Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers Association, Inc.

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.