N. Y. Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Wkrs.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 918 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Superior
Pants, Inc. Case 2-CP-433
April 3, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a charge filed July 31, 1969, by Superior
Pants, Inc., herein called Superior , the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 2, issued a
complaint dated August 19, 1969, against New York
Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO , herein called Joint Board,
alleging that the Joint Board had engaged in, and
was engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Sections 8 (b)(7)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. A
hearing before a Trial Examiner was scheduled for
September 24, 1969 On August 25, 1969 , the Joint
Board filed its answer denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices . On August 6, 1969,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the
Act, a petition for, an injunction was filed by the
Regional Director for Region 2 on behalf of the
National Labor Relations Board with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
New York . On August 12, 1969, that Court entered
an order granting a temporary injunction pending
the final disposition of the matters involved herein.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the order on January 12, 1970. The
hearing before a Trial Examiner was indefinitely
postponed , and on December 8, 1969, the parties
agreed to submit the case to the Board for decision,
based upon the formal papers that had been
submitted to the United States District Court, the
record , and its accompanying exhibits, and the
Complaint and Answer in this proceeding. The
parties expressly waived a hearing before a Trial
Examiner and a Trial Examiner's recommended
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board , having authorized the submission of
the case on December 11, 1969, and having received
and considered briefs filed by the General Counsel
and the Joint Board , and the entire record in the
case, makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE PICKETED EMPLOYER
Superior Pants, Inc., is a New York corporation,
engaged in the wholesale distribution of men's pants
to retail stores. Superior annually ships from New
York goods valued in excess of $50,000 to retail
firms located outside the State of New York.
Superior performs the wholesaling function in either
of two ways: (1) by purchasing completed garments
for resale to its customers or (2) by contracting out
the manufacture of garments ' ordered by its
customers, in which case Superior furnishes the
fabrics, but does not make samples, and sometimes
designs the garments without, however, performing
any part of the manufacturing process Superior's
complement of employees consists of shipping and
stock employees, also known as warehouse
employees, record clerks, and bookkeepers.
II. THE JOINT BOARD
The New York Joint Board , Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, has been
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act at all times material herein.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On or about September 19, 1966, Superior
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 158, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America (herein called Local 158) covering
Superior's warehouse employees. Local 158 is an
affiliate of the Joint Board. The agreement between
Superior and Local 158 was effective "until 1968,"
and automatically renewable from year to year
thereafter unless on or before February 1 of any
year, either party notified the other of a "desire to
propose changes . . . or of intention to terminate"
the agreement, in either of which event, . the
agreement was to terminate "upon the ensuing June
L" No further negotiations took place until July
1968, when Robert Bennett , president of Superior,
met with Louis Hollander, comanager of the Joint
Board, and Nathan Greenberg, manager of Local
158 Hollander asked Bennett to join the
manufacturer's association and sign an agreement
with the Joint Board to make all Superior's work
"in Amalgamated shops, all union shops," adding
the statement that "there will be no more separate
contract." Bennett was also told that if he did not
comply, "they would pull out my warehouse boys
and that I would be picketed and I will be in a lot
of trouble " Bennett replied that he had no way of
complying with their request.
Superior continued to deduct and forward
employee union dues to Local 158 until about
March I, 1969, when Local 158 representative
Shapiro told Bennett that the Union would not
accept any more payments and that Local 158 was
breaking off its agreement with Superior On or
181 NLRB No. 149
N.Y. JOINT BOARD , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WKRS.
about April 21, 1969, the New York Clothing
Unemployment Fund Agency notified Superior that
the Company was no longer required to make
further contributions to the Amalgamated insurance
fund because "we have been advised by Local 158,
A.C.W.A. that their contract with your firm has
been terminated."
On June 3, 1969, District 65, Wholesale, Retail,
Office and Processing Union, herein called District
65, filed a petition with the Board for a
representation election among all Superior's
warehouse employees. On June 11, 1969, the Board
notified Local 158 of the pendency of the election
proceeding. Local 158 intervened, but on June 17,
notified the Board that it wished to withdraw as a
participant. The election was held on June 24, 1969.
A few days before the election, Shapiro visited
Superior and asked former Local 158 members to
sign cards, telling them that if they did so, the
Union would "reinstate all their benefits" and "take
Superior Pants back the same as it was before."
Shapiro informed Bennett that he was able to obtain
one card, and asked if Bennett could obtain any
additional cards. A few days later, Greenberg called
Bennett and asked him to see if he could "get at
least one more signature card" to enable him "to
stop the'election and then we can get together again
the same as before." Bennett did not accede to
either request.'
As a result of the election, the Board on July 2,
1969, certified District 65 as the
collective-bargaining representative of all Superior's
warehouse employees, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
Superior and District 65 commenced contract
negotiations.
In the meantime, on or about June 30, 1969, the
Joint Board commenced picketing the premises of
Superior with signs stating "NOTICE to the
PUBLIC. DON'T BUY SUPERIOR PANTS.
SUPERIOR PANTS undermines union conditions
and standards in Importing PANTS and
Manufacturing Non-Union Pants." The picketing
continued until enjoined by the United States
District Court on August 12, 1969.
A. Issue
Did Joint Board picket Superior with an object to
force and require Superior to recognize and bargain
with the Joint Board as the collective bargaining
representative of the warehouse employees of
Superior at a time when Superior had lawfully
recognized another labor organization as its
employees' representative"
The above facts are based on the undemed testimony of Superior
president Robert Bennett
B. Contentions of the Parties
919
The General Counsel contends that the evidence
shows that the Joint Board sought to represent
Superior's employees as well as obtaining a contract
limiting Superior's subcontracting to
Amalgamated-represented firms.
The Joint Board asserts that it had no
recognitional or organizational objective and that its
sole interest is to attempt to obtain more work for
union members engaged in the actual manufacture
of the garments.
C. Conclusions
Section 8(b)(7) makes it an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization or its agents:
. . to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten
to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an
employer to recognize or bargain with a labor
organization as the representative of his
employees . . unless such labor organization is
currently certified as the representative of such
employees:
(A) where the employer has lawfully recognized
in accordance with this Act any other labor
organization and a question concerning
representation may not appropriately be raised
under Section 9(c) of the Act ... .
Joint Board comanager Hollander testified that
his union was picketing to inform the public that
Superior's work is made in nonunion shops.
However, he admitted that on July 15, he gave an
affidavit to the Board in which he made the
following statements:
. . . Before the picketing would cease, we would
insist on Superior Pants, Inc., signing a formal
agreement to use only union contractors to
manufacture the pants sold by it. We would insist
on a two-year agreement to that effect because
that coincides with the expiration date of the
agreements that we have with other
manufacturers. We would want to have him sign a
regular manufacturers agreement like other
manufacturers have signed and deal with
contractors who are under contractual relations
with the Amalgamated and want one contract
that will cover all the workers that he employs
directly or indirectly. [Emphasis supplied.]
Hollander also admitted that in July 1969, he told
a representative from District 65, who asked him
why Amalgamated gave up jurisdiction, that "we
wanted a contract not only for the few people
employed directly, but the people who are employed
indirectly to be under the union contract, that the
work should be made in union shops."
Thus, it is clear, that the Joint Board was seeking
a contract which, at least in part, would cover the
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warehouse employees of Superior, as the "direct
employees," as well as its indirect "employees," i e ,
those employees of firms doing the work on the
fabrics for Superior. Hollander's statements
preclude the possibility that the Joint Board only
wanted a contract requiring the subcontracting work
to be done in Amalgamated Shops, while permitting
the work at Superior's plant to be done by
non-Amalgamated employees. We therefore find
that the picketing had a recognitional object and
was violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
Upon the basis of all the findings of fact, and for
all the reasons stated above, we find that the
Respondent threatened to picket Superior Pants,
Inc., and picketed Superior Pants, Inc., with an
object of seeking recognition and bargaining as the
representative of employees of that employer in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor dispute burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, we make the
following conclusions of law-
1. Superior Pants, Inc., is engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Joint Board is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 158, and District 65, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
4. By threatening to picket Superior, and by
picketing Superior, with an object of forcing and
requiring Superior to recognize and bargain with the
Respondent as the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees, at a time when the
Respondent was not certified as such representative,
and Superior had lawfully recognized District 65 as
the collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit, and a question
concerning representation could not be raised under
Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action that we find necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents,
and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to
be picketed or threatening to picket Superior Pants,
Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring
such employer to recognize or bargain with
Respondent as the collective - bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit involved,
at a time when the Respondent is not certified as
such representative and the employees of such
employer are represented by a lawfully recognized
labor organization , and when no question
concerning representation of the employees of such
employer may be raised under Section 9(c) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "Z
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed
by a duly authorized representative of the
Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in such
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that the said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail to the Regional Director for
Region 2, signed copies of said notices for posting
by Superior Pants, Inc, if it so chooses , in places
where notices to its employees are normally posted
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
'In the event this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
N.Y. JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WKRS. 921
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
question concerning representation may be raised under
Section 9(c) of the Act.
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or
threaten to picket Superior Pants, Inc , where an object
thereof is forcing or requiring such employer to
recognize or bargain with us as the collective-bargaining
representative of their employees, at a time when we
are not certified as such representative and the
employees of such employer are represented by a
lawfully recognized labor organization, and when no
Dated By
NEW YORK JOINT
BOARD, AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York, New York 10007, Telephone 212-264-0300.