International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1390 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Northeast Department, and . Its Managing Agent, David Gingold ; Local 111 , International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Sol Greene; Local 351, International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Oscar Newman ; Local 234, Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO; and Its; Managing Agent Grace Birkel ; Local 243, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent: Grace Birkel ; Local 109, International Ladies ' Garment Work- ers' Union, AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Harry Schindler ; and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,. AFL-CIO and Slate Belt Apparel Contractors ' Association,, Inc. International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Northeast Department, and. Its Managing Agent, David Gingold ; Local 111, International Ladies ' Garment Workers" Union, AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Sol Greene; Local 351, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Oscar Newman ; Local 234, Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO; and Its. Managing Agent Grace Birkel ; Local 243, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO ; and Its Managing Agent Grace Birkel ; and Local 109, International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO; and Its Managing Agent Harry Schindler and Slate Belt Apparel Contractors ' Association,. Inc. Cases Nos. 4-CB-413 and 4-CB-403. February 13, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On May 15, 1958, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued and thereafter by "errata" concluded his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents named in Case No. 4-CB-413 had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. As to Case No. 4-CB-403, the Trial Examiner found the Respondents and their agents, David Gingold, Sol Greene, Oscar Newman, Grace Birkel, .and Harry Schindler had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act, and recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report, exceptions, and brief in 122 NLRB No. 166. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' -UNION, AFL-CIO 1391 support of the exceptions, supplemental exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report, and brief in support of the supplemental excep- tions; the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, and a brief in support of the exceptions; and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a memorandum in support of the exceptions. The Respondents requested oral argument; the request is hereby denied, as the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents named in the Case No. 4-CB-403 violated Section 8(b) (3) of the Act in re- fusing to bargain with the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Asso- ciation, Inc. We disagree, however, with the recommendation that the complaint in Case No. 4-CB-413, alleging violations of Section 8(b) (1) (B), be dismissed. Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act, as amended, provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Here it is admitted by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, that it is established policy not to deal with former union officers who leave the Union and represent employers,. and that its officers have been instructed accordingly. Pursuant to these instructions, its subordinate department and locals, and their managing agents, have refused to administer the current contract and negotiate the settlement of grievances and strikes with an em- ployer representative who had formerly been associated with the Union. As in Paddock Pools,' the Respondents were not content merely to request or seek to persuade the employers to eliminate the selected representative, but refused to perform their statutory duty of repre- senting the employees in the settlement of grievances and strikes. Thus, such a withdrawal from participating in negotiations of this nature "was designed to exert some restraint or coercion . . . over and above a mere attempt at persuasion in a free market place of ideas...." Since such action by the bargaining representatives was at the specific instruction of the International pursuant to its na- tional policy, the International was no less guilty of a violation of 'Paddock Pools of California, Inc., at ai., 120 NLRB 249. 1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this section in that its orders to its subordinate departments and locals caused the subordinates to engage in such unlawful conduct, thereby in itself restraining and coercing the Association in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (B). Accordingly, we find that the Respondents engaged in and are engaging in restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. The Charging Party additionally argues for an 8(b) (3) finding against the International. As the General Counsel made no such allegation in his complaint in this case, we find no merit to this argument. THE REMEDY Having found that the Northeast Department of the ILGWU and the locals and individuals as Respondents in Case No . 4-CB-403, alleging a violation of 8(b ) ( 3), have unlawfully refused to meet with and have dealings with Robert Mickus, the chosen representa- tive of the Association, pursuant to the collective-bargaining obliga- tion of the aforementioned labor organizations as the exclusive representatives of the employees , we shall order the Respondents in Case No. 4-CB-403 to bargain collectively as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with the chosen representative of the Association , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. As alleged by the complaint , and as conceded by the Respondents for purposes only of these proceedings, the appropriate unit consists of all production , maintenance , packing, and shipping employees of the employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association , Inc., excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Having found that the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its locals, the Northeast Department, and in- dividuals named as Respondents in Case No. 4-CB-413, alleging violations of 8(b ) ( 1) (B), have restrained and coerced the Associa- tion in the selection of a bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act, we shall order these Respondents to cease and desist from attempting to dictate to the Association whom it should choose as its representative for purposes of collective bar- gaining including the adjustment of grievances. Further, we shall order the Respondent, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, to rescind its instructions to its officers and agents and to all officers and agents of its subordinate departments or locals not to have dealing with Robert Alickus, or any other former union associate who is selected by the Association, or any other employer, as its collective -bargaining representative. Because the record shows that it is the policy of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, not to bargain with INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 1393 any former union associate who has become the designated employer bargaining representative, that instructions to that effect have been issued by such Union, and that such instructions have not been limited to the parties herein involved, we shall order the Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, to publish in its monthly newspaper, Justice, a copy of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: A. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, its Northeast Department, its Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, and their respective officers, agents (including David Gingold, Sol Greene, Oscar Newman, Grace Birkel, and Harry Schindler), repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from attempting to dictate to, or in any other manner restraining or coercing, the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, Inc., or any other employer, in the selection of its repre- sentatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act : (a) The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, rescind its instructions to its officers and agents and to all officers and agents of its subordinate departments or locals not to have dealings with Robert Mickus, or any other former union asso- ciate, who is selected by the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Asso- ciation, Inc., or any other employer, as its collective bargaining representative. (b) The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, post at its headquarters in New York City, and publish in its monthly newspaper, Justice, official paper of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, a copy of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 (c) The Northeast Department and Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO; post at their respective business offices and meeting halls, and at other places where notices to their members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 505395-59-vol. 122-89 1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) These notices shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFT CIO, by a duly authorized officer of the Northeast Department and its manag- ing agent, and by duly authorized officers of Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, and each of their managing agents. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, after being duly signed as provided above, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (e) Mail signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap- pendix" to the Regional Director for the Fourth Region for posting if the employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Con- tractors' Association, Inc., are willing, at all locations where notices to the employees of each of 'the employer-members are customarily posted. Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after ' being duly signed as provided above, be forthwith returned to the regional Director for such posting. (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writ- ing, ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondents have taken to comply herewith. B. Respondents, the Northeast Department of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and its Locals 111, 351, 234, 243,' and 109, and their officers, agents (including David Gingold, Sol Greene, Oscar Newman, and Grace Birkel, and Harry Schindler), representatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, Inc., in the ap- propriate unit with respect to pay, wages , hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment by attempting to dictate .to the said Association whom it should select as its representative for purposes of collective bargaining including adjustment of griev- ances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request bargain collectively, including the negotiation of grievances, as to all terms and conditions of employment as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, with the Association through Robert Mickus or its other chosen INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 1395 representatives, and embody any understanding reached in a signed contract. MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORK- ERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, ALL MEMBERS OF NORTHEAST DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, ALL MEMBERS OF LOCALS 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, OF INTERNA- TIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, and ALL EMPLOYEES OF EMPLOYERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE SLATE BELT APPAREL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, WILL NOT require the Northeast Department, and Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, and their managing agents, to comply with instructions from us to them to not bargain collectively and adjust grievances with the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' As- sociation, Inc. through Robert Mickus, or any other representa- tive chosen by the Association, or any other employer, for such purposes, and hereby rescind any such instruction heretofore given to subordinate departments or locals not to bargain col- lectidely or adjust grievances with any designated representative of any employer. WE, Northeast Department of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL=CIO; WILL bargain collectively upon request with the Slate Belt Ap- parel Contractors' Association, Inc., through Robert Mickus, or any other representatives chosen by the Association, for pur- poses of collective bargaining or the negotiation of grievances, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, of employment, and other terms and condi- tions of employment. The appropriate unit is: All production, maintenance, packing, and shipping employees employed by the employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Con- tractors' Association, Inc., excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WWE AVILL NOT attempt to dictate to, restrain, or coerce the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors'- Association, Inc., in the selec- 1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of who should represent it in collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances with the Northeast Department of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109, of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, for the employees in the appropriate unit described above, or in any like or other manner restrain or coerce any other employer in the selection of the representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) THE NORTHEAST DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------- (DAVID GINGOLD, Managing Agent) LOCAL 111, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR- MENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By---------------------- -------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (SOL GREENE , Managing Agent) LOCAL 351, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR- MENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (OSCAR NE WMAN, Managing Agent) LOCAL 234, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR- MENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (GRACE BIREEL, Managing Agent) LOCAL 243, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR- MENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated---------------- By------ ,---------------- --------------- (GRACE BIRKEL, Managing Agent) INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 1397 LOCAL 109, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR- MENT WORKERS ' UNION, AFL-CIO. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (HARRY SCHINDLER , Managing Agent) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ERRATA On May 15, 1958, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Re- port and Recommended Order in the above-captioned consolidated proceedings in which he made findings that all the respondents named in Case No. 4-CB-413 had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Pursuant thereto he recommended that these respondents be required to cease and desist from engaging in the conduct found to be unlawful and that certain affirmative action be taken by them including the posting of the notices attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendixes A and B." The Trial Examiner had also in these proceedings recommended that the allegations of unlawful conduct in Case No. 4-CB-403 be dismissed because it was not proved that the Respondents named therein had vio- lated Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner had inadvertently pro- ceeded as if the allegations of unlawful conduct in Case No. 4-CB-413 involved violations of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act and that the allegations in Case No. 4-CB-403 involved Section 8 (b) (1) (B) violations. The reverse is true. As a result, the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order must be corrected to show that the Respondents in Case No. 4-CB-403 had violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, and that the allegations of Section 8(b)(1)(B) violations in Case No. 4-CB- 413 should be dismissed as to all respondents named therein. It should be noted that the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is named as a Respondent only in Case No. 4-CB-413. Because this labor organization is not a respondent in Case No. 4-CB-403 the findings of Section 8 (b) (3) violation entered against it in the Report are erroneous and a nullity. Consequently, these findings and the remedial action to be taken by this labor organization as recommended by the Trial Examiner should be eliminated from the Report. The Intermediate Report and Recommended Order is accordingly corrected in the following respects: 1. The second from the last sentence of the first paragraph under the caption "Statement of the Case" shall state: Specifically, the complaint in Case No. 4-CB-403 alleged that the respondents named therein had by their conduct violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, and in Case No. 4-CB-413 that the respondents named therein had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. 2. The last sentence of the final paragraph in the section entitled "III. The unfair practices" shall state: It will therefore be recommended that the complaint in Case No. 4-CB-413 be dismissed. 3. The last sentence of footnote 4 stating: I am, consequently, satisfied that the ILGWU must share responsibility with its Northeast Department and the Locals and individuals named as respondents for their refusals to have dealings with Mickus. is deleted. 4. The reference under the section entitled "V. The remedy" shall be to Case No. 4-CB-403. 5. The sentence in the first paragraph under section V, The remedy, stating: It has also been found that the ILGWU has unlawfully required the foregoing labor organizations and individuals to engage in such conduct. and the sentence in the same paragraph stating: The ILGWU should also he ordered to rescind its instructions to, its officers and agents and to all officers and agents of its subordinate departments or 1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD locals not to have dealings with Robert Mickus as the collective-bargaining representative of the Association. are deleted. 6. Paragraph 4. under the caption "Conclusions of Law" is deleted, and para- graph 6 under the same caption is corrected by changing the reference Case No. 4-CB-403 to Case No. 4-CB-413. 7. The subsection designated "B" and all its subparts under the caption "REC- OMMENDATIONS" is deleted therefrom. 8. The references to the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, in the subsection designated "C" in the subsection "E" are deleted, and the labor organizations referred to in "C" and "E" are the following: The Northeast Department of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and its Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109. The reference in said subsection "E" is changed from Case No. 4-CB-413 to Case No. 4-CB-403. 9. The reference in subsection "D" is changed from Case No. 4-CB-403 to Case No. 4-CB-413. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, Inc., herein called the Association, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, issued on November 27, 1957, complaints in the above-designated cases against the organizations and persons listed in the above captions and an order consoli- dating said complaints for purposes of hearing. The foregoing consolidated com- plaints together with the order consolidating cases and notices of hearing were duly served by the Regional Director upon all the parties to this proceeding. The complaints alleged that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, affecting commerce within the meaning of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Specifically, the complaint in Case No. 4-CB-413 alleged that the Respondents named therein had by their conduct violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, and in Case No. 4-CB-403 that the Respondents named therein had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. The answers filed by the Respondents deny the allega- tions of unlawful conduct contained in the foregoing complaints. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Easton, Pennsylvania, on February 11 and 12, 1958, before the Trial Examiner, duly designated to conduct the hearing. All parties appeared through counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence was afforded all parties. After the close of the hearing the Respondents and the Charging Parties filed briefs with the Trial Examiner which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS The parties agreed by stipulation that the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Asso- ciation, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation which has as members approximately 100 employers who are engaged as contractors, as that term is understood in the garment industry, in performing certain sewing operations in the manufacture of blouses; that, the employer members of the Association annually perform services on blouses valued in excess of $1,000,000, and that these blouses are shipped di- rectly from the State of Pennsylvania, where these operations are performed, to points outside the State. It was further stipulated by the parties that the purposes of the Association are to improve the practices of people in the industry involved and also to engage in collective bargaining with the Union representing its em- ployees and with other trade associations in the indusry. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its Northeast Department , and each of its locals mentioned in the caption of these proceedings INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 1399 are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the employers in- volved in these proceedings. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Northeast Department of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and the Locals within that department named herein as Respondents are the collective-bargaining representatives of the employees. who work for the employer-members of the Association, and for several years, including times rele- vant to these proceedings, have had contractual or other bargaining relations with the Association. The sole issue to be decided is whether the Respondents violated the Act by the refusal of the Northeast Department and its Locals to have any dealings with Robert Mickus on those occasions when Mickus attempted to deal with them as a bargaining representative for the Association. Mickus had been employed by the ILGWU from 1946 to 1956 in various ap- pointed posts within the Northeast Department. While working for Local 111, whose jurisdiction extended over the Allentown, Pennsylvania, and surrounding areas, he had been first an organizer and then a business agent. Later he became assistant to the local's manager, Sol Greene, who for a while was also the ILGWU general organizer or supervisor for Pennsylvania. Mickus resigned his connections with the ILGWU in January 1956 to go into business. Early in 1957 he was employed by the Association to represent its members in their dealings with the manufacturers with whom they had business relations, and in about July 1957 he officially became the manager of the Association. As such he was required by the Association to deal face to face with the officials and agents of the Respondent labor organizations concerning matters involving the labor relations of the Asso- ciation and its member employers with the Respondents. The Respondents' refusal to have any dealings with Mickus as the bargaining representative of the Associa- tion is admitted. The record contains indisputable evidence that such refusal was a policy determination from the topmost levels of the ILGWU which was implicitly obeyed by all the labor organizations and individuals named as Respondents herein. The Respondents' brief argues that the legal and ethical considerations which prohibit persons in whom trust and confidence has been reposed by their employers or clients from using the knowledge gained through such relationship to the detri- ment of their employers or clients after termination of that relationship justifies their refusal to bargain with Mickus. The brief maintains that the record proves that Mickus either acquired or had access to certain confidential information of particular value to the Respondents in their relations with the Association and its members, and that Mickus, like an attorney who had served one client and goes over to the side of the adversary, should not be permitted as bargainer for the Association and its members to utilize such confidential information to the detri- ment of the Respondents. Section 8(b)(3) of the Act declares unlawful the refusal by a labor organization or its agents to bargain collectively with an employer where such labor organiz- tion is the statutory representative of that employer's employees. This section is the counterpart of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act imposing a statutory duty upon employers to bargain collectively with the representatives of their employees. The Board holds that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) by dictating to the labor organization with which it must bargain who should be its representative.' It logically follows that a labor organization violates Section 8(b)(3) when it dictates to the employer with whom it must bargain who should be its spokesman. The requirement that an employer or labor organization must meet and negotiate with the representative chosen by the other side is not, however, absolute, for, there may be extenuating circumstances to justify the refusal to meet and deal with a particular person. One such circumstance was recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of N.L.R.B. v. Kentucky Utilities Company, 182 F. 2d 810, where the employer's unwillingness to confer with the union's representative was predicated in part upon his extreme hostility to the employer and the insulting remarks he had made concerning its officials. Conceiv- ably, there could be other disqualifying reasons. The Respondents urge that the circumstances pertaining to Mickus' past employment with them provides such reason. I think they do not. It is not necessary long to dwell on the merits of the analogies offered by the Respondents between Mickus' employment for them and the relationship between attorney and client. Attorneys, unlike trusted employees of labor organizations, are bound by strict canons of professional ethics which govern their conduct not 'Deena Artware, Incorporated, 86 NLRB 732. 1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD only for the preservation of the status of the profession to which they belong, but more essentially to preserve our entire system of justice? There can be no equa- tion between the obligations of fidelity which an attorney must honor even after termination of the relationship and the obligations of agents or servants to their former principals or masters. A more logical comparison could be made with the obligations of agents or employees generally in the fields of business or commerce not to betray confidences entrusted to them in the course of their agencies or em- ployment. The Respondents' brief includes numerous Federal and State court decisional references to the effect that an agent must be faithful to his principal even after termination of their relations and will be prevented by court order from using the confidences with which he had been entrusted by his principal to injure the latter's interests after the agency has ended. The question in the case sub judice is whether the equitable principle inherent in these decisions may be appro- priately applied to justify the Respondents' refusal to have dealings with Mickus as the bargaining representative of the Association. It must here be emphasized that the Respondents are not objecting to Mickus' employment by the Association as its manager, and have expressly stated this in their brief. They state further that they are willing to bargain collectively with the Association while Mickus continues as its manager, but insist that in so bar- gaining with the Association the latter be represented in negotiations by some one other than Mickus. Because the Respondents are offended only by Mickus the spokesman but not by Mickus the manager, the inquiry here must be directed to the injury envisaged by the Respondents from dealing with him in the first men- tioned capacity. The record reveals that the Association requires Mickus to bargain for it with the Respondents whenever a member employer requests his advice or assistance in settling a problem with the Respondents. These problems involve mainly employee grievances in the employers' shops, wild-cat strikes in these shops, and incidental contract interpretations. The instances when the Respondents refused to have dealings with Mickus involved just these matters. In March 1957 a meeting was arranged between Mrs. Birkel, manager of Locals 234 and 243, and Sol Greene, the assistant to the director of the Northeast Department, with Association repre- sentatives to discuss a contract matter involving designation and registration of con- tractors with New York jobbers.3 Mickus came to the meeting with the Association representatives and sat with them during the discussions. The Respondents' repre- sentatives would not speak to him. On July 25, 1957, a group of Association officials met with the Respondents' high ranking officials at the latter's office in New York to discuss various complaints and grievances. The Association's in- sistence that Mickus participate in the discussions was rejected by the Respondents' officials.4 When strikes occurred at plants of Association employers on August 8 and 14, 1957, and in October 1957, the managers of the Respondents' Locals involved refused to deal with Mickus. A request on January 29, 1958, to Mrs. Birkel to discuss certain grievances with Mickus went unheeded. Sol Greene, the Respondents' chief witness on the point, elaborated upon the kind of confidential information which Mickus shared during his tenure with the Respondents. In general, the information pertained to methods devised by the Respondents for detecting violations by employers of their contractual obligations and the strategic approach employed by the Respondents in interpreting certain ambiguities in their contract with the Association. There was no explication by Greene how possession of such information by Mickus would give him an unfair a See 8 Wigmore , sec. 2290 , for a historical discussion of the origin and purpose of the role of secrecy imposed on attorneys respecting their clients' affairs. 8 The employers who are members of the Association, as hereinabove noted, are termed contractors in the industry. As such they perform sewing operations on blouses in which the material has already been designed and cut by manufacturers in New York. These manufacturers are called jobbers. 4 In advance of this meeting the Association Informed the ILGWU that Mickus' presence at the meeting was necessary . In response , a telegram was sent to the Association by the authority of David Dubinsky , the ILGWU president , stating ". . . It is established policy of our union not to deal with 'former union officials who leave the union to go over to employers association , and our officers have been instructed accordingly." It is apparent in these proceedings that the ILGWU is empowered to compel obedience with its policies by its subordinate departments and locals and by the officials and agents of these entities. I am, consequently, satisfied that the ILGWU must share responsibility with its Northeast Department and the Locals and individuals named as Respondents for their refusals to have dealings with Mickus. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 1401 advantage over the Respondents in his personal dealings with them. Greene could not conceive of situations in which Mickus would come into direct contact with the Respondents' representatives other than those where he was called in by Asso- ciation employers to help resolve a grievance or work stoppage and in which a contract interpretation might be involved. Asked directly to indicate how "inside information" obtained by Mickus during his service for the Respondents could in these bargaining situations be detrimental to the Respondents, Greene stated that he could not discuss these matters without damaging the Respondents' interests. As a result, there is nothing in the record beyond a bare assertion that the Re- spondents would be unfairly harmed by their personal dealings with Mickus. It must be remembered that the General Counsel has proved a prima facie case merely by showing that the Respondents have refused to bargain with Mickus, and that it was thereupon incumbent upon the Respondents to go forward with proof to support their affirmative defense. Greene's testimony cannot be regarded as valid supporting proof sufficient to overcome the General Counsel's prima facie case. Sensing this, the Respondents' brief has related those court decisions which hold that in proceedings involving alleged betrayal by an attorney of his client's interests the client will not be compelled in court to disclose his secret utterances to counsel, for, by so doing, the very rule of secrecy which the proceedings seek to protect would be destroyed. Ostensibly, the Respondents are equating these secret utterances by a client to his attorney with the confidences gained by Mickus as the agent or employee of the Respondents, to overcome the necessity in this proceeding of supporting its defense with proof showing how it would be injured by personal dealings with Mickus. I reject such reasoning. First, as hereinbefore noted, the rule of secrecy governing the conduct of attorneys has special significance for the legal profession and the administration of justice, and is not a rule of general application to the relationship between a labor organization and its agent. Second, there is no showing by proof nor on any other basis from which it may be inferred that the disclosure withheld by Greene would have damaged the Re- spondents' interests. Peculiarly, the Respondents have no objection to Mickus' employment by the Association as manager, although, consistent with the sophisticated views of the director of the Northeast Department expressed at the hearing, it may reasonably be assumed that in this capacity Mickus would unveil to the Association all he knew about the Respondents' methods and strategy. It would seem that by the time Mickus could get to the bargaining table he would already have done all the damage to the Respondents which they maintain would result from personal deal- ings with him. Yet, the Respondents object only to his coming to the bargaining table where the injurious use he could make of confidential information is not at all apparent. This anachronism is explainable if the opinion is accepted that the Respondents' asserted reason for not dealing with Mickus is pretextual. I think it is. Mickus testified that while in the service of the Respondents he had not had access to confidential information. I believe him. He further credibly testified that he had never as an employee or agent of the Respondents serviced any employer who was a member of the Association; that he serviced knitwear shops only and had nothing to do with blouse shops. Significantly, when the Association officials were rebuffed at New York on July 25, 1957, in their attempt to secure Mickus' participation in bargaining discussions, the reasons given by the Respond- ents' officials for excluding Mickus from discussions included nothing about his having confidential information about them. Instead, the opposition to him, as expressed by David Gingold, the director of the Northeast Department and one of the Respondents' vice presidents, was on altogether different grounds. Mariano Saveri, the Association's president, who on this occasion had asked for an explana- tion of the Respondents' opposition to dealing with Mickus, testified that Gingold had given this reply. Mickus had worked for the Respondents for 10 years. He then claimed he was seriously ill and requested withdrawal of the funds he had deposited in the Respondents' retirement fund. Gingold said he had gone out of his way to sign a check for Mickus. Later it was learned that Mickus was entering business with his brother. Then it was ascertained "he went to the companies, and to do some kind of business. Then he landed in Japan, and from there he imported blouses, stuff over here which was a detriment to our industry. There- fore, a man like that, he is immoral." I am satisfied that this is what Gingold had said to Saveri, and that the implication therefrom is that the hostility to Mickus was predicated on pique over his manner of leaving the Respondents' employ and condemnation of his morality for engaging in activities detrimental to the blouse industry. These reasons are not lawful justification for the Respondents' refusal 1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to have dealings with Mickus as the Association's bargaining representative. Be- cause the refusal to bargain with him was for such reasons only, I find that the Respondents thereby violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. I do not, however, find that the Respondents by the foregoing conduct violated Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. This section provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce an em- ployer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargain- ing. No finding is permitted that this section has been violated without proof that the labor organization or its agents threatened or exerted restraint or coercion against the employer.5 The Board's International Typographical Union decisions, 86 NLRB 951 and 87 NLRB 1215, relied upon the Charging Party in its brief to support the contention that the Respondents by their conduct in this case violated Section 8(b)(1)(B), clearly reveal that the Board does not regard this section to be infringed by the mere refusal of a labor organization to have dealings with the employer's chosen bargaining representative, but will make such findings, as it did in the cited cases, upon proof that the labor organization threatened to secure its objective by strike action. There is no proof in the instant case of such threat nor of a threat in any other form. It will therefore be recommended that the com- plaint in Case No. 4-CB-403 be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Association and its members described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Northeast Department of the ILGWU and the Locals and individuals named as Respondents in Case No. 4-CB-413 have unlawfully refused to meet with and have dealings with Robert Mickus, the chosen repre- sentative of the Association, pursuant to the collective-bargaining obligation of the aforementioned labor organizations as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees in the appropriate unit described below. It has also been found that the ILGWU has unlawfully required the foregoing labor organizations and individuals to engage in such conduct. It will therefore be recommended that all these Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from attempting to dictate to the Association whom it should choose as its representative for purposes of collective bargaining. The ILGWU should also be ordered to rescind its instructions to its officers and agents and to all officers and agents of its subordinate departments or locals not to have dealings with Robert Mickus as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Association. The Northeast Department and the Locals within that department named as Respondents should also be ordered on request to bargain collectively as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees in the appropriate unit with the chosen representatives of the Association and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. As alleged by the complaint, and as conceded by the Respondents for purposes only of these proceedings, the appropriate unit consists of all production, maintenance, packing, and shipping employees named by the employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, Inc., excluding office clerical em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its Northeast 'Department, and the Locals within that department are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Northeast Department of the ILGWU and its Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109 were on July 25, 1957, and have been at all times thereafter the exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees of the following unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Actr All production, maintenance , packing, and shipping employees employed by the employers who are members of the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors' Association, b Henry V. Rabouin, d/b/a Conway's Express, 87 NLRB 972. LUMBER `& SAWMILL WORKERS LOCAL UNION 2409 1403 Inc., excluding office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 3. By failing and refusing at all times since July 25, 1957, to bargain collectively as the exclusive representatives of the employees in the foregoing appropriate unit with the chosen representative of the Association , the Northeast Department of the ILGWU, its Locals 111, 351, 234, 243, and 109 and their agents David Gingold, Sol Greene , Oscar Newman , Grace Birkel, and Harry Schindler have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (b) (3) of the Act. 4. By compelling the aforementioned labor organizations and their agents to engage in the aforementioned unlawful conduct the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, has also engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The allegations of the complaint in Case No. 4-CB-403 have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Lumber & Sawmill Workers Local Union 2409; Angus L. Brisbin, Its President ; Montana District Council , Lumber & Sawmill Workers Unions; Robert C . Weller, Business Representative and Executive Secretary and Great Northern Railway Com- pany. Case No. 19-CC 109. February 13, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On November 18, 1958, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the latter filed a supporting brief. The Respondents filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner? [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 1 The Charging Party's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions , and briefs, adequately reflect, in our opinion , the issues and positions of the parties. 9 We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that railroad employees are not employees within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A ) of the Act. see Superior Derrick 122 NLRB No. 164.