Louella Ballerino

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of.LOUELLA BALLF^RINO, EMPLOYER -AND PETyITIONER and
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, UNION
Case No. 21-RM-36.Decided May 18, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition= duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below is currently organizing the
employees of the Employer.
3. No question concerning representation of employees of the Em-
ployer exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2
(6) .and (7) of the Act, under the following circumstances :
The Employer is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
women's sportswear in Los Angeles, California.
On or about February 5, 1948, local organizers of International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union interviewed an officer of the Em-
ployer in reference to the Union's program to organize the employees
of all manufacturers of ladies' garments in Los Angeles. During
the course of the conversation, in respect to which the testimony is
conflicting, the Union's organizers and the Employer's representative
discussed the Union's plan to bring all these employees under closed-
shop contracts with the Union. The Union's representatives asked
the Employer to sigma contract with the Union, and the Employer's
representative refused.
On about February 17, 1948, the Union began picketing the building
in which the Employer and 11 other garment manufacturers carry on
their operations, for the purpose of persuading the employees working
in the building to join the Union and to induce the manufacturers
77 N. L. R. B., No. 122.
738
LOUELLA BALLERINO 739
to recognize the Union and sign closed-shop contracts covering their
employees.
On February 26, 1948, the Employer filed the petition in this pro-
ceeding.
The Union did not' at any time specifically claim to represent a
majority of the Employer's employees. At the hearing the T7nion's
representative' expressly denied- that the Union-represented a majority
of them. We find that the Union has withdrawn any claim to represent
a majority of the employees which may have arisen from its prior
conduct.'
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
the petition is hereby dismissed.
1 Matter of Bernard Klint, Grace Klint, David II Nyberg and Emma Nyberg, co-part-
ners, d/b/a Ny-Lint Tool & Manufacturing Co., 77 N. L. R B 642.
Although Mr. Reynolds would direct an election in this case for reasons stated in his
dissenting opinion in the Ny-Lint Tool & Manufacturing Co. case ,, supra , he deems him-
self bound by the majority decision in that case.