on behalf of all other respondents. Local 2020 refused to accept any contract or permit any execution unless such act bound every respondent as a separate, independent employer. This was not agreeable to Homes, who refused to so sign.

On August 4, 1969, Local 2020 struck all independents who had not signed a separate Interim Agreement. Each respondent then signed an Interim Agreement under protest.

The Board, on the above facts, found that the respondents had not been relieved of their obligations to bargain with Local 2020 by their affiliation with the “S.C. Association”, and ordered them to meet and bargain upon request of the Union.

The Court restated the controlling principles for withdrawal from multi-em-ployer bargaining in Publisher’s Association of New York City v. N.L.R.B., supra, 364 F.2d at 295, as follows:

We quote with approval the petitioner’s brief:

The Board suggests the above cases are controlling here. We agree. We are advised of no facts which make the Board’s finding that Local 2020 had neither practised nor consented to multi-employer bargaining alone, clearly erroneous.

The additional contentions of individual respondents Cross and C. A. Homes are likewise without merit, in view of the findings of fact made by the Board. The petition to enforce is granted.