Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 185 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 185
Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers Association, Inc., Peti-
tioner and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union;
Northeast Department of International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union ; Locals 111, 264, 93, 351, 234, 243, 108, 591, 424, 225,
109, 131, 356, 185, 306, 454, 249, 295, 228, 170, 174, 345, 390, 396,
414, and 510; and Joint Board of Dress and Waistmakers'
Union of Greater New York, ILGWU,1 AFL-CIO. Case No.
4-ISM-267. November 18, 1959
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before George Turitz, hearing
officer. 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. Petitioner,' and each of the individual Employers who are or
were members of Petitioner during the pendency of this proceeding,
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved' claim to represent certain
employees of the employer-members of the Petitioner.
The caption of this proceeding is amended to include the Joint Board of Dress and
Waistmakers ' Union of Greater New York, ILGWU , hereinafter referred to as the Joint
Board, inasmuch as it was named in the petition as claiming to represent the employees
involved.
a Over objection of Petitioner, the hearing officer allowed intervention by United
Popular Dress Manufacturers Association , Inc., hereinafter called UP, an employer asso-
ciation located in New York City of which about 190 of the approximately 267 members
of Petitioner had been members and through which the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union find its affiliates claim that such members became part of an alleged
seven - State multlemployer unit. In view of the unit issue and UP's interest therein, as
well as its general interest in matters relating to the ladies ' garment industry , the hearing
officer properly permitted it to intervene . Cf. Denver Heating, Piping and Air Condition-
ing Contractors Association, et at., 99 NLRB 251.
' Petitioner was formed in 1938 under the name of Pennsylvania Dress Manufacturers
Association , Inc., but in 1954, by amendment of its articles of incorporation , its name
was changed to Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers Association ,. Inc. Petitioner is
hereinafter referred to as PGMA regardless of its correct name at the time of the
particular events.
4 The petition names the recognized bargaining agent as International Ladies' Garment
Workers ' Union , hereinafter called ILGWU ; Northeast Department of ILGWU , hereinafter
called NE ; and the 26 locals designated in the caption hereof ; and names the Joint
Board as another labor organization which claims recognition . The ILGWU and these
subordinate bodies are collectively referred to herein as the Union.
NE was originally known as Cotton Dress and Miscellaneous Trades Department of the
ILGWU. It is an organizing and administrative arm of the ILGWU which services all
ladies ' garment plants, except those manufacturing hosiery and hats, in its assigned
geographical area , It consists of 175 locals in that area , 26 of which ( all located in the
areas in which the PGMA members have their plants ) are those named in the petition.
The Joint Board is made up of four locals, all located in New York City and all having
jurisdiction over work in the "dress" industry as defined infra.
During the course of the hearing in this case , a new arm of the ILGWU was formally
inaugurated , This is the Dress Makers ' Joint Council , hereinafter called the Joint Council,
composed of the Joint Board, NE, and the Eastern Out-of-Town Department ( a branch of
ILGWU similar to NE but covering a different geographical area).
125 ].NLRB No. 24.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. PGMA contends that the appropriate unit, based on the history of
-bargaining and the present desire of its members, consists of all em-
ployees of PGMA members. In the alternative, PGMA requests that
the Board find individual employer units appropriate.5 PGMA con-
tends that a question of representation existed and still exists involv-
ing the employees in the unti or units it seeks in that it does not
know which branch of the ILGWU is the exclusive bargaining agent
and there is a basic dispute as to the scope of the appropriate unit.
The Union, on the other hand, contends that no question of repre-
sentation exists because it alleges that PGMA has not been presented
with a claim by a labor organization for recognition as exclusive
representative of the employees in either of the units alleged by
PGMA to be appropriate,' and that in any event the entire proceed-
ing is now moot because of the manner in which the individual
employer-members of PGMA settled the strike called by the Union.7
s PGMA, in its petition , sought an assoclationwide unit. At the start of the hearing
it amended its petition to seek, in the alternative , individual employer units . The Union
opposed this amendment on the ground that there was no showing that counsel for PUMA
or PGMA itself was authorized by the individual employers to seek such separate units.
There can be no doubt that PUMA is the agent of its members , while such membership
continues , for purposes of representing its members in labor relations : See, e . g., Western
Association of Engineers , Architects and Surveyors, 101 NLRB 64 . The filing of repre-
sentation petitions is within the scope of such agency, and the alternative unit contention
is within the area of such general authorization . The Union ' s position is therefore
without merit.
At the close of the hearing PUMA withdrew its alternative unit request. However, in
its brief it again stated its unit contention in the alternative . Although the Union in
its brief noted that PGMA had withdrawn its alternative position and stated that it was
therefore not discussing that position , the Union is not prejudiced by our consideration
of that contention, inasmuch as the Union had the opportunity to put in all evidence it
had available on this point and to express its views on such units throughout the entire
course of the hearing. Moreover , many of the Union 's arguments in its brief are equally
applicable to the individual employer unit position.
u The ILGWU and its affiliates take the position that "no branch . . . is competing or
arguing in this proceeding against any other branch of the ILGWU , and the Union
emphatically does not want and strenuously resists any decision that an election be held
in which different branches of the ILGWU will be rivals for selection by the workers in
any unit whatsoever . . . .
7 ,The Union also contends that no question concerning representation exists because
(1) PUMA admits that the Union ( through some of its branches ) represents a majority
of the employees , and (2 ) PUMA is foreclosed by its articles of incorporation from
maintaining this proceeding . As to ( 1), PGMA states that it and its members desire to
deal with a certified union, and it is well settled that an employer, as well as a recognized
bargaining agent , is entitled to the benefits of certification under the Board ' s decision in
General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678, even though the employer has recognized that
union for many years, especially where, as here , the petition was timely filed. J. P.
O'Neil, et al., d/b/a J. P. O 'Neil Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 1299 ; Machinery Movers
and Erectors Division, Michigan Cartagemen's Association, 117 NLRB 1778; and see
infra and East Tennessee Packing Company, 122 NLRB 204 , as to the timeliness of the
petition. With regard to (2), the Union points to the fact that PGMA's articles of
incorporation, as amended in 1944, define Joint Members as "those . . . engaged in the
manufacturing of silk or rayon dresses, who have contractual relations with the Joint
Board. . . It contends, therefore, that insofar as representation of such members is
concerned , PGMA is limited to functioning within the ambit of "contractual relations with
the Joint Board." However, we find merit in PGMA's position that the limitation on
its authority is analogous to a limitation on a union ' s jurisdiction contained in its consti-
tution , which we have consistently held is not a controlling factor. See , e.g., P. C. Russell
Company, 116 NLRB 1015 ; Walton-Young Corp ., 117,NLRB 51.
The Union requested in its brief that if the petition is not dismissed on other grounds,
the record be reopened to adduce additional evidence (1) that PGMA has become defunct
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 187
With respect to the unit, the Union contends that historically it has
represented the employees of PGMA members in two units, one as
a PGMA-wide unit insofar as the employees do so-called "nondress"
work, and the other as part of a seven-State unit, covering New York
City and the surrounding States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, of
all employees of PGMA members and similar contractors insofar as
they do so-called "dress" work.
The bargaining relationship of PGMA and its members with the
Union began in 1938 and is complex. As indicated above, there is
great disagreement between PGMA and the Union on the historical
bargaining unit. However, in our view of this case, we need not
decide which of these positions is correct, inasmuch as we find below
that, whether two units or one existed historically, the historical basis
for bargaining has been abandoned. Therefore, whether a question of
representation exists depends on a resolution of the Union's remain-
ing contentions that no claim has been made in any unit sought by
PGMA and that in any event the case is now moot. This, in turn,
requires consideration of some of the events occurring before and
during the processing of this petition.
Women's and children's garments are designed by jobbers or manu-
facturers,' who make samples, purchase and cut the cloth, and sell
the finished product. The actual sewing operation is performed by
other firms, known as contractors, who never own the goods they are
working on but merely supply services to the jobbers. Approximately
80 to 85 percent of the women's dresses produced in this country are
manufactured for jobbers located in the New York City garment
district.
The Union defines the garments produced by the contractors as
"dress" or "nondress" depending on the jobber for whom the work
is. performed. All women's silk and rayon dresses produced for any
jobber located in New York City who is in contractual relation with
the Joint Board are considered "dresses," whereas the same garment
made of the same material but produced for a jobber not under con-
tract with the Joint Board or located in a city other than New York
since the close of the hearing and/or ( 2) that the proceeding is being maintained by
"sinister and anti -social forces for ulterior purposes unrelated to the Act." However,
PGM A's possible defunctness is not material In view of our conclusions below, and the
evidence proffered in connection with the alleged ulterior purposes is not relevant where,
as here , there is a genuine dispute between the parties on a question which is within
the Board's exclusive jurisdiction under the Act. The motion to reopen the record is
hereby denied.
8 Jobbers have no production facilities of their own ; manufacturers have some pro-
duction facilities, known as " inside shops ," but such facilities do not meet the entire
needs and manufacturers therefore function In large measure as do the jobbers. For
purposes of this decision , the term "jobber" Is used to Include both jobbers and
manufacturers.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is termed "nondress," as are all other types of women's or children's
garments which may be produced by the contractors.'
PGMA is an association of approximately 267 contractors located
primarily in eastern Pennsylvania (16 are located in upper New
York State)10 who produce all types of women's and children's gar-
ments in the lower priced line, except coats and knitwear, but about
two-thirds of the aggregate production of the members consists of
"dress" work. The parties stipulated that about 150 of these con-
tractors work exclusively for New York jobbers who have Joint Board
contracts and thus do only what the Union terms "dress" work; about
50 work only on other types of garments or work for jobbers in other
locations who are not under contract with the Joint Board and hence
do exclusively "nondress" work; and the rest do both "dress" and
"nondress" work.
The New York jobbers are organized into three employer associa-
tions, one composed of "manufacturers," one of "jobbers" who make
higher priced garments, and one of "jobbers" who make lower priced
garments. The New York contractors are organized into two associa-
tions-United Better Dress Manufacturers Association, Inc.," and
UP. These are collectively referred to herein as the five New York
associations. Since long prior to 1938, these five associations have
made collective agreements on behalf of their members with the
ILGWU and the Joint Board, which contracts are referred to herein
as Joint Board contracts. These five Joint Board contracts are in
many important respects identical (those with the two New York
contractors' associations entirely so), were bargained for and executed
together, and incorporate parts of each other. They govern relations
between employers and employees and also between the jobbers and
their contractors. In addition, the two New York contractors' asso-
ciations make contracts with each of the New York jobbers' associa-
tions. The vast majority of New York jobbers and contractors
establish contractual relations by joining one of the five New York
associations. The last contracts before the filing of this petition were
effective from February 1, 1955, to January 31, 1958.
From the beginning of its existence in 1938, PGMA had contractual
relations with NE, at first orally and later in writing. The last such
contract prior to the filing of this petition was with "Northeast De-
6 On the other hand, apparently some sportswear may be "dresses" but the record
shows no basis for making a determination as to whether a particular garment is a
"dress" or not a "dress ." To further complicate the definition , there is an indication
that cotton dresses in some instances are not "dresses " but in other instances they are
"dresses."
10 Contractors in other States have their own local associations. For example, reference
Will be made herein to the New Jersey Dress Mfrs. Assn.
11 Herein called United Better.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 189
partment of the [ILGWU ]," 12 effective February 1, 1955, and in-
corporated the 1955 Joint Board contract with UP.
Under the provisions of the Joint Board contracts and the jobber-
contractor association agreements , the jobbers may let out their work
only to contractors who are members of one of the two New York
contractors associations . In about 1939 an oral arrangement was
worked out whereby PGMA members were to become special members
of UP through the New Jersey Dress Manufacturers ' Assn. for pur-
poses of doing work for New York jobbers. Beginning in about 1944,
PGMA became affiliated directely with UP,13 its president became a
member of UP's board of directors and negotiating committee (al-
though he did not meet directly with the Joint Board during the con-
tract negotiations ), and its members became special members of UP
by virtue of their membership in PGMA. At about the same time
PGMA's articles of incorporation were amended , in order to provide
for PGMA's affiliation with UP , by establishing three classes of mem-
bers defined in terms of whether they have contractual relations with
the Joint Board.
Whether as a result of the PGMA-UP affiliation or pursuant to the
Joint Board or NE contracts is not clear , but those firms engaged in
work for jobbers under contract with the Joint Board at the time of
joining PGMA or those undertaking such work subsequent to the
time of joining, executed a form ( supplied to PGMA by the Union)
addressed to the Joint Board stating that the contractor
... has authorized the [PGMA] to enter into a Collective Agree-
ment with the [ILGWU ] and the Joint Board .. . on his be-
half and he hereby ratifies in all respects the Collective Agree-
ment entered into between the said Association and the said
Unions dated [the date of the then existing contract between UP
and Joint Board].
Although this form refers to a contract between PGMA and the Joint
Board, PG12A has never been signatory to a contract in which the
Joint Board has been named as a contracting party.
Both the 1955 Joint Board contracts and the 1955 PGMA-NE agree-
ment had January 31 , 1958, expiration dates with 3-month automatic
renewal clauses . Such automatic renewal was forestalled with respect
to both of those agreements , the NE contract by notice on October 25,
1957, by NE to PGMA. On October 30, 1957, at a meeting attended
by some 200 of its members , PGMA passed a series of resolutions
relating to future bargaining with the Union . They authorized the
president to take all immediate steps necessary to terminate the exist-
"This contract specifically provided that "It is further agreed that [ NE] . . . is not
an agent of or acting on behalf of the [ILGWU], and that in no event shall the latter be
bound by or liable under this agreement or be otherwise liable."
13 This arrangement was also oral.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing contract with NE, "to clarify and stablize [sic] our current and
future bargaining relationship with the ILGWTJ," and "to . . . dis-
continue any and all of our memberships in [UP]" and "inform said
[UP] and the ILGWU that effective immediately our members have
withdrawn any and all authority from [UP] to make agreements or
contracts binding upon this Association or its various individual mem-
bers." It was further resolved "that the officers and Executive Board
of [PGMA], and the individual members, are directed not to enter
into any father [sic] agreements . . . with the ILGWATU or any of
its affiliates, unless and until such agreements . . . are first reduced
to writing, approved by the Executive Board, and signed by the Presi-
dent and the Secretary" of PGMA, and that individual members
"shall have no authority to enter into any agreement . . . with the
Union . . . that in any manner or form serves to alter, amend, change
or modify, any of the conditions, terms, or provisions of any existing
contract or agreement between [PGMA] and the Union."
That same day PGMA's president sent a telegram to UP tendering
the resignation "of all members of the [PMGA] from [UP]" effec-
tive January 31, 1958, and terminating [UP's] authority to enter into
a collective bargaining contract in behalf of [PG-MA's] members."
UP's president recognized and accepted the withdrawal and the resig-
nations, as indicated by the fact that he informed the Union, during
the 1958 negotiations, that UP no longer spoke for the PGMA mem-
bers. On October 31, PGMA sent separate identical telegrams to the
General Counsel of ILGIVU, to NE, and to the Joint Board advising
that PGMA "will not renew its contract with you expiring Jan. 31,
1958 . . ." and wired a copy to UP's president. Therefore, even if
we accept the Union's version of the historical bargaining units,
PGMA and its members effectively withdrew14 from any seven-State
"dress" unit by the timely notice to all parties who might be inter-
ested 15 and by the timely filing of this petition 16 after the first 2
years of the 3-year contract had expired and before any of the 1958
contracts were signed. What unit or units resulted from PGMA's
resolutions and withdrawal need not be decided in view of the sub-
sequent events.
On January 14, 1958, PGMA and NE met to negotiate concerning
a new contract. NE had previously taken the position, and main-
tained it throughout this and subsequent meetings, that it would
bargain only as to "nondress" work, since it stated that shops pro-
ducing "dresses" would be covered by the Joint Board negotiations
then in process. PGMA at the opening of the January 14 meeting
14 we find without merit the Union's contention that the withdrawal from UP was not
unequivocal or a sincere abandonment of group bargaining with relative permanency.
ss Robert F. Dwyer, et al ., dJb/a Clackamas Logging Company, et al., 113 NLRB
229, 234.
10 East Tennessee Packing Company , 122 NLRB 204.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 191
presented a written statement of its demands in which it set forth,
among other things, that its membership had "directed that all nego-
tiations for all members, irrespective of the type of work performed
by them, shall be conducted . . . direct with the Managers of the
locals involved and [NE]. . . ." Because of the insistence of each
party upon its unit position, this meeting produced no agreement, and
PGMA filed the instant petition shortly thereafter.
In the meantime, negotiations were proceeding in New York City
between the five New York associations and the Union. The Union
called a general strike, including the shops of PGMA's members,
which started March 5, 1958. The strike was settled, except in the
PGMA shops, about March 11, and five agreements were executed
that day but effective from March 1, 1958, to January 31, 1961. They
recite that they are made by "[ILGWU] and DRESS MAKERS'
JOINT COUNCIL, composed of JOINT BOARD ... and its con-
stituent Locals ... of the [ILGWU], sometimes hereinafter referred
to as `Joint Board,' NORTHEAST DEPARTMENT, I.L.G.W.U.,
and EASTERN-OUT-OF-TOWN DEPARTMENT, I.L.G.W.U., all
collectively designated herein as the `Union"'; define "Metropolitan
District" 17 as "the City of New York, and all cities and towns in the
State of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware and ... any other cities or
towns or States in which garments are manufactured by or for job-
bers .. . who are in contractual relations with the Union and/or by
and for any other firm which is considered by the industry as a New
York ... jobber"; and set forth the unit 'as "all production work-
ers ... employed by 'all employers in the Metropolitan District in
contractual relations with the Union." 18 PGMA and the Union con-
tinued to negotiate throughout March and the beginning of April.
Two tentative settlements were reached, both including the require-
ment that PGMA reaffiliate with UP, but were rejected by the PGMA
membership, the last occasion being at a PGMA meeting on March 31,
1958. Apparently there have been no negotiations between PGMA
and the Union since April 15,1958.
Despite the continuation of the negotiations during the March-
April period, the Union began, in March 19'58, to seek individual
settlements with the members of PGMA. PGMA's president stated at
a PGMA meeting on March 25, 1958, that the members were released
from the limitation of the October resolution upon their entering
individual contracts, and on April 17 a similar statement by him
appeared in the local newspapers. In the meantime, during the week
of March 10, 1958, after the PGMA members had rejected the second
0
"No similar definition appeared in the prior Joint Board contracts.
11 Clearly these contracts attempt to establish a multistate dress unit as alleged by
the Union. However , we need not decide in this case whether such a unit exists or, if it
does , whether it is an appropriate unit.
N
-192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tentative agreement, the manager of NE issued a statement to the
press, which was published in the local Pennsylvania newspapers and
carried on the wire services, to the effect that after the Union's ex-
perience with the representatives and officers of PGMA the Union
would not negotiate with them as a group any more. Thereafter the
Union increased its campaign to secure the individual settlements.
By the close of the hearing virtually all PGMA members had settled
the dispute at their respective plants,19 111 by executing individual
contracts which incorporate the UP contract,20 several by joining
the United Better,21 and a number 22 by a variety of other contracts 23
Nine companies had ceased operations,24 and six were still on strike at
the close of the hearing.
Each Employer who settled by either of the first two methods also
signed a "resignation and revocation" withdrawing from PGMA.
These were generally in the form of a letter addressed jointly to Dress
Makers' Joint Council and NE stating that "This is to advise you
that the undersigned has resigned from the [PGMA] and has revoked
its authority to represent the undersigned for any purpose." 25
Those Employers who settled by joining United Better also signed
an application for membership therein and a form ratifying the 1958
United Better-Joint Board contract .26
The individual contracts were made between the Employer and
"DRESS MAKERS' JOINT COUNCIL composed of the Joint
Board ..., Eastern Out-of-Town Department of the I.L.G.W.U and
Northeast Department of I.L.G.W.U. (hereinafter designated as the
10 A separate settlement was reached for each plant operated by an Employer.
ao One hundred and twenty such contracts were placed in evidence , but nine bear names
of companies not listed among the PG1Ll members in the appendix to the petition herein.
21 The parties stipulated that 66 Employers settled the strike in this fashion. However,
80 sets of the documents signed for that purpose were placed in evidence, of which only
63 bear the names of PGMA members listed in the appendix to the petition 'herein.
22 The parties stipulated that there were 67 Employers in this category, but the appendix
to the petition contains 88 names of Employers for whom neither individual contracts
nor United Better documents were placed in evidence and who were not among those
plants still on strike.
z' There is no evidence in the record concerning the nature or terms of these contracts.
21 These companies were not designated by name , and are apparently among the 88 re-
ferred to in footnote 22, supra.
20 Copies of 181 such letters are in evidence, but a number of them are signed by
Employers who are among the 88 referred to in footnote 22, above.
20 The ratification read :
The Undersigned hereby represents that he has authorized the UNITED BETTER
DRESS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION to enter into a Collective Agreement
with the JOINT BOARD . . . on behalf of its constituent locals, the EASTERN-
OUT-OF-TOWN DEPARTMENT and the NORTHEAST DEPARTMENT, and the
['ILGWU] on his behalf and he hereby ratifies in all respect the collective agree-
ment entered into between the said Association and the said Unions dated as of
March 1, 1958.
The undersigned further agrees that the said agreement shall be binding upon
him with the same force and effect as if it were entered into with the undersigned
individually and the Unions. The undersigned makes this representation to the said
Unions knowing full well that the Unions will rely upon the same and will consider
said agreement as an agreement between the Union and the undersigned.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 193
Union)," and were signed by the Employer and the Joint Council.27
They provide that the parties adopt the terms of the March 1, 1958,
UP-union contract and incorporate that contract by reference "with
the same force and effect as though . . . entered into directly be-
tween the Union and the Employer," with the modifications (among
others not pertinent here) that wherever the UP contract "refers to
the Association or to a member of the Association, the same shall
mean the Employer herein, and all language referring to the parties
used in such . . . agreement shall be interpreted as though said agree-
ment had been entered into directly between the Union and the Em-
ployer and shall be so construed as to give full meaning to the intent
of the parties hereto . . ." and that in any dispute between the parties
the aggrieved party shall file his complaint directly with the impartial
chairman.21 These contracts further provide that "In the event the
Employer shall, during the life of this agreement, join an Employer
Association with which the Union is in collective agreement, this
agreement shall be superseded by the . . . agreement between the
Union and such Employer Association. . . ."
The Union contends that all those Employers who have settled the
strike have adopted the alleged seven-State "dress" unit and that
therefore no question of representation exists as to any of them.
Without deciding whether such seven-State unit in fact exists, we
find that those Employers listed in. "Appendix C" 29 joined United
Better, authorized it to bargain for them, and adopted the existing
United Better-union contract, and that they thereby became part of
the unit covered by that contract.30 Accordingly, those Employers
have indicated their desire to bargain on the basis of, and have be-
27 manager testified that the contracts covering firms doing "dress" work and
those covering firms doing only "nondress" work contained different terms and that both
he and the manager of the Joint Board (who is also manager of the Joint Council) co-
signed wherever the Employer did "dress" work but lie alone (NE's manager) signed
where the Employer did only "nondress" work because "nondresses are not under contract
with the Joint Board." However, none of the individual contracts contain a place for
signature by the Joint Board and only 8 of the 111 contracts were signed solely by NE's
manager (with the place for signature on behalf of the Joint Council left blank). On the
basis of these factors, considered in conjunction with the contract provision naming the
Joint Council as the contracting union, we can only conclude that the Joint Council is
the sole contracting union and NE signed as agent of the Joint Council.
29 Under the UP contract impartial chairman proceedings must be handled through the
Association.
2B The record herein is not entirely clear as to the manner in which some of the Employers
involved have settled the dispute with the Union. Therefore, this Appendix and the
others referred to below may require correction in some instances. Accordingly, if any
Employer can show to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, within 10 days from the date hereof, that as of May 8, 1958, the date of the close
of the hearing, its relationship with the Union was different than found herein as in-
dicated by its inclusion in a particular Appendix hereto, the Regional Director is
authorized to determine the proper placement of such Employer in the respective
Appendixes, and this Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections is to be considered
corrected and amended accordingly. Such a showing may be made only by displaying
to the Regional Director documents like those relied on herein.
30 Denver Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, et al., 99
NLRB 251, 254, footnote 12.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come part of, a unit which is outside the scope of this proceeding, no
question of representation exists with respect to them, and we shall
dismiss the petition as to them.
A different situation exists concerning the Employers, listed in
"Appendix A," who executed the individual contracts. For the rea-
sons set forth in our discussion in paragraph 4, infra, we find that the
individual contracts were ineffective for the purpose of adopting the
alleged seven-State "dress" unit. Rather, those Employers and the
Union have abandoned multiemployer bargaining on any basis. On
the one hand, in view of the facts that the Union approached each
Employer individually, negotiated and settled separately with each,
ceased its picketing at the separate plants as the individual contracts
were signed, and is willing to settle on the same basis with those Em-
ployers whose employees were still on strike at the close of the hearing,
we are convinced that a claim has been made to represent the employees
of each such individual Employer in a separate unit.31 On the other
hand, PGMA and its members, have abandoned multiemployer bar-
gaining by PGMA's release of its members, and by the conduct of such
Employers in entering into the separate settlements with the Union
and signing the "resignations and revocations." 32
The Union took the position that no labor organization was claiming
to represent the employees in any unit sought by PGMA but only
sought to represent them in the two multiemployer units as set forth
above. ILGWVU contended that when employees become members of
any of its locals they become members of the International, that the
International is the bargaining representative, that the International
has the right to designate any of its branches as the agent through
which it will bargain, that it has exercised this authority by delegat-
ing the representation of the employees involved to the Joint Board
insofar as they do "dress" work and to NE insofar as they do "non-
dress" work, and that, accordingly, it does not claim to represent the
employees in any single unit. However, Dress Makers' Joint Council.,
composed of the Joint Board, NE, and Eastern Out-Of-Town Depart-
ment has executed the individual contracts and seeks the same type of
contract with the six plants where the strike continues. Considering
the ILGWVU's position that it is the designated representative and
1 Neville Foundry Company, Inc., 122 NLRB 1187. Cf. Standard Furniture Company,
118 NLRB 35.
With respect to those Employers who were said to have entered various other types of
contracts with the Union, there is insufficient evidence in the record on which to deter-
mine whether they have adopted some other multiemployer basis for bargaining or have
indicated an intent to bargain separately. Those concerning whom there is insufficient
evidence are listed in Appendix D. Accordingly, we shall dismiss as to them, subject to
the provisions of footnote 29, supra.
32 PGMA contends that for various reasons these "resignations and revocations" do not
indicate the real intent of the Employers. However, it is well settled that the factors
motivating an employer's decision are immaterial. Furniture Employers' Council of
Southern California, Inc., et al., 96 NLRB 1002, 1004; Pacific Metals Company, Ltd.,
et at. , 91 NLRB 696, 700, footnote I.R.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 195
the individual contracts entered with the Joint Council, the Union's
conduct is inconsistent with its claim, and we conclude that the
ILGWU and the Joint Council have made a joint claim in the units
hereinafter found appropriate."
We ordinarily would dismiss the petition herein without prejudice
to the right of the owners of the individual plants to file separate
petitions. However, as already noted, the Petitioner has indicated
that if the Board decides against holding an election in the multi-
employer unit, it desires that elections be directed in the individual
plants. Accordingly, in view of the Union's demands for recognition
in the separate employer units, and the fact that the individual con-
tracts do not bar the instant proceeding, we find that questions affect-
ing commerce exist concerning the representation of the employees of
the firms listed in "Appendixes A and B" within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.34
4. All parties herein are in agreement that the unit or units, if any,
established by the Board should be composed of all production and
packing and shipping employees, excluding all supervisors, foremen,
foreladies, and clerical and administrative personnel. It was agreed
that this description includes all classifications traditionally repre-
sented by the Union and that this is the unit covered by the past
collective-bargaining agreements discussed above.
The only unit issue raised in this case relates to scope, as set forth
above in our discussion of the question concerning representation.
As we have found, there is no controlling bargaining history here,
since any multiemployer bargaining has been abandoned by all parties.
It is well established that a single-employer unit is presumptively
appropriate in the absence of a controlling bargaining history on a
broader basis.35 Of course, if the parties thereafter voluntarily
adopted a different multiemployer basis for bargaining, that unit
may be appropriate 16 The Union contends that the latter situation
exists here in that by the individual contracts executed in March and
April 1958, in settlement of the strike at each plant, each employer
.33 Cf. Andrew Brown Company, 115 NLRB 886. We find it unnecessary to determine
whether the International has the power claimed by it to divide the representation of
employees among its branches.
Although the Joint Council, as such, did not appear and participate in the hearing, its
parent and two of its constituent bodies participated fully, their claim that the proceed-
ing is now moot is based entirely on the 1958 individual contracts executed by the Joint
Council, and they assert that the establishment of the Joint Council is merely a formaliza-
tion of their former method of operation. Accordingly, the interests of the Joint Council
were fully protected and its failure to enter an appearance under the name "Joint
Council" is immaterial. Under all the circumstances, we construe the use of the name
"Joint Council" as a joint designation of the Joint Board and NE and shall direct that
the Union appear on the ballots in the elections hereinafter directed as International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and Dress Makers' Joint Council, ILGWU.
84 Cf. Indegro, Inc., t/a V, ddie's Super Market, 117 NLRB 386, 389. As stated in para-
graph 1, supra, these firms meet the Board ' s jurisdictional standards.
m Arden Farms, et at., 117 NLRB 318, 319.
30 Calumet Contractors Association , 121 NLRB 80.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adopted the alleged seven-State "dress" unit. We find no merit in
this contention.
Each of these individual contracts consists of three typewritten
pages and the incorporated UP contract, and all are identical in
their terms. The typewritten matter does not specifically spell out
a unit but provides that whereas the employer is engaged in the
manufacture of dresses and the Joint Council represents a majority
of the production workers employed by the employer, it is agreed
that the parties adopt and agree to be bound by the 1958 UP contract
with ILGWU and the Joint Council, which is incorporated by refer-
ence with the same force and effect as though made directly between
the Joint Council and the Employer. The incorporated UP contract
after defining "Metropolitan District" s7 contains the following pro-
vision entitled "BARGAINING UNIT" :
SECOND: The parties hereto acknowledge that for many years
past the Union, on behalf of the production workers in the dress
industry in the Metropolitan District, has continuously entered
into collective agreements with associations of employers and
that since 1936 these associations have been [the five New York
associations] . . . In addition, the Joint Board has in the past
entered into other substantially similar agreements.
.. . the final agreements which have been consummated [be-
tween the Union and the five New York associations] have been
substantially identical in form and substance. All agreements
entered into by the Joint Board have also conformed substantially
with each other.
The parties hereto acknowledge, consent and agree that the unit
appropriate for collective bargaining . . . is and shall continue
to be: all production workers . . . employed by all employers
in the Metropolitan District in contractual relations with the
Union.
The Association concedes that the Union represents all of the
said production workers employed by the members of the Asso-
ciation as well as all of the said production workers employed in
the aforementioned appropriate unit and agrees that during the
entire term of this agreement the Union shall be the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for all such workers.
Considering each of the individual contracts as a whole, the
language is ambiguous as to the appropriate unit which was estab-
lished. But even if the Union's contention is correct and the Em-
ployer and the Union did intend to establish the employees as part of
the alleged broader unit, we must conclude that this was not accom-
plished, inasmuch as none of the criteria for inclusion in a multi-
9T See p. 191, supra.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 197
employer unit is present here. Unlike the Employers who joined
United Better, these Employers did not join any multiemployer asso-
ciation and did not authorize any joint agent to bargain for them. We
have uniformly held that the mere adoption of contracts negotiated
by an association is insufficient to warrant inclusion in the multi-
employer unit, absent some evidence of true collective bargaining on a
multiemployer basis.38 "Such evidence appears when the employer
participates personally with other employers in joint negotiations, or
when it delegates to a joint bargaining representative authority to
conduct negotiations on its behalf." 39 There is no such evidence in
this case. Under these circumstances, and especially in view of their
negotiation and execution of the separate contracts with the Joint
Council in preference to joining UP or United Better, we find that the
Employers have bargained separately and have unequivocally mani-
fested their intention to continue to bargain separately. Therefore,
the employees of these Employers have not been included in the
alleged seven-State unit.40 Moreover, those Employers who operate
more than one plant signed a separate contract with the Union for
each plant. Accordingly, we believe that the parties have established
as separate appropriate units the employees at each plant operated
by each of these Employers.
There remain those six Employers listed in "Appendix B" who have
not yet reached any settlement with the Union. Inasmuch as we have
found abandonment of any multiemployer bargaining in any PGMA
unit, these six Employers, insofar as they seek to bargain together on
a,joint basis, are seeking a new multiemployer unit to which the Union
is opposed. Under these circumstances, such a multiemployer unit
cannot be found appropriate.41 Accordingly, we must conclude that
only separate units of the employees at each of the plants of these
Employers are presently appropriate."
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct elections among the
employees of the individual Employers listed in "Appendixes A and
B" in the units hereinafter found appropriate.
The Union did not state any position on whether, if separate
employer units were found appropriate, it believes that in those plants
which make both "dresses" and "nondresses" the employees of each
Employer should be divided into separate "dress" and "nondress"
units. However, it appears that this possible contention should be
disposed of in view of the Union's vigorous advocacy of such separate
units on the alleged multiemployer basis, the Employers' steadfast
38 Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts , Inc., et al ., 81 NLRB
224, 228.
3DIbid ., at p. 229.
40 See Colonial Cedar Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1613.
41 Of. Calumet Contractors Association , supra.
42 Cf. Neville Foundry Company, Inc., supra.
535828-60-vol. 125-1.4
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position throughout this proceeding that separate units should not
be established on the basis of product, and the adequacy of the testi-
mony in the record on this question.
In the first place, it is noted that the individual contracts were
clearly intended to cover each Employer's entire operations. Thus,
the Union's representative testified, in effect, that it was so intended,
and by their terms the contracts apply to all production workers. The
parties have thus established a single unit of all employees in each
plant regardless of the products worked on. Furthermore, the record
facts concerning the operations of these Employers require the con-
clusion that separation of the employees into two units on the basis of
the garments produced is not warranted. The same employees pro-
duce both "dresses" and "nondresses" interchangeably. In fact, the
Union had difficulty in articulating a definition which distinguished
the two kinds of products.4' There is not even a separation of the
work by departments; the same supervisors oversee the performance
of all work; the same machinery and skills are utilized in both," and
the same working conditions prevail at all times. Accordingly, the
alleged division of jurisdiction between the ILGIVU's branches does
not follow any recognized craft or departmental line, and the groups
cannot be distinguished or readily identified by reason of any special
skills, duties, functional independence, separate supervision, separate
work locations, separate manner of pay, or general working condi-
tions4' In addition, to establish separate units on the basis of the
International's division of jurisdiction or to describe the unit in terms
of work tasks would be contrary to established Board policy 46
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we
find that all production and packing and shipping employees at each
plant of the Employers listed in "Appendixes A and B," excluding all
supervisors, foremen, foreladies, and clerical and administrative per-
sonnel, constitute separate individual units appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
5. It appears that this is a seasonal industry, with its peak in about
March or April of each year. In accordance with our usual practice
in seasonal industries of this kind, we hereby direct the Regional
Director to hold the elections hereinafter directed at or near the peak
^ As indicated above, the identical garment may be a "dress" when produced for one
jobber but "nondress" if produced for a different jobber.
41 A representative of the Union testified that 95 percent of the machinery may be used
interchangeably and that the only machinery which is not usable in this way is that
utilized in the production of knitwear, but that none of the PG\IA members work on
knitwear.
45 See Utility Appliance Corp., 106 NLRB 398.
46 See, e.g., Graver Construction Company, et al., 118 NLRB 1050; Employing Plasterers
Association of the District of Columbia, Inc., 118 NLRB 17. "The authority of a bargain-
ing agent must be sought in the employees' consent and not in the extent of a union's
jurisdiction." The Graphic Arts Association of Washington, D.C., Inc., et al ., 91 NLRB
565, 566 (conflicting claims by two locals of the same parent).
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 199
of the season occurring first after the issuance of this Decision, Order,
and Direction of Elections.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it relates to the Employers listed in Appendixes
C and D, subject to the provision of footnote 29, supra.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN, dissenting :
I cannot agree with the majority decision finding individual em-
ployer units appropriate here. In view of the course of negotiations
preceding and following the filing of the petition here, I would find
that an election is warranted only in a unit consisting of all employees
employed by former PGMA members who have not joined another
employer association.
There has been it bargaining history between PGMA and NE since
1938. Their latest contract had a termination date of January 31,
1958, and was not renewed because of the timely notices of both
PGMA and NE that a new agreement was to be negotiated. PGMA
filed its petition on January 17, 1958, seeking an election in the asso-
ciation unit. It was filed because of the position NE had taken that
it would bargain only over "nondress" work, and that a separate con-
tract for "dress" work would have to be negotiated. The propriety of
associationwide bargaining was not questioned. All during January,
February, and March and well into April, PGMA and NE continued
to bargain with the purpose of reaching agreement on the existing
unit basis.
I have recently set forth the principles which I consider applicable
in determining whether an employer has withdrawn from multi-
employer bargaining at an appropriate time." As I stated then, the
only qualification of an employer's right to withdraw is that he may
not exercise it in such a way as to frustrate the paramount objective
of good-faith collective bargaining, for example, by attempting to
withdraw unilaterally while negotiations are pending. These prin-
ciples also govern the withdrawal of a union from multiemployer
bargaining, since unions too are obligated to bargain in good faith
with the selected representative of the other party to the bargain.
Here, long after negotiations on the existing basis had begun and, as
a matter of fact, 2 months after the filing of the petition, the Union
withdrew from the negotiations stating that it would no longer deal
with PGMA. I would find the Union's withdrawal to be untimely.
The majority, however, in effect finds that the issue of whether the
Union withdrew at an appropriate time is irrelevant because of its
44 See my dissent in American Publishing Corporation, et al ., 124 NLRB 1227.
`ZOO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finding that there has been a mutual abandonment of multiemployer
bargaining. Of course, if this were proved, I would agree that the
old unit would no longer be appropriate. I cannot, however, find
on the facts here that the employers have agreed to abandon bargain-
ing through PGMA. The majority seeks to establish such abandon-
ment by pointing to the release by PGMA of its members' obligation
not to sign separate contracts with the Union, and to the fact that
they did thereafter enter into separate settlements, signed revocations
of PGMA's authority and resigned their memberships therein.
I find this argument unconvincing. PGMA and NE negotiated
through March, and actually reached two tentative settlements which
were rejected by PGMA members, not on the ground that they wanted
to bargain individually, but rather because they insisted on bargaining
only through PGMA. Rather than abandoning multiemployer bar-
gaining, the PGMA members sought to reinforce it. Secondly,
PGMA's release of its members from their obligation not to sign
individual contracts does not prove that the members intended to
bargain individually. I think the contrary is shown, since a week
after the release the PGMA members rejected the proposition that
their association reafliliate with UP. Finally, I believe that the
revocation of authority to PGMA and the resignations, signed at the
Union's insistence, are equivocal in view of the fact that PGMA was
concurrently maintaining at the hearing in this proceeding that the
association was still in existence. I would therefore find no unequiv-
ocal withdrawal from PGMA by those members who have not joined
another association, thereby precluding a finding that bargaining
on the old basis had been abandoned by mutual consent.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYERS WHO SIGNED INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND LOCATION OF PLANTS COVERED
Alaimo Dress Mfg., 52 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Alby Sportswear Co., 414 Pine St., Scranton, Pa.
Alan #2, 144 Hazel St ., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Alan # 1, 695 Hazel Ave., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Ann Lee Frocks , Inc., 631 Fellows Ave., (Hanover Township ) Lyndwood, Pa.
Ann's Fashions Inc., 201 S. Main Ave., Old Forge, Pa.
Ann-Will Garment Co ., 207 Wyoming Ave., Kingston, Pa.
Avoca Sportswear Co., 1013 Main St., Avoca, Pa.
Baumel Dress Co., Olyphant, Pa.
Better Maid Dress Co., 707 River St., Peckville, Pa.
Blass Mfg. Company , 818 Front St., Freeland, Pa.
Blue Bell Dress Co., Inc., 33 E. Northampton St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Bob-Ellen Sportswear #2, 104 E. Main St., Miners Mill, Pa.
C & F Mfg. Corporation , Front & Bridge Sts., Catasauqua, Pa.
C. & G. Apparel Company, Conyhgham, Pa.
Calico Lane Dress Co., 9 School St., Jermyn, Pa.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 201
Violet Dress , 77 S. Main St., Pittston , Pa. (formerly Carolina Sportswear)
Carter Dress Co., 40 W. Main St., Plymouth, Pa.
Center Fashions , 216-218 Center St., Dupont, Pa.
Central Apparel Co., 140 S. Main St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Connie Lee Frocks, 12 E. South St., Wilkes-Bane,P a.
Coronet Dress -Mfg. Co ., 40 W. St. Marys Rd., Lee Park, Pa.
D & C Mfg. Co., 670 Sanderson St., Throop 12, Pa.
David Lee Sportswear , Wayne St. & Clay Ave., West Hazleton, Pa.
Dell-Mar Sportswear , 10 Dock St ., Pittston, Pa.
Dora-Lee Dress Co., 153 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Wilkes -Bane, Pa.
Dixie Frocks , 212 E. Eighth St., Wyoming, Pa.
Duryea Sportswear Inc., 726 Main St ., Duryea, Pa.
Eastern Sportswear Inc., 676 N. Washington St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
El Jay Dress Company , Main St., Childs, Pa.
Fall Dress Co., Falls, Pa.
Gen Mar Sportswear Co., St . Clair, Pa.
Glassco Apparel Co., Inc., 510 Lackawanna Ave., Scranton, Pa.
Highland Mfg. Co ., 90-96 Schuylkill Ave., Shenandoah, Pa.
Hi-Style Fashions Co.,,Inc., 101 West End Rd ., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Hyde Park Fashions Inc., 310 N. Main St., Scranton, Pa.
Jan Garment Co., 54 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Wilkes -Bane, Pa.
Jane Hogan , Inc., 185 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Jo-Ann Dress Company, 222 E. St. Joseph St., Easton, Pa.
Josephine Fashions , 102 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
KennethMfg . Co., Inc ., 327 E . Market St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Keystone Dress Company, 1214 Gordon St ., Allentown, Pa.
L & S, 479 S. Main St ., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Lackawanna Dress Mfg. Inc., 414 Pine St., Scranton, Pa.
Lee Mfg. Co., 247 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Leslie Ann Inc., Donaldson, Pa.
Leslie Ann Inc., Colliery Ave. & 6th St., Tower City, Pa.
Leslie Ann Inc., Main St., Tower City, Pa.
Little Frocks, Inc., 545 W. -Main St., Little Falls, N.Y.
Lonnie Frocks, 5 Luzerne Ave., W . Pittston, Pa.
Loretta Frocks Co ., 57 S. Main St ., Pittston, Pa.
Lori Dress Co., 16 Dock St., Pittston, Pa.
Lou Rose Dress Co., 129 River St., Olyphant, Pa.
M & J Dress Co ., 513 Maple St ., Old Forge, Pa.
MacCready Mfg. Co., Minersville, Pa.
Main Dress Co., 348 Main St., Luzerne, Pa.
Mark Jay Dress Co., Inc., Shamokin, Pa.
M. Martin Dress Co., 1128 N. Third St . (Rear), Catasauqua, Pa.
Mayfield Dress Company, 606 Poplar St., Mayfield, Pa.
Merry L Dress Co ., Inc., 540 E. Mill St., Little Falls, N.Y.
Mira Sue Sportswear, Fern Glen, Pa.
Modelrite Dress Co., 147 Chestnut St., Dunmore, Pa.
Nadine Fashions , 45 N. Main St ., Carbondale, Pa.
Nanticoke Apparel Co., 216 E. Broad St., Nanticoke, Pa.
Noxen Mfg. Co., Noxen, Pa.
Nuremberg Dress Co., Nuremberg, Pa.
0. & S. Dress Company , R. 786 N. Locust St ., Hazleton, Pa.
Old Forge Dress Company , 101 Main St., Old Forge, Pa.
Oneonta Plains Mfg. Co., Inc., 118 Chestnut St., Oneonta, N.Y.
Osted Manufacturing Co., Inc., 244 W. Seneca St., Oswego, N.Y.
P and M Dress Co ., Shenandoah , Turkey Run, Pa.
Pittston Frocks, 97-99 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Primack Dress Co., 23 Sherman St., Shamokin, Pa.
Providence Sportswear , 3 Greenridge St., Scranton, Pa.
R & F Dress Company, 1214 Gordon St., Allentown, Pa.
Rae-Sel Corporation , Port Royal, Pa.
Regina Mfg . Co., 44 Carey Ave., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Rita's Sportswear , 242 Main St ., Moscow, Pa.
Rival Dress Company, 110 W. Blain St., McAdoo, Pa.
Ronnie Dress Co ., 6 E. Union St ., Shickshinny, Pa.
Rosmar Mfg . Corp., 271 E . Northhampton St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Rowker Mfg . Co., Tunkhannock, Pa.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Russell Williams Company, 418-428 W. Mahanoy St., Mahanoy City, Pa.
S & J Garment Co., 228 Carpenter St., Luzerne, Pa.
Carrie Dress Co., Inc. (formerly Sally Sommers), 22 Union St., Cobleskill, N.Y.
San Dor Dress, 618-620 Washington Ave., Jermyn, Pa.
San Sue Frocks, 337 Walnut St., Nanticoke, Pa.
Sharmat Mfg. Inc., 464 Union St., Luzerne, Pa.
Sharon Lee Mfg. Co., 90 Moffett St., Plains, Pa.
Shari Mfg., 35 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Slocum Dress Co., 159 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Slocum Dress Co., 299 Slocum St., Swoyerville, Pa.
Stafford-Hayes, Inc., 402 S. State St., Clarks Summit, Pa.
Stanley Mfg. Co., 453 Hazle St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Stanro Dress Co., Inc., 810 George St., Throop, Pa.
Summit Station Mfg. Co., Pottsville, Pa.
Summit Station Mfg. Co., Pine Grove, Pa.
Susquehanna Garment Co., 65 E. Northhampton St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Theresa Dress Co., Old Forge, Pa.
Toni Styles, Inc., 1204 S. Main St., Old Forge, Pa.
Torsella Mfg. Company, R. 628 N. Wyoming St., Hazleton, Pa.
Tower City Dress Co., Inc., 500 State St., Utica, N.Y.
Treo Dress Co., Inc., 450 N. Main St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
20th Century Dress Co., Inc., 519 Lackawanna Ave., Scranton, Pa.
Val Kare, 721 Market St., Kingston, Pa.
Valley Dress Co., 135 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Valley Modes, N. Valley Ave., Olyphant, Pa.
Wilburton Manufacturing Co., Inc., Wilburton, Pa.
Wilkes-Barre Apparel Co., 212 S. Washington St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Willow Fashions, 117 Willow St., Dunmore, Pa.
Wyoming Frocks Co., Inc., 344 Wyoming Ave., Wyoming, Pa.
APPENDIX B
EMPLOYERS WHO REACHED No SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNION
Clover Dress Company, 92 S. Empire St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Charming Mfg. Inc., 296 Madison St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Golden Rule, 223 W. Walnut St., Hazleton, Pa.
Harvic Sportswear, Sweet Valley, Pa.
Harvic Sportswear, 1107 Capouse Ave., Scranton, Pa.
Elysburg Garment, W. Mill St., Elysburg, Pa.
APPENDIX C
EMPLOYERS WHO JOINED UNITED BETTER
Barbara Garment Co., Inc., 1117 Chestnut St., Chester, Pa.
Bernco. , 5th & Walnut St., Mt. Carmel, Pa.
Briarcliff Sportswear Corp., 541 North St., Emmaus, Pa.
C & M Dress, 1144 Butler St., Easton, Pa.
Cameron Dress Co., Inc., 147 N. Cameron St., Harrisburg, Pa.
Carol Ann Inc., Hastings, Pa.
Carrie Fashions, 'Inc., Shenandoah, Pa.
Chickadee Dress Co., Inc., 835 E. 4th St ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Coplay Dress Co., Inc., 35 N. 2nd Ave., Coplay, Pa.
Dale Mfg. Co., Inc., Keiser, Pa.
Delaware Dress Corp., 16 S. Sitgraves St., Easton, Pa.
Dorsyl Dress, Inc., 7th & Washington Sts., Reading, Pa.
Erie Valley Mfg., Inc., 215 Chestnut St., Oneonta, N.Y.
Eureka Dress Co., Inc., 305 E. Diamond Ave., Hazleton, Pa.
Family Garment Co., 324 E. Locust St., Scranton, Pa.
Garon Apparel Co., 241 W. Broadway, Red Lion, Pa.
George Bernstein Co., Inc., Eagle Building, Shamokin, Pa.
Goodmanner Mfg. Co., 1626 Cedar Ave ., Scranton, Pa.
Gordon Dress Co., Gordon, Pa.
Gotham Dress Co., 1210 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Haven Mfg. Corp., Walnut St., Pottsville, Pa.
PENNSYLVANIA GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 203
I & G Sportswear, 6th & Arch Sts., Pottsville, Pa.
J. & R. Dress Co., 77 Wyoming Ave., Wyoming, Pa.
Ben Bogart (Jane Evans Frocks), Souderton, Pa.
Keiser Dress Corp., Shamokin, Pa.
L & A Dress Co., 22 S. 8th St., Allentown, Pa.
Lady Hope Dress Co., Inc., 12 N. Oak St., Mt. Carmel, Pa.
Lark Dress Co., 5th & Walnut Sts., Shamokin, Pa.
Legion Dress Co., Main St., Centralia, Pa.
Lenco Sportswear, Inc., Sheppton, Pa.
Linda Ann Dress Co., 132 S. Main St., Taylor, Pa.
Linden Dress Mfg., Inc., 515 Linden St., Scranton, Pa.
Liotta Sportswear, Inc., N. White St., Shenandoah, Pa.
Lu-Rae Fashions, 124 S. 3rd St., Lehighton, Pa.
M & M Dress Co., 1062 La Salle St., Berwick, Pa.
M & S Dress, New Philadelphia, Pa.
M. Janowitch & Sons, Main & Market Sts., Mahanoy City, Pa.
Martin Dress Co., Oak & Balliet Sts., Frackville, Pa.
Matte Dress, 702 S. 6th St., Allentown, Pa.
Miss Pennsylvania, 459 Center St., Pottsville, Pa.
Mohawk Dress, Inc., 29 Chuctanunda St., Amsterdam, N.Y.
Mor-Tan Dress Co., Inc., Main St., Nazareth, Pa.
Muriel Dress Mfg. Co., 621 Linden St., Bethlehem, Pa.
Northampton Dress Co., Inc., 1057 Main St., Northampton, Pa.
Norristown Dress Co., 616 Corson St., Norristown, Pa.
Penn Sportswear Corp., 1010 Chestnut St., Allentown, Pa.
Pottsville Mfg. Corp., 425 Laurel St., Pottsville, Pa.
Queen City Dress Mfg. Co., 301 N. 3rd St., Allentown, Pa.
Rainbow Modes, Inc., 429 W. Penn St., Shenandoah, Pa.
Rainbow Sportswear, 429 W. Penn St., Shenandoah, Pa.
Romano Mfg. Co., 1288 Newport Ave., Northampton, Pa.
Rosemont Dress Co., 24 Moser Rd., Pottstown, Pa.
Rosemont Dress Co., 860 Moss St., Reading, Pa.
Royal Fashions, Inc., 284 Main St., Dupont, Pa.
St. Clair Garment Co., 201-207 S. Morris St., St. Clair, Pa.
Stage Frocks, Inc., 118 Chestnut St., Dunmore, Pa.
Susan Sportswear, Inc., 1261 Chestnut St., Kulpmont, Pa.
Shenan Dress Corp., N. Bower St. & Washington St., Shenandoah, Pa.
Slatington Dress Co., 545 Church St., Slatington, Pa.
Tamaqua Garment Co., Tamaqua, Pa.
The Kay Fashions, 726 Main St., Duryea, Pa.
Wendy Dress Co., 122 High St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Wyoming Garment Co., Inc., 133 E. 8th St., Wyoming, Pa.
APPENDIX D
EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WHOM INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE
Carol Dress Co., 15 Maffett St., Plains, Pa.
Country Cousin Frocks, 110 Downing St., Plymouth, Pa.
Damsel Mfg. Company, 66 Plymouth St., Edwardsville, Pa.
Eleanor Dress, 78 Main St., Luzerne, Pa.
Grandeur Fashions, Inc., 204 Oliver St., Swoyerville, Pa.
Harsey Blouse, Wanamie, Pa.
Karen Sportswear, R.D. No. 2, Shickshinny, Pa.
Larksville Fashions, 79 Wilson St., Larksville, Pa.
Linda Dress Corporation, 20-22 Hillside Ave., Edwardsville, Pa.
Louis Balish, 555 Carey Ave., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
P. & R. Clothing, 57 N. Main St., Ashley, Pa.
Phyllis Sportswear, 671 N. Main St., Sugar Notch, Pa.
Plymouth Dress, 351 W. Main St., Plymouth, Pa.
Square Apparel Company, 181 Darling St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Terry Sportswear, 13 E. Main St., Glen Lyon, Pa.
Vallery Classics, 20 W. Broad St., Nanticoke, Pa.
Woodbury Mfg. Company, 665 Carey Ave., Wilkes -Barre, Pa.
Ann Lee Frocks, 108-112 S. Main St., Pittston, Pa.
Falls Dress #2, Noxen, Pa.
Metro Sportswear, 13 Kennedy St., Pittston, Pa.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rose-Lee Fashions , 137 Market St., Pittston, Pa.
Sallies Fashions , 197-99 Broad St., Pittston, Pa.
Star Garment Company, Inc., 159 Penn Ave., Exeter, Pa.
Steingut Dress, 228 Everhart St., Pittston, Pa.
Berks Sportswear , 1135 Moss St ., Reading, Pa.
Billera Brothers , 902 Main St., Northampton, Pa.
Ideal Dress Company, 104 N. 7th St., Allentown, Pa.
Pompom Dress Company, 144 N. 7th St., Allentown, Pa.
Prestige Mfg. Company , Inc., 4th and Hurst Sts., Bridgeport, Pa.
Smart Set Frocks , 3d and Turner Sts., Allentown, Pa.
Bethlehem Garment, 526 Broadway , Bethlehem, Pa.
Gro-Up Frocks , 919 Silk St ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Lehigh Dress, 1401 Broadway , Bethlehem, Pa.
Pembroke Dress Co., 1240 Stefko Blvd., Bethlehem, Pa.
Capitol Classics, 35 Railroad St., Hanover, Pa.
Hanover Mfg ., 16 Centennial St., Hanover, Pa.
Jo-Ann Dress, 206 W. Sample St., Ebensburg, Pa.
New Bloomfield Dress Company , New Bloomfield, Pa.
Renee Mfg., 2-4 Main St., Dallastown, Pa.
Yorktowne Dress, 19 E. Newton Ave., York, Pa.
York Maid Dress Company, 131 N. George St., York, Pa.
Carbon Sportswear, Treschow, Pa.
Cardan Sportswear, 181 Cedar St., Hazleton, Pa.
David Mfg ., Beaver Meadows, Pa.
Freeland Dress, 721 Birkbeck St., Freeland, Pa.
Lansford Sportswear , 47 W. Patterson, St. Lansford, Pa.
Lee Jay Sportswear , 23 E. Diamond Ave., Hazleton, Pa.
Lodestar Blouse Corporation , Sheppton, Pa.
M.G.M. Mfg., 1090 N. Church St., Hazleton, Pa.
Ricardo Fashions , Inc., 136 E. Broad St ., Hazleton, Pa.
Alco Tex, Inc., 3d and Lewis Sts ., Minersville, Pa.
Morris Mfg., 34 E. Main St ., Tremont, Pa.
Ricki Gail, Inc., 17 N. Front St., St. Clair, Pa.
St. Clair Garment, Penn Hall, Pottsville, Pa.
Del-Lee Dress, 725 Arch St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Kensington Dress Company, 155 W. Lehigh Ave ., Philadelphia, Pa.
Samuel Dion & Sons, 319 N . 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Jubilee Dress Company , 226 S. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Bernco Blouse, 5th and Walnut Sts., Shamokin, Pa.
Franklin Frocks , Eagle Bldg., Shamokin, Pa.
Goodman Mfg., 131 S. Poplar St., Shamokin, Pa.
Locust Dale Mfg., Locust Dale, Pa.
Lynn Dress, D. and H. Avenues , Danville, Pa.
Rick Mfg., Company, Chestnut St., Kulpmont, Pa.
Rowe Sportswear, 134 E. Main St., Girardville, Pa.
Selma Mfg. Company , 1609 Memorial Ave., Williamsport, Pa.
Teen Trix Jrs., Inc., 310 Adams Ave., Scranton, Pa.
Bocar Mfg. Corporation , Putnam St., Tunkhannock, Pa.
Carbondale Mfg. Company, 33 S. Main St., Carbondale, Pa.
Clifford Dress Company, Main St., Clifford, Pa.
Elsie Fashions , Inc., 107 Dudley St., Dunmore, Pa.
H. & W. Sportswear, 575 Hickory St., Peckville, Pa.
Jermyn Mfg., 505 Washington St., Jermyn, Pa.
Ros-Ann Frocks, 110 Chestnut St., Scranton, Pa.
Sally Blouse, 648 S. Main St., Old Forge, Pa.
Sylvan Mfg. Company, 240 Penn Ave., Scranton, Pa.
Toni Styles, Inc., 129 W. Market St., Scranton, Pa.
Town Mfg., 127 Lackawanna Ave., Olyphant, Pa.
Cooperstown Mfg. Company , Inc., 101 Main St. , Cooperstown, N.Y.
Glen-Mar Dress Company, 116 South St., Glens Falls, N.Y.
Jo-Pat Dress Company, Inc., 49 Franklin Square, Utica, N.Y.
Lumel Modes, 49 N. Mohawk St., Cohoes, N.Y.
Andrew Mazur, Inc., 100 Main st., Mohawk, N.Y.
Seneca Dress Company, 83 Falls Street, Seneca Falls, N.Y.
Suz-Ann Fashions, Inc., 2d and Mill Sts., Little Falls, N.Y.
Troy Dress Company, Inc., 31 Ontario St., Cohoes, N.Y.
Kaska Mfg. Company, Kaska, Pa.