# Local 148-162 International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 23, 1971 · 450 F.2d 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457502

## Case

- **Full name:** LOCAL 148-162 INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 23, 1971
- **Citations:** 450 F.2d 462; 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7922
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Aldisert
- **Judges:** Aldisert, Hastie, Kalodner
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457502

## Opinion text

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
On December 7, 1967, the NLRB was directed by the Second Circuit to determine whether the James Textile Corporation should be required to “bargain with the union (Local 62) in a unit consisting of their own production, shipping and warehouse employees.” National Labor Relations Board v. Spun-Jee Corporation and the James Textile Corporation, 385 F.2d 379, 384 (2 Cir. 1967). On May 20, 1968, the Board issued its decision, concluding that the company was not required to bargain with Local 62.
Because the eligibility of Local 62 as the appropriate bargaining unit was the very issue sub judice before the Board on May 7, 1968, I would hold that the company did not commit an unfair labor practice on that date for refusing to recognize Local 148, a sister local of the same international, as the bargaining unit of its employees.
Whatever the reasons originally stated by counsel for the company’s refusal to recognize Local 148, the reality is that on the critical date, May 7, 1968, there was the distinct possibility that the Board could have ordered the company to bargain with Local 62, rather than Local 148. I agree with the conclusion of the Board that “respondent was not under any obligation to recognize or bargain with another union prior to May 20,” and would deny the petition to review its order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457502. Public record. Not legal advice.