Popular Priced Dress Manufacturers Group, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Popular Priced Dress Manufacturers Group , Inc. and Pattern,
Makers Guild , Petitioner . Case No. O-RC-9937. March 4, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph A. Lovinger, 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. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is an association of women's dress manufacturers and
jobbers most of whom are located in New York City. Since 1936 the
association has represented its members in collective-bargaining nego-
titions with the Joint Board of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, representing employees classified as operators, fin-
ishers, cutters, pressers, and examiners. For the past 4 or 5 years the
association has also bargained with the ILGWU with regard to ship-
ping clerks, who had theretofore been unrepresented. The Employ-
er's authority to bargain and to execute collective-bargaining agree-
ments on behalf of its members apparently derives from a general
provision in its constitution and bylaws, stating that one of the pur-
poses of the association is "to improve the relations between labor and
its employers in the popular priced dress industry."
On May 7, 1959, the instant petition was filed, seeking a unit of
all salaried patternmakers employed by members of the Employer,
except for those patternmakers with a proprietary interest in the
firm in which they are employed. These employees have never been
represented by a labor organization. On June 10, 1959, the Employer
wrote to each of its members asking whether they desired to authorize
the Employer to bargain collectively with the Petitioner or any other
union concerning their patternmakers. Two forms were enclosed
with the letter, one granting such authorization and the other refusing
it. Nearly all of the members of the Employer replied to this letter,
and all of those who did reply refused to grant authority to bargain
with regard to the patternmakers. Therefore, when the hearing
opened, the Employer withdrew from the case on the ground that it
had no interest in the proceeding since it had no authority to bargain
126 NLRB No. 107.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 967
for the employees sought by the Petitioner. However, 24 members of
the Employer appeared at the hearing in the role of "interested par
ties" to protect their rights and to litigate such questions as the al
leged craft and, supervisory status of the patternmakers.
The Petitioner contends that ,the only appropriate unit consists of
allapatternmakers employed by all member firms of the Employer. 'ID
support of its contention, the Petitioner points to the authority con-
tained in the Employer's constitution and bylaws, and the Employer's
past practice of bargaining for all other employees on a multiemployer
basis. However, any authority the Employer might have possessed.
to negotiate and execute collective-bargaining agreements was clearly
nullified insofar as patternmakers are concerned by the members' re-
plies to the Employer's letter of June 10, 1959. It is well settled that.
a history of multiemployer bargaining for other employees does not
establish a multiemployer unit as the only appropriate unit for previ-
ously unrepresented employees in a different category' As it is clear
in this case that the members of the association have not authorized.
the. Employer to bargain on their behalf as far as patternmakers are
concerned, and, indeed, are opposed to such bargaining for their
employees, we find that the multiemployer unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate .2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition..
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENBINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
1 See Macy's an Francisco , and ;Seligman & Lato, Inc., jointly, 120 NLRB 69, 72.
° Cf. Independent Motion Picture Producers Association , Inc., 123 NLRB 1942.
Florida Power and Light Company and Robert J. Pickens
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
and Robert J. Pickens
Local 759, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO and Robert J. Pickens. Cases Nob. 12-CA-709, 1--
CB-223, and 1$-CB-934. March 7, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed on January 8, 1959, and April 7, 1959, by
Robert Jones Pickens, an individual, the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations. Board, , herein called the General Counsel,
by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, issued a complaint
dated April 28, 1959;': against Florida Power and Light Company,
herein called the Respondent Company, and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and its Local No.
126 NLRB No. 122.