International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States
366 U.S. 731, 6 L. Ed. 2d 762, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2005 (1961)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer and a union to enter into a collective bargaining agreement granting the union exclusive recognition when the union does not, in fact, represent a majority of the employees, regardless of the parties' good-faith belief that it did.

Facts:

In October 1956, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (the union) began an organizational campaign at Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation's manufacturing plant.
On July 29, 1957, some employees went on strike over a wage reduction, a dispute unrelated to the union's organizing campaign.
During the strike, the union and Bernhard-Altmann (the employer) entered into negotiations.
On August 30, 1957, the employer and union signed a 'memorandum of understanding' in which the employer recognized the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all production and shipping employees.
At the time this memorandum was signed, the union represented only a minority of the employees in the bargaining unit.
Both the employer and the union held a good-faith belief that the union had secured authorization cards from a majority of employees, but neither party made an effort to verify this claim by checking the cards against payroll records.
By October 10, 1957, when a formal collective bargaining agreement was executed, the union had acquired the support of a majority of the employees.

Procedural Posture:

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed unfair labor practice complaints against Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.
The NLRB, the administrative agency of first instance, found that both the employer and the union had committed unfair labor practices.
The NLRB issued a remedial order requiring the employer to withdraw recognition and both parties to cease enforcing the agreement until the union was certified through a Board election.
The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for enforcement of its order.
The Court of Appeals, an intermediate federal appellate court, granted enforcement of the NLRB's order.
The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer and a union commit an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act by entering into an agreement that grants exclusive bargaining recognition to the union when, in fact, only a minority of employees supported the union, even if both parties acted on the good-faith but mistaken belief that the union had majority support?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Clark

Yes, entering into such an agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice by both the employer and the union. Granting exclusive bargaining status to a union selected by only a minority of employees abridges the § 7 rights of the nonconsenting majority to choose their own representative or refrain from such activity. This action violates § 8(a)(1) by interfering with employee rights and § 8(a)(2) by providing unlawful support to the union, giving it a 'marked advantage' over rivals. The union violates § 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting such recognition, which restrains employees in the exercise of their § 7 rights. The parties' good-faith belief in the union's majority status is not a defense, as scienter is not an element of these violations; the damage to employee rights is an accomplished fact. The union's subsequent attainment of majority status does not cure the initial unlawful recognition, as that majority may have been obtained under the 'deceptive cloak of authority' provided by the premature recognition.

Dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Douglas

Yes, as to the exclusive recognition clause, but No, as to the remedy of voiding the entire contract. While a minority union cannot be the exclusive representative for all employees, it retains a common-law right to bargain for its own members when no majority representative has been chosen. The Board's order goes too far by enjoining the employer from recognizing the union as the representative of 'any of its employees' and invalidating the entire agreement. This unfairly strips the union's voluntary members of the valuable wage and benefit improvements they gained through good-faith bargaining. The proper remedy would be to strike the exclusive recognition clause while allowing the remainder of the contract to stand for the union's members, thereby respecting their right to associate and bargain collectively without infringing upon the rights of the non-union majority.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a rule of strict liability for employers and unions regarding premature recognition of a minority union as an exclusive bargaining agent. It firmly prioritizes the principle of employee free choice and majority rule under the National Labor Relations Act over the parties' subjective good faith. The ruling places a clear burden on employers and unions to verify a union's majority status before executing an exclusive recognition agreement, effectively making them guarantors of the fact of majority support. The case significantly curtails the ability of a 'sweetheart' or minority union to gain a foothold through a premature deal, thereby shaping the dynamics of union organizing campaigns.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board (1961)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"