Los Angeles Cloak Joint Board

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1543 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

LOS ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, ETC . 1543
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit it will be recommended that upon request the
Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. All truckdrivers, warehousemen , craters, packers, and helpers in Respondent's
employ at the El Paso operation , excluding office and plant clerical employees, all
other employees, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On and since July 19, 1958, the Union has been and now is the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above.
5. By refusing on April 6, 1959, and thereafter to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit , the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act.
6. By the refusal to bargain the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Los Angeles Cloak Joint Board , affiliated with International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles
Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, affiliated with Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Helen
Rose Co., Inc .] and Mrs . Edwin Selvin , Labor Relations Con-
sultant. Case No. 21-CB-1393. June 28, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 17, 1960, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
127 NLRB No. 179.
1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions noted below.'
We believe, in agreement with the General Counsel, that it would
better effectuate the policies of the Act if the order recommended by
the Trial Examiner also required Respondents to notify Helen Rose
Co., Inc., in writing, that they withdraw all objection to the Com-
pany's employment of Mrs. Edwin Selvin as a representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining on the adjustment of grievances.
We shall so provide and require further that Respondents mail a
copy of such notification to Mrs. Edwin Selvin.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondents, Los Angeles Cloak Joint
Board, affiliated with International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint
Board, affiliated with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from (a) picketing or striking the premises of
Helen Rose Co., Inc., to procure the removal of its representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or (b) in any other manner
restraining or coercing that employer in the selection of representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify Helen Rose Co., Inc., in writing, that they withdraw all
objection to the employment of Mrs. Edwin Selvin as a representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances and mail a copy of such notification to Mrs. Edwin Selvin.
(b) Post at their business offices and meeting halls in Los Angeles,
California, and all other places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being signed by
Respondents' representatives, be posted by Respondents immediately
'No exceptions were taken to the Trial Examiner 's finding, herein adopted, that
Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (B ) of the Act
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
LOS ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, ETC. 1545
upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the premises
of Helen Rose Co., Inc., the latter willing for 60 consecutive days in
• places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice shall be furnished by the aforesaid Regional Director.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps they have taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF Los ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, AND
Los ANGELES DRESS AND SPORTSWEAR JOINT BOARD, BOTH AFFILI-
ATED WITH INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION7
AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HELEN ROSE CO., INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT picket or strike the premises of Helen Rose Co.,
Inc., to procure the removal of its representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and we will not in any other manner
restrain or coerce that Employer in the selection of representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment
of grievances . We have no objection to the employment of Mrs.
Edwin Selvin for such purposes by Helen Rose Co., Inc.
Los ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Los ANGELES DRESS AND SPORTSWEAR JOINT
BOARD, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
1546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint alleges that Respondents, Los Angeles Cloak Joint Board, affiliated
-with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles
Dress and Sportswear Joint Board, affiliated with International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, have engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, since on or about July 23, 1959, by
refusing to meet with Mrs. Edwin Selvin as the representative of Helen Rose Co.,
Inc., herein called the Company, for the purpose of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances, and by engaging in a strike to coerce the Company to
=cease utilizing Selvin as such representative. Respondents' answer denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at
Los Angeles, California, on December 14 and 15, 1959. All parties were repre-
sented by counsel who were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. Oral argument was
waived and a brief has been submitted by the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Helen Rose Co., Inc., is a California corporation with its principal office and
place of business in Beverly Hills, California, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of dresses. The Company annually sells and ships apparel valued in
excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of California. I find that the operations
,of the Company affect commerce.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Los Angeles Cloak Joint Board and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint
Board , both affiliated with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations admitting to membership the employees of the Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issue
The Company is a relatively new concern and at the time material herein had
-not been organized by a labor organization. Respondents commenced such a
campaign approximately in May of 1959 and have been picketing the premises of
the Company since July 23, 1959. The Company hired Selvin as an industrial
relations consultant on or about July 6 to represent them in the area of labor
relations, and specifically in contacts with Respondents, and thereafter terminated
her services on August 4, 5, or 6.
It is the contention of the General Counsel that Respondents picketed the
premises of the Company for the purpose of forcing the latter to cease utilizing the
services of Selvin as its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Respondents contend that they have picketed the premises of the Company for a
collective-bargaining contract and not for any other object.
Among those involved herein is Samuel Otto, Pacific Coast director and vice
president of the International who admittedly has "the responsibility" to act for the
two Joint Boards. He supervises organizational activities and was called in to
help Respondents resolve their organizational problems in this case. John Ulene
is manager and the highest executive officer of the Dress and Sportswear Joint
Board, and Max Wolf, his subordinate, is assistant manager of its sportswear
'department. One Stenzer is Ulene's counterpart on the Cloak Joint Board and
Oviedo and Tankenson are representatives or organizers employed by that board.
One Balski is so employed by the Dress Joint Board.'
B. Sequence of events
Although some of the dates referred to below are only approximate, the record
discloses the following sequence of events. The original organizational activity at
'The Cloak Joint Board and its constituent locals organize in the cloak and suit
industry whereas the other board and its constituent locals organize in the dress and
sportswear industry The Company originally manufactured suits as well as dresses but
now concentrates only on the latter.
LOS ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, ETC. 1547
the Company was undertaken by both Respondents consistent with their jurisdiction
in their respective fields. In May of 1959 Helen Rose, part owner of the Company,
telephoned Otto and asked that he pay a personal visit to the plant. Later that
month, Otto visited the plant, accompanied by Represenatives Balski and Tankenson
of the Cloak Joint Board and Representative Wolf of the Dress Joint Board.
Otto testified and I find that he made the visit at the request of both Mrs. Rose and
the three union officials named above. According to Mrs. Rose, she complained
on this occasion over the organizational techniques utilized by Respondents. After
some discussion of benefits of unionization, the meeting ended with Otto suggesting
that their respective counsel meet 2 According to Ulene, sometime between mid-
June and mid-July he assigned Wolf to accompany one Oviedo, a representative of
the other joint board, to arrange a conference with the Company. The record dis-
closes that Wolf did carry on two telephone conversations with Mrs. Rose.
The Company enjoyed a rapid turnover of counsel or representatives during this
period. Their counsel at the time of the visit to the plant by Otto returned from a
trip and suggested that the Company retain someone experienced in industrial rela-
tions. One Nemer was hired at the end of June but was terminated by the Company
on or about July 4, apparently because he did not favor an election or took no steps
in that direction. On July 6, the Company hired Selvin, an industrial relations
consultant in the Los Angeles area, "to handle the union problem that we were
having," according to Mrs. Rose.
Mrs. Rose testified that her first instruction to Selvin was that she wished an
election to be held. She explained herein that she desired Selvin to handle all
matters concerning the factory and the labor situation. As her first task, Selvin
prepared an RM petition in Case No. 21-RM-565 on that very same day, July 6,
and it was filed in the Regional Office on the following day.
On July 7, Selvin met with Counsel Feinberg of Respondents at the office of the
State Mediation Board relative to a dispute with another client represented by Selvin.
The subject of the Company arose and there was a discussion of the unit desired
by Selvin. According to Selvin, she stated that she had filed her petition for two
separate units, consistent with the jurisdiction of the respective joint boards, although
a reading of the petition does not so indicate. Feinberg testified and I find that
he offered to consent to an election if they could agree on a unit. Selvin promised
to send him data on the classification of employees but failed to do so.
It may be noted that Selvin and Respondents have had many dealings involving
employers in the garment trades and, as Feinberg put it, he and Selvin are "old
antagonists and negotiators." It is also apparent from the record that Respondents
dislike doing business with Selvin because they consider her antiunion and because
of her known personal opposition to the inclusion in collective-bargaining contracts
of such provisions as union-security clauses and arbitration through an impartial
chairman procedure, and further because although she has bargained with Respond-
ents for years, only two of her clients have signed collective-bargaining contracts
with Respondents or their affiliates.
Returning to the sequence of events, President Harry Rose of the Company
testified and I find that about 2 days before the commencement of the strike on July
23, Otto telephoned the plant and asked to speak with Mrs. Rose. Rose suggested
that Otto speak with Selvin "our labor representative" and Otto replied that he did
not want to talk with Selvin, that he "couldn't do business with her," and that it
looked as though a strike would result .3
About the same time, several days before the strike, Mrs. Rose received a tele-
phone call from Otto. She testified, and I so find, that Otto stated he hoped to
avert a strike but doubted that he could do so unless the Company "would do
something about it." Otto also asked why she had hired Selvin who enjoyed a
"notorious anti-union" reputation, stated that Selvin was "impossible," and sug-
gested that Rose hire someone with whom Respondents "could do business." 4
91 do not credit the testimony of Wolf that he was not involved in this dispute, that
he was present on this occasion only because he happened to be traveling in the same
direction as Otto and that the latter asked hint to accompany hun Otto's testimony
refutes that of Wolf in this respect as does that of John Ulene, Wolf's superior.
s Otto denied that the subject of Selvin came up during this talk Elsewhere he con-
fused several dates and displayed his antipathy toward Selvin and I believe that Rose's
recollection was the superior
4 Otto testified that he referred to Selvin only in a talk with Rose in August described
hereinafter He denied that he ever told 1[rs Rose that the purpose of the strike was
to get rid of Selvin ; admitted telling Mrs Rose, as he had told others, that Selvin was
"notoriously anti-union" ; and denied that he suggested her replacement.
1548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly before July 23, Respondents came to the conclusion after consideration
of the changes in representatives and the fact that employer representatives and
Selvin were making speeches to the employees, that Selvin's RM petition was a
stalling device not undertaken in good faith. They came to the further conclusion
that a dispute on the question of unit would send the case to Washington and there
would be a delay; as a result a strike was voted. Picketing commenced on July
23 and is still being carried on. The legent on the picket signs originally stated
that the workers of the Company were on strike for a "union contract." A later
sign merely stated that the Company was on strike and there has been recent use
of the original sign . Actually, the envisaged delay has taken place, there were two
hearings in the RM case, and a decision did not issue until November 19.
At this point, other forces came into the picture. Upon the start of the strike,
Walter Oppenheimer, an official of another garment firm, offered his services to
Mr. and Mrs. Rose. Bypassing Selvin , 1 or 2 days later they asked Oppenheimer
to ascertain on what terms the strike could be settled. Oppenheimer contacted Otto
and a luncheon meeting was arranged between the two; also present were Ulene
and another manufacturer.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of Oppenheimer, a witness for the
General Counsel, the discussion "was about, primarily, the costs of a union con-
tract." Oppenheimer explained that because of its commitments the Company
could not afford any cost increases for that season's production . Otto and Ulene
both expressed the view that the cost items would not be significant for the re-
mainder of the season, that this could be readily negotiated, and that the strike could
be quickly settled. They also indicated interest in a rapid election and claimed
that it could be held within 2 or 3 days According to Oppenheimer, "the meat
of the conversation" was the cost items involved in a contract if the Union won the
election, and "We did not discuss the hiring or firing of personnel."
Relied on herein by the General Counsel is the further testimony of Oppenheimer
that either Otto or Ulene indicated during the meeting that he "did not care to
negotiate through Mrs. Selvin" and that this was said in a serious and nonjoking
manner
Another source to which attention is directed by the General Counsel in order
to ascertain the objectives of Respondents herein is the California Apparel News,
a weekly trade publication issued in Los Angeles for the apparent industry. In its
July 24 issue, an article signed by Publisher and Editor Joe Osherenko criticized the
strike. On the following day, Osherenko telephoned Otto and, as Oshcrenko un-
controvertedly testified, was critical of the strike because it was against a creative
designer who was needed by the California apparel market. Otto assumed full
responsibility for the strike and suggested that Osherenko arrange for Mrs. Rose to
confer with him, Otto, claiming that she could make a good deal and would not be
hurt financially. Osherenko contended that Mrs. Rose was not antiunion, but Otto
replied that "because of the labor relations consultant that she had hired, it left
him no alternative."
In the following issue of July 31, the paper printed a letter submitted by Respond-
ents in reply to the articles by Osherenko in the previous week's issue. It read
as follows:
Categorical refutation of a story on the ILGWU strike against the firm of
Helen Rose, Inc., which appeared in last week' s issue of the California Apparel
News, was made by Samuel Otto, vice-president and Pacific coast director of
the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, "I gave the facts in the
situation to Mr Osherenko and he chose to ignore my statements and make up
a story out of whole cloth," declared Otto.
Charges of unfair labor practices have been filed with the National Labor
Relations Board against the firm owned by Helen Rose, head designer for the
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film studios. "The fact that more than 35 of the most
skilled workers employed by the firm are out on strike to gain the protection
of a union contract is ample evidence that our union represents more than the
majority of the production employees," Otto asserted. "We have attempted
to reach contract agreement at the bargaining table, but Mrs. Rose's sudden
hiring of a notoriously anti-union labor consultant gives the lie to the state-
ment that she `has no objections to Unions' as the California Apparel News
story indicated," the union vice-president continued. "Our first responsibility
is to the workers who have placed their trust in us, and it is our duty to protect
them, by `economic pressure,' if necessary."
LOS ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, ETC. 1549
The strike is continuing against the firm which manufacturers higher-priced
dresses and suits at 4136 Jefferson Blvd., and morale on the Picket line is very
high. Organization efforts are being conducted jointly by the Los Angeles
Cloak Joint Board and the Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board of
the ILGWU. [Emphasis supplied.]
The same issue also contained an advertisement by the Company consisting of
an open letter to Otto wherein the conduct of the "illegal" strike was attacked as
constituting "mass picketing."
Otto telephoned Mrs. Rose, allegedly because of her letter in the trade journal
which was critical of the strike. According to Rose, Otto expressed regret over the
strike and stated that it was wrong of her to have hired Selvin, that Selvin was anti-
union, that it was impossible to do business with her, and that Rose should hire
someone else. Otto added that if Selvin were replaced he would meet with the re-
placement and the picket line could be rapidly removed. Otto testified that the
subject of Selvin did not come up on this occasion and that Rose only brought up
the conduct of the pickets.
Approximately 1 week later, Otto held another telephone conversation with Mrs.
Rose. According to the latter, Otto suggested that her former adviser, Nemer,
would be a desirable adviser and Rose responded that she desired an election. Otto
maintained that if Selvin were removed the strike could be settled rapidly. Here as
well, Otto denied that the subject of Selvin arose .5
A few days after the commencement of the strike, Otto made a telephone call
to Plant Manager Silverman. Harry Rose happened to pick up the extension phone
in the plant and heard Otto state, "Have you got rid of Mrs. Selvin yet?" Silverman
asked why Respondents could not do business with Selvin and Otto replied, "I
can't do business with that woman. She is impossible." Rose hung up at this
point.6
Another official who spoke with Helen Rose during the strike, approximately in
the early part of August, was Assistant Manager Wolf of the Dress Joint Board.
Rose testified that she was in the office of one Kaplan, her immediate superior as
a designer fora motion picture studio and also a friend of Wolf. Wolf telephoned
Kaplan and the latter asked Rose to talk with Wolf. In the ensuing discussion
Wolf stated that Rose did not need a lawyer and suggested that she get rid of
Selvin (who although an industrial relations consultant is apparently not an at-
torney). Wolf stated that he, together with Rose, Otto, and Kaplan could sit down
and settle the entire dispute; Rose refused. When Rose protested that she needed
counsel and had hired Selvin, Wolf replied that she should get "just someone else
other than Mrs. Sevin" and that if she discharged Selvin the strike "would be over." 7
Between August 4 and 6, and probably on August 5, Selvin was discharged by the
Company. Either that day or the next day, according to Mrs. Rose and I so find,
Otto telephoned her and stated that he had heard that the Company had a new
labor consultant; he further said that "You have shown good faith by removing"
Selvin and that Respondents would promptly meet with her replacement. Accord-
ing to Rose, she had instructed her plant manager to acquaint Otto of this move.8
LI have credited the testimony of Rose concerning these two conversations Her other
testimony described below attributes a statement to Otto about the termination of Selvin
which is undenied Moreover , here as well , Otto was somewhat confused in his dates,
testifying that lie did not speak with Rose between early July and early August
8 These findings are based upon the testimony of Rose which I credit . Otto did not
specifically deny this statement but generally denied discussing the topic.
7I do not credit Wolf' s version of these remarks. He admitted that the incident took
place, but claimed that he was in Kaplan ' s office and that Rose was the caller He
testified that Rose commented on this occasion that she had dismissed Selvin. It Is
immediately apparent that even on Wolf's testimony , Rose was constrained to inform
him of Selvin ' s termination, quite contrary to his other testimony that he had no con-
nection with the dispute
8 Otto did not specifically deny this conversation other than as heretofore set forth.
He admittedly told Rose that he would not personally meet with Selvin, If the Company
insisted upon his personal participation in the negotiations rather than that of the
Joint Board officials While I believe that Otto made no secret of his views on Selvin
because of Respondent 's long frustration with her bargaining techniques and that he did
make such a statement concerning his aversion to personally dealing with Selvin, I also
find that he went further , as testified by Rose.
1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The picketing has continued subsequent to the replacement of Selvin by a Los
Angeles attorney, Roy Littlejohn, and the same picket signs are carried by the
pickets. On November 19, 1959, the Board's Decision and Direction issued in
Case No. 21-RM-565 and found a single production and maintenance unit to be
appropriate, with both Respondents on the ballot as a joint potential bargaining
representative.
C. Analysis and conclusions
Section 8(b)(1)(B) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization or its agents "to restrain or coerce . (B) an employer in the
selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances."
(1) Initially, it is clear and I find that both Respondents have engaged in strike
action against the Company and that this economic pressure constitutes restraint
and coercion as envisaged by the statute. See Local 294, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters etc. (K-C Refrigeration Transport Company, Inc.), 126 NLRB 1. I
further find that the Company hired Selvin to handle its labor relations problems
arising from the organizational campaign by Respondents and that the Company
approximately 2 weeks later terminated her services.
(2) At one point during the hearing, Respondents in effect contended that Selvin
could not have been a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that there could be no violation, as charged, on the theory that there was no
statutory obligation to engage in collective bargaining prior to recognition by an
employer of a labor organization or a victory by the organization in an election.
To adopt this contention would mean that Congress did not intend to protect
an employer who was attempting to provide a representative for imminent collective
bargaining, but intended only to cover a situation where, after the duty to bargain
arose, the employer then took steps to obtain and utilize a bargaining representative.
This is hardly a logical result and language making such a distinction could readily
have been employed had such been the intention.
Moreover, were this the fact, in a situation where after many years of collective
bargaining an employer entertained a good-faith doubt of a labor organization's
continuing majority status and then proceeded to file a representation petition, it
would follow that the labor organization could with impunity strike to force the
employer to discard or replace its bargaining representative, despite the fact that
a bargaining relationship had long existed
Indeed, in the present case, Respondents were interested in obtaining recognition
as the representative of the employees of the Company and it must be assumed that
they were so interested on a lawful basis predicated upon majority representation.
Otherwise, they would be in the position of pleading that they were engaging in a
minority strike for recognition and thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice
themselves or in the position of compelling the Employer to commit one. And,
as recently stated by the Board in an analogous case, "It seems to us that this is
peculiarly the sort of conduct which Section 8(b)(1)(B) was intended to prohibit,
regardless of whether the labor organization involved was the statutory bargaining
representative." See Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra.
and Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R B., 313 U S 177
(3) I am convinced from a consideration of the evidence set forth above, that
an object behind the original strike activity was to force the hand of the Company
and to eliminate Selvin from the picture. True, there is other evidence that,
Respondents were primarily interested in organizing the employees of the Company
and in becoming their collective-bargaining representative. This indeed is reflected
in the testimony of Oppenheimer, a witness for the General Counsel; in his lengthy
meeting with union officials in an effort to settle the strike, the discussion centered
about the cost factors to the Company resulting from union organization or a
union contract and the topic of Selvin was adverted to but briefly and then more
by way of comment that negotiations with Selvin were not favored by Respondents.
And of course it is entirely understandable that Respondents were reluctant to
negotiate with Selvin. A labor organization seeks to achieve collective-bargaining
contracts with employers and improve working conditions of employees. Here,
despite frequent negotiations with Selvin representing clients in the apparel field,
these Respondents had been able to procure but two contracts on which both sides
had been able to agree; it is understandable that they regarded her as an obstacle
to what they deemed to be their normal and legitimate aspirations.
LOS ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, ETC. 1551
Giving sustenance to the denial by Respondents that an object of the strike was,
to coerce the Company to discharge Selvin is the fact that, subsequent to her termi-
nation, Respondents are still picketing and striking the Company. This of course
tends to indicate that the present object and perhaps originally the primary object
was to achieve recognition and a union contract. It is also noteworthy that the
reemployment of Selvin by the Company is unlikely because, as Mrs. Rose testified,
in hiring Selvin the latter told her that if her services were terminated she would
not accept reemployment with the same employer.
This does not serve, however, to refute the substantial evidence which prepon-
derates in favor of a finding that, prior to the termination of Selvin, an object of
Respondents was to restrain or coerce the Company to discharge Selvin. She
was hired by the Company on July 6, promised Respondents on July 7 that she
would submit data on the composition of the unit, and then failed to do so. There
was no further contact between Selvin and Respondents and the strike commenced'
on July 23, 1959. The evidence heretofore set forth, chiefly as shown by the
several conversations of Otto with Mrs. Rose, the statement of Otto to Mr. Rose,
Otto's statement to the plant manager, Otto's comment to Osherenko, and the,
letter submitted by Respondents to the California Apparel News, demonstrates,
this objective of Respondents. I do not find, however, that this is currently an,
object of the picketing or striking.9
I find, as alleged in the complaint, that subsequent to July 23, 1959, Respondents
engaged in a strike and picketed the premises of the Company to procure the dis-.
charge of Selvin as the representative of the Company for the purposes of collective,
bargaining and that Respondents have thereby engaged in unfair labor practices;
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in.
connection with the operations of the Company set forth in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the-
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Contrary to the contention of the-
General Counsel, I do not recommend herein that Respondents be required to
cease and desist from all picketing of the premises of the Company, there being no
evidence that a present purpose of the picketing is an unlawful one.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record of`
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Los Angeles Cloak Joint Board, affiliated with International Ladies' Garment-
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board,
affiliated with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2 Helen Rose Co, Inc, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act.
3 By picketing and striking the premises of the Company for the purpose of
restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of a representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
This is not to say that tinder all circumstances a labor organization must ignore
background facts which reflect on the bona fides or the integrity of a negotiator for an
employer See N L It B. v International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO
et at. 274 F 2d 376 (CA 3). The present case, on this record, is deemed to be
distinguishable