9. The deklewa rule that employers may not unilaterally terminate their agreements with trade unions applies only to agreements concluded in accordance with Article 8 (f) of the National Labour Relations Act. See Deklewa, 282 N.L.R.B. at 1385 (1987) („Neither employers nor trade unions that are parties to agreements [§] 8(f) are free to unilaterally reject such agreements.”). Although „[a] union must generally demonstrate the majority of an employer`s workers to enter into a collective agreement with an employer,” NLRB v. Goodless Bros. Elec. Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 102, 104 (1st Cir.2002), authorize agreements „unions and employers in the construction industry to enter into collective agreements if no majority representation is demonstrated by the union”. Haas Elec., 299 F.3d to 27 n. 3 (steel, J., concordant) (citing Goodless Bros.
Elec. Co., 285 F.3d-104-05). The parties do not dispute that Labonte Drywall has concluded an agreement with the Union within the meaning of Article 8(f) and we therefore assume that the Statute covers Labonte Drywall`s agreement with the Union. „The declared intention of a party to withdraw from [a collective bargaining relationship] is effective only if it is both timely and unambiguous.” 4 Haas Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 299 F.3d 23, 27 (1pc Cir.2002) (Steel, J., favourable) (citing Retail Assocs., Inc., 120 N.L.R.B 388, 393-95 (1958)). „The decision to withdraw must consider a sincere task of the multi-employer unit with relative permanence.” See Retail Assocs., Inc., 120 N.L.R.B. at 394. The landgericht`s judgment raises both legal and real questions. The legal question we are considering de novo is whether the actual termination is sufficient to terminate the tariff relationship under the national agreement.
The factual question which I am verifying for a manifest error is whether the European Union received an effective communication on the letter of 3 April 2007. We address everyone one after the other. 6. The courts have always held that dismissals are valid when the other party has actually received the termination on time. See z.B. Univ. Emergency Med. Found., 197 F.3d at 22; (recalling that a termination sent by mail is valid as long as it is actually received at the time of termination, even if it is sent to the wrong address” (addition of the mention)); Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. All Union, Inc., no.
01 CIV. 0152 (AGS), 2002 WL 31115181, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002) (determination of the validity of the termination letter, because evidence `demonstrates that the Union actually received the [letter]` when it may not have been sent by registered letter in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement (highlighted here only)); U.S. Broad. Co. vs. National Broad. Co., 439 F.Supp. 8, 10 (D.Mass.1977) (finding that the dismissals are valid because „it would be extremely hypertechnical to claim that the notification actually received was ineffective”, „it is clear that the applicant and the applicant`s lawyer received both notifications in good time” (omitted internal quotation marks) (addition of the mention)). Assuming that Deklewa applies to the agreement between Labonte Drywall and the Union9, the applicants` argument9 fails because Labonte Drywall did not „unilaterally” reject its obligations under the collective agreement.
. . .