International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: Mapp's Residence

DOCKET NO.: 284
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 366 US 731 (1961)
ARGUED: Apr 17, 1961
DECIDED: Jun 05, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 17, 1961 (Part 1) in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 17, 1961 (Part 2) in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

Dominick L.Manoli:

May it please the Court.

Felix Frankfurter:

Mr. Manoli, before your proceed, as appendant to Justice Black's question before recess and after this here, would you be good enough to turn at page 94 of the record, the second paragraph, instead of what is now two, I'd like to put to you this supposition.

Suppose instead of the present one, there was a recital which read as follow -- what we read as follows, "The union representative has been designated as bargaining representative by a majority of the employees of the production and shipping employees.

The employer without accepting this representation, either denying or agreeing with it, designed to settled a disastrous strike, poses the following basis for settlement," and then go on with one -- the -- the rest of it and at the end of it, accepting on behalf of the International Ladies' Garment Workers by (Inaudible), that have been alright?

Dominick L.Manoli:

I think in fact, in fact, despite the reservation made there, the employer could be according to this union exclusive -- exclusive representations status and that that would not have been alright --

Felix Frankfurter:

(Voice Overlap) --

Dominick L.Manoli:

-- if I understood the reservation correctly.

I understand that on your -- on your proposal --

Felix Frankfurter:

But I was only setting out in second clause of what is now two --

Dominick L.Manoli:

You would -- you would --

Felix Frankfurter:

-- and leave the rest standing.

Dominick L.Manoli:

You would leave all of that in -- except for the qualification that the employer does not know whether the union is a majority or not, that way or --

Felix Frankfurter:

You do not leave out --

Dominick L.Manoli:

Oh --

Felix Frankfurter:

-- or omit as he leaves.

Dominick L.Manoli:

All of two.

Felix Frankfurter:

All of -- not all of two.

The second clause, after the semicolon, had put a period after the semicolon, shipping employees.

Dominick L.Manoli:

Yes.

Felix Frankfurter:

And then cut out the second -- the -- the following clause.

Does you mean that, any employer recognizes the union, the union represents but then I'd make a disavowal that the employer doesn't know if it's correct or incorrect.

He either accepts or rejects it.

Dominick L.Manoli:

On our view, on our view in view of the fact that -- let's say that there's some ambiguity.

I think Your Honor is trying to suggest that you made this --

Felix Frankfurter:

In my -- in my proposal?

Dominick L.Manoli:

In your proposal, you'd made this --

Felix Frankfurter:

I don't mean to have any ambiguity except --

Dominick L.Manoli:

That he is recognizing it is the bargaining representative, the majority of the employees under your proposal.

Felix Frankfurter:

Well, you -- you might -- are you saying that as a matter of law my rephrasing would amount to recognizing it as the exclusive bargaining agent?

Has I used language whereby I do not make any such assertion or make any such commitment?