OPINION
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against Associated Shower Door Co., Inc., and Century Shower Door Company, Inc. (the Companies), upon the Board’s findings that the Companies violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1). The Board’s decision and order are reported at 205 N.L.R.B. No. 95 (1973).
Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows: In August, 1971, a multi-employer bаrgaining unit of which the Companies were members (the Association) 1 and the certified representative of certain employees of Association members (the Union) 2 commenced collective bargaining. The negotiations reached an impasse on Septembеr' 15, 1971, and the following day the Union called a strike against all *232 Association members. Thereafter, between September 17 and September 23, 1971, thrеe Association members other than the Companies individually negotiated agreements with the Union, and a fourth member withdrew from the Associatiоn without objection.
Early in October, the Companies and one other Association member each formally notified, in writing, the Association and the Union of its withdrawal from the Association. However, a Union attorney informed each of these employers that the Union viewed the аttempted withdrawals as untimely and would consider the employers bound by any agreement subsequently reached between the Union and the Association.
On October 19, 1971, the Union and the Association met again; representatives of both Companies were present at this meeting. And on November 1, 1971, when the Association members met among themselves to draft new proposals, representatives of Century were present.
Abоut November 11, 1971, the Association’s president, Herman Propker, executed an agreement with the Union, purportedly on behalf of the Association. The Companies’ alleged violations of section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act are predicated on their failure to accept and comply with the terms of that agreement.
The Board initially takes the position that the Companies’ withdrawals were ineffective bеcause, once collective bargaining involving a multi-employer unit has begun, neither the employer group nor an individual employer nor the union may withdraw from such bargaining without the consent of the opposing party, absent unusual circumstances.
See
NLRB v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local No. 70,
The Board has held that a union which has commenced collеctive bargaining with a multi-employer unit may withdraw from the multi-employer unit with respect to one or more employers while continuing multi-employer bargaining with those employers remaining in the multiple unit. Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers,
The Board next contends that, even if the withdrawals were еffective when tendered, the subsequent conduct of the Companies constituted a retraction of those withdrawals and “reestablished], *233 thrоugh either actual or apparent authority, an agency relationship with the representatives who had formerly represented thе old multi-employer unit.” 3 We agree.
The relevant findings of the Administrative Law Judge, accepted by the Board, are as follows:
“I find on the basis of Geffner’s testimony, corroborated by Propker and Robin, that Treasurer Siegel of Century and Siefert of Associated attended and participated in the nеgotiations between the Association and the Union, discussed the terms of the Union’s proposals and the Association’s counter-proрosals, assisted in the preparation of the latter, and at no time informed the Union negotiators they were in a capacity othеr than as representatives of the Association. I further find and conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, that Siegel and Siefert attended and participated in the October 19 Association-Union negotiations as representatives of the Association.
“It is clear that Associated [and] Century . . . tried to secure the best of two worlds; by continuing in the negotiations between the Association and the Union following their Octobеr withdrawal, they attempted to secure terms to their satisfaction; by filing a purported withdrawal from the Association, they attempted to preserve an opportunity to reject any Association-Union agreement if dissatisfied therewith and to bargain for better terms in individual negotiаtions.
“I find, however, that by their appearance and participation in the Association-Union negotiations after service upоn the Union of their October 3-5 withdrawal] notices, Associated [and] Century . . . retracted their withdrawals from multi-employer bargaining and accepted the Union’s October 8 objection to their withdrawal and its insistence upon their remaining in and bound by the results of the multi-employer bargaining which oсcurred subsequent to their October withdrawal.”
We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Univеrsal Camera Corp. v. NLRB,
The Companies’ remaining contentions are without merit. 4
The Board’s order will be enforced.
Notes
. Association of Shower Door Industries, Inc., which, at the time negotiations commenced, had ten employеr-members.
. Glaziers & Glassworkers Union Local 636, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO.
. The Board employs language borrowed from the concurring opinion of Chairman Miller, with which we are in essential agreement. See 205 N.L.R.B. No. 95, slip-opinion at 4-5.
. Under the circumstances, the Board’s reservation until the compliance stage of the proceedings of the resolution of any conflicts between the terms of the agreement and relevant wage and price freeze regulations, as well as the question of C.I.S.C. approval, was proper.