Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/c240459/international-ladies-garment-workers-union-afl-v-national-labor/
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 08:46:35
Document Index: 619162322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 160', '§ 10', '§ 152', '§ 106']

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. B.V.D. Company, Inc., D.C. Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. B.V.D. Company, Inc. , 237 F.2d 545 ( 1956 )
This section was enacted to eliminate the strict requirement for proof of authorization and ratification which the Supreme Court read into a somewhat comparable section of the Norris-la-Guardia Act20 in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United States, 1947, 330 U.S. 395, 67 S. Ct. 775, 91 L. Ed. 973. But the legislative history of § 2(13) makes plain that Congress intended to do no more than to restore the applicability of common law agency principles of responsibility,21 which preclude imputation of the acts of one person to another except when the one is acting as agent for the other.
A conclusion of ratification drawn from mere failure to abandon picketing would curtail an important statutory and constitutional right. Curtailment of this right is justified only when violence has 'given to the picketing a coercive effect whereby it would operate destructively as force and intimidation.' Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 1941, 312 U.S. 287, 298, 61 S. Ct. 552, 557, 85 L. Ed. 836. As the Union points out, the Board made no finding that the picket line itself had 'a coercive effect,'23 or that the picketers themselves contributed to the violence.
[99 U.S.App.D.C. 71] Nor can a conclusion of 'ratification' rest on the strikers' failure to disassociate themselves from misconduct by 'admonishment, denunciation, or public pronouncement.' Aside from the question whether these terms suggest a meaningful course of conduct that the strikers may have elected, we think they were under no obligation to disavow misconduct which they did not initiate and with which they are not shown to have been connected, directly or indirectly. United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 1922, 259 U.S. 344, 395, 42 S. Ct. 570, 66 L. Ed. 975. And their silence provides no rational basis for inferring that they acquiesced in the wrongs of others with whom no agency relationship is shown. United Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 46, 51, 223 F.2d 338, 343, makes clear that such a relationship is an essential prerequisite to the inference which the Board seeks to draw from the strikers' silence.
The Board's decision rests on the simple findings that there was picketing and there was violence. No connection between the two was shown. We think that basis not sustainable. For that reason the order must be set aside in part and the case remanded for reconsideration. We will not attempt to prescribe proper criteria. Such prescription, involving many factors, is for the Board's initial determination. Securities & Exchange Comm. v. Chenery Corp., 1943, 318 U.S. 80, 63 S. Ct. 454, 87 L. Ed. 626; Id., 1947, 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S. Ct. 1575, 1760, 91 L. Ed. 1995; Sales Drivers, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 229 F.2d 514 (1955).
We have jurisdiction under § 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 148 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(f)
Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, 61 Stat. 140 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1) and (3)
Section 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1)
It appears that most of the strikers were finally reemployed, pursuant to a strike settlement agreement, on August 14, 1952, after the hearing in this case began. The Board did not find that the agreement mooted the reinstatement claim, in view of the fact that its order dealt with that issue as well as back pay. And since both issues are contested here, we shall deal with the Board's order as it appears in the record
The Board also found that the picket signs carrying notations of various license numbers were designed to 'intimidate truckers.'
The order was entered upon the Company's complaint that Union organizer Miley, certain named strikers and others had conspired together to prevent other employees from working and to use coercion and violence. In an oral opinion, the State court concluded that a conspiracy had been shown and that the 'acts of the picketers and those assisting them-- their sympathizers-- were wrongful in that they showed coercion, intimidation, threats to do violence, and some violence.'
This finding was based solely on the testimony of Vice-President Nicholas whom the Trial Examiner had discredited in several instances
The Examiner refused to attribute the 'coercive and intimidating conduct' of the strike sympathizers to the pickets even though he found that the pickets 'may have been happy about events as they developed.'
Upon a finding that the six 'did not participate in or ratify' the violence, the Board ordered their reinstatement with back pay. Their role in the strike was passive. Four did not picket, but merely refrained from working
The Examiner concluded that no conspiracy to commit violence had been established. The Board held that the issue of conspiracy was irrelevant, but did not specifically reverse the Examiner. However, it found the State court's judgment 'of probative value' though not 'determinative' in making an independent evaluation of the seriousness of the misconduct
61 Stat. 147 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(c)
The Board views this case as not departing from the 'general principle established in earlier cases that unfair labor practice strikers who are themselves innocent of any wrongdoing should not be denied reinstatement or back pay because of the misconduct of others.' N.L.R.B. Brief, p. 78. The Sixth Circuit apparently has a different view. It decided in National Labor Relations Board v. Cambria Clay Products Co., 6 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 48, 53, that 'unauthorized acts of violence on the part of individual strikers are not chargeable to other union members in the absence of proof that identifies them as participating in such violence.' But after the Board's decision in the present case, the court granted a motion to remand for a determination of the applicability of 'the doctrine of the B.V.D. Company case.' Circuit Judge McAllister opposed the remand on the ground that 'it is inequitable to deny reemployment to an employee who has not been guilty of violence and unlawful conduct, simply because, when the strike was in progress, he did not take steps to disassociate himself from the unlawful conduct of others.' Union Brief, p. 38, note 24
The Board itself declined to apply the B.V.D. 'doctrine' to a later case. In Bowman Transportation, Inc., 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1021, 112 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (1955), the Board refused to disqualify a picketing employee, absent evidence that he himself had participated in any unprotected activity, even though 'much violence and misconduct' occurred during the strike.
Pre-amendment decisions: Republic Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 3 Cir., 1939, 107 F.2d 472, 479; National Labor Relations Board v. Ohio Calcium Co., 6 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 721, 726; National Labor Relations Board v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 6 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 262, 268; National Labor Relations Board v. Quality & Service Laundry, Inc., 4 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 182, 183, certiorari denied, 1943, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S. Ct. 831, 87 L. Ed. 1144
Post-amendment decisions: National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., 6 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 645, 652, certiorari denied, 1953, 345 U.S. 906, 73 S. Ct. 644, 97 L. Ed. 1342; National Labor Relations Board v. Wallick, 3 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 477, 485, note 10; National Labor Relations Board v. Crowley's Milk Co., 3 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 444, 446.
218 F.2d at page 413
In so doing, the court rejected the precise contentions which the Board would have us accept here in the guise of sustaining its exercise of powers under § 10(c). These were (1) the view of the dissenting Board Chairman that 'all the striking employees were properly discharged, irrespective of whether they actually engaged in the unlawful walkout * * *' 218 F.2d at page 417; (2) the company's contention that 'the issue of misconduct by individual employees is immaterial, and that it properly discharged or denied reinstatement to all strikers, regardless of when they joined the strike and whether their cessation of work actually contributed to the property hazard, presumably on the theory of an agency relationship between all strikers, the guilty employees, and the union.' Ibid. The court disposed of the agency argument by citing National Labor Relations Board v. Ohio Calcium Co., 6 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 721, 726
,37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1220 (1956). It thereupon ordered reinstatement to employees who, 'by merely engaging in the strike (when it constituted protected activity) or picketing * * * did nothing to approve or ratify the unprotected strike activity of to aid or encourage the strikers in their wrongful conduct.' Id. at 1221
61 Stat. 139, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(13). This section states a 'rule to be applied for the purpose of determining when a person is acting as an 'agent' of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts.' H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (1947), in 1 Leg.Hist. 540. 'Leg.Hist.' refers to the two volume edition entitled 'Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,' U.S. Government Printing Office 1948
Section 6 which provides that members of a labor union participating in a labor dispute are not responsible 'for the unlawful acts of individual officers, members, or agents, except upon clear proof of actual participation in or actual authorization of, such acts, or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge therof.' 47 Stat. 71 (1923), 29 U.S.C.A. § 106
H.R.Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1947), in 1 Leg.Hist. 302; H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 36, in 1 Leg.Hist. 540; 93 Cong.Rec. 6442, 6534, 6859, 7001 (1947). See also United Mine Workers of America v. Patton, 4 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 742, 748
E.g., 'Both employers and labor organizations will be responsible for the acts of their agents in accordance with the common law rules of agency (and only ordinary evidence will be required to establish the agent's authority).' H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, supra note 21
The plant continued in operation throughout the strike, and there is no evidence that any employee who wished to work was prevented from crossing the picket line. Indeed, on May 14, 1952, three months before the strike ended, the State court granted the strikers permission to resume picketing, suggesting that, even if the picket line had been enmeshed in violence for the first three days, its coercive character had been dissipated, and did not reappear for the remainder of the strike
DocketNumber： 12585_1
Citation Numbers： 237 F.2d 545
Filed Date： 5/3/1956
National Labor Relations Board v. Wallick , 198 F.2d 477 ( 1952 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc , 198 F.2d 645 ( 1952 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Crowley's Milk Co., Inc. (... , 208 F.2d 444 ( 1953 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Shen-Valley Meat Packers, ... , 211 F.2d 289 ( 1954 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Cambria Clay Products Co , 215 F.2d 48 ( 1954 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Marshall Car Wheel and ... , 218 F.2d 409 ( 1955 )
United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America (Ue), ... , 223 F.2d 338 ( 1955 )
sales-drivers-helpers-building-construction-drivers-local-union-859-of , 229 F.2d 514 ( 1955 )
National Labor Rel. Board v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. , 147 F.2d 262 ( 1945 )
Republic Steel Corporation v. NATIONAL LABOR R. BD. , 107 F.2d 472 ( 1939 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Ohio Calcium Co. , 133 F.2d 721 ( 1943 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Wichita Television ... , 277 F.2d 579 ( 1960 )
National Labor Relations Board v. International ... , 283 F.2d 558 ( 1960 )
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Afl-Cio v. ... , 293 F.2d 141 ( 1961 )
Simmons, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board , 315 F.2d 143 ( 1963 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. , 356 F.2d 955 ( 1966 )
National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Container Company , 428 F.2d 793 ( 1970 )
international-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-afl-cio-and-local-134 , 487 F.2d 1113 ( 1972 )
Wagner Electric Corporation, Appellant-Appellee v. Local ... , 496 F.2d 954 ( 1974 )
foam-and-plastics-division-tenneco-chemicals-inc-v-general-drivers-and , 520 F.2d 945 ( 1975 )
barton-brands-ltd-v-national-labor-relations-board-and-edward-humes , 529 F.2d 793 ( 1976 )
Plumbers & Steamfitters v. WPPSS , 44 Wash. App. 906 ( 1986 )
St. Clair Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. MEA , 458 Mich. 540 ( 1998 )