Document: 366 U.S. 731 81 S.Ct. 1603 6 L.Ed.2d 762 INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation. No. 284. Argued April 17, 1961. Decided June 5, Messrs. Charles J. Morris, Dallas, Tex., Morris P. Glushien, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We are asked to decide in this case whether it was an unfair labor practice both employer a union enter into agreement under which recognized as exclusive bargaining representative certain his employees, although fact only minority those employees had authorized represent their interests. The Board found1 that by extending such recognition, even though done good-faith belief consent majority appropriate unit, interfered with organizational rights violation § 8(a)(1) National Labor Relations Act recognition also constituted unlawful support organization 8(a)(2).2 In addition, found violated 8(b)(1)(A)3 its acceptance authority at time when did not have spite bona fide did. Accordingly, ordered practices discontinued directed hl ding representation election. Court Appeals, divided vote, granted enforcement, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 280 F.2d 616. certiorari. 364 811, 5 44. agree Appeals extension constitute practices, remedy provided appropriate. 2 October 1956 petitioner initiated campaign Corporation's knitwear manufacturing plant San Antonio, Texas. No other similarly engaged time. During course campaign, on July 29, 1957, company's Topping Department went strike protest against wage reduction. That dispute no way related however, efforts were continued during strike. Some striking signed authorization cards solicited drive, and, while progress, entered upon negotiations employer. As result negotiations, held City where home offices located, August 30, 'memorandum understanding.' memorandum company 'all production shipping employees.' asserted union's comparison employee possession number eligible representatives furnished indicated secured from unit. Neither nor made any effort check roll, or otherwise, ascertain degree certainty assertion, later be erroneous,4 founded rather than assumption. agreement, containing security provisions, called ending improved wages conditions employment. It 'formal these terms' would 'be promptly drafted * parties within next two weeks.' 3 Thereafter, 10, formal collective embodying terms 30 memorandum, parties. unit description set out contract, more specific, conformed contained prior memorandum. is disputed execution forma contract represented clear unit.5 upholding complaints filed General Counsel, decided6 employer's critical date understanding defense, 'particularly where, here, Company payroll records.' 122 N.L.R.B. 1289, 1292. Noting 'actively seeking granted,' 'the Union (not) passive recipient unsolicited gift bestowed Company,' 'direct deprivation' nonconsenting employees' rights. At pp. 1292, 1293, note 9. withhold all cease giving effect agreements union;7 acting until Boardconducted election demonstrated status, refrain enforce previously entered. 4 difficult 'conceive clearer restraint right self-organization collective-bargaining page 619. court distinguished our decision v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local 639, 362 274, 80 706, 710, ground there involved here neither recognitional picketing. fides irrelevant except extent 'was arrived through adequate determine true facts situation.' 622. outset, we reject without relevance that, employees. indicated, 'a fait accompli depriving guaranteed choose own representative.' 621. is, therefore, consequence may acquired 10 necessary if, interim, unlawfully. Indeed, acquisition status itself might indicate afforded deceptive cloak persuasively elicit additional support. Nor does directly involve occurred reduction nothing do petitioner's quest recognition. Likewise, question picketing presented. Lastly, grant union, members only. Therefore, provision vice discussion 'collective bargaining,' 'exclusive recognition,' pointless.8 Moreover, insistence hold valid enforceable who consented must rejected. On shown, fail entirety. obtained erroneous claim representation. Perhaps if he known facts. Quite apart conceivable situations, genesis precludes partial validity. 7 selection representative, 9(a) Wagner guarantees freedom choice rule. I. Case Co. Board, 321 332, 339, 64 576, 581, 88 L.Ed. 762. short, said Brooks 348 96, 103, 75 176, 181, 99 125, placed responsibility agency selected workers.' Here, reverse has been shown case. thereby impressing agent majority. There could abridgment Act, assuring 'to bargain collectively choosing' from' activity.9 follows, need further demonstration, activity present prohibits interference with, of, exercise Section 8(a)(2) makes 'contribute support' organization. law long settled constitutes section, because so favored given marked advantage over securing adherence employees,' Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 261, 267, 58 571, 574, 82 831. Taft-Hartley Law, Congress added 8(b)(1)(A) prohibiting, held, 'unions invading fashion comparable activities employers prohibited 8(a)(1).' 620. intent impose unions same restrictions imposed respect violations rights.10 8 petitioner, taking issue date, maintains tha Bernhard-Altmann's beliefs complete defense. To countenance excuse place permissibly careless hands power completely frustrate realization premise Act—that prohibitions will go far assure rule representatives.11 find statutory language prescribing scienter element involved. act union. Here accomplished fact. More for, mistakenly, invaded. follows conduct cannot excused showing good faith.12 9 This conclusion, protection assured him places particular hardship merely requires withheld Board-conducted results representative. Board's order infer failure resist apparently slight it. share apprehension holding somehow induce breakdown, seriously impede progress bargaining. If takes reasonable steps verify claims, themselves advanced after careful estimate—precisely what failed here—he can readily validity obviate see onerous burden requiring responsible negotiators careful, cross-checking, example, well-analyzed records listings cards. Individual trampled inconvenient avoid doing so. penalty attached violation. Assuming faith accepts rejects tested proceeding.13 erred withholding subject remedial conform norms here. results. believe proper one cases. District 50, United Mine Workers America, 355 453, 78 386, 401. Affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting part. 12 I scheme, standing principle government extends But reason why should disabled joined it.1 Yet now approved, enjoins 'of recognizing 'any 13 again absent created workers, members. Virginian R. System Federation 40, 300 515, 549, 6, 57 592, 600, 789, quoted approval concession 'If craft class carrier free make anyone pleases group contracts establishing rates pay, rules, working conditions.' 14 Railway Act. followed Consolidated Edison 305 197, 59 206, 83 126, Brotherhood Electrical Workers, allowed members, they minority. said, '* absence Brotherhood, minority, clearly choice.' Id., 237, 220. Maintenance well serve purpose protecting commerce 'from interruptions obstructions caused industrial strife.' A decree modified: 15 'The companies' but operation necessarily ascertained 'representation' arise. construe (the order) having provide shall (union) established accordance Act.' 239, 221. 16 tradition recently sustained picket peacefully compel Drivers 710. sought sure, 'tension exists between (the) form, join assist organizations so.' 280, seeks own, deprives them, another them? 17 Judge Learned Hand Douds 1250, Cir., 173 764, 770, A.L.R.2d 685, stated others so, derived common-law; something forbids becomes unlawful.' grievance proceeding outside chosen See American Steel Foundries Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 184, 42 72, 66 189. 18 Honoring minorityu nion—where collide agreement—is being respectful history. Long before discuss problems. early days workers.2 aim—at least hope— legislation emerge stabilizing influences. history successive measures, starting indicates part deny representative.3 19 think correct insofar sets aside clause contract. incorrect setting entire First, valuable benefits regarding hours, work standards distribution, discharge discipline, holidays, vacations, health welfare fund, matters. Since duly certainly designate person desired. void voluntary seems me beyond competency unsupported law. Certainly justice fairness am familiar stripped designated agent. Such deprivation gives arbitrarily 20 Second, today's enjoin dealing manner, relation grievances certified disestablishment decisions. While broad, 'not limitless.' 458, 389, Thus distinction taken remedies situations dominated assisted dominated. 458—459, 389—390. 21 unique. findings 'good faith' believing workers. Good-faith nonetheless violations; warrants mistake hardly full disestablishment, heretofore reserved flagrant Its application smacks measure. 22 entitled speak occupying field. common-law diluted impaired Except filing answer, employer, Corporation, enforcement review (2), pertinent, provides: 'It employer— '(1) interfere restrain, coerce section 7; '(2) dominate formation administration contribute financial *.' 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1, 2), U.S.C.A. 2). provides pertinent part: agents— restrain (A) th 141, 158(b)(1)(A), 158(b)(1). either 70 relevant total 158 368, depending criteria used determining eligibility. 'Accordingly, not, circumstances, 1957.' 1291 considered achievement period maintained agreement. 616, 619, 3. Member Fanning agreed dissented finding 8(b)(1)(A). 1297. However, employment fixed required varied abandoned. take restraining will, event, terminate held. Relying reference decertification proceedings, contends prevent exercising freedom. availability doubtful view position 'contract bar' defense prevents lack made. re Columbia River Salmon & Tuna Packers Assn., 91 1424, cases cited therein. Section7 'Employees self-organization, join, organizations, choosing, engage concerted mutual aid protection, affected membership condition 8(a)(3).' 157, 157. S.Rep. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 50 (Supp.Views), Leg.Hist. (1947) 456; II 1199, 1204, 1207. Although significance holding, Perfect Circle Co., 162 566; Illinois Tool Works, 153 811; McQuay-Norris Mfg. 116 748; cf. Industrial Cotton Mills, 208 87, 45 880. 8(a)(5) refuse 158(a)(5), 158(a)(5). undertakes sole representative' workers Article II. contains separability clause—that provision' 'invalid,' remainder affected. XXIX. Twentieth Century Fund, How Collective Bargaining Works (1942), p. 24; U.S.Dept. Information Bulletin, Vol. (1938), 5—8. For examples 'members only' contracts, see, e.g., Lab.Rel.Rep.Man. 964, 967. Recognition Shown Contracts, 1A 781—787: beginning point relations party representing *. (U)nion-recognition clauses, embodied most recent generally fall different patterns. some others, become union.' frequently practice, Solvay Process 330, 340; Hoover 90 1614, 1618. And Cleveland Worsted Mills 43 545; Black Diamond S.S.Corp. 94 875.

Category: 6