## Facts

- The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) began organizing employees at Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation’s San Antonio knitwear plant in October 1956.
- No rival union was then seeking to represent the employees.
- During the campaign, certain employees struck over a wage reduction in the Topping Department; the labor dispute was unrelated to the organizing campaign.
- A union representative asserted that ILGWU held authorization cards from a majority of employees in an appropriate production-and-shipping unit.
- Without verifying actual majority support, the employer recognized ILGWU as the unit’s exclusive bargaining representative, although ILGWU in fact lacked majority authorization at that time.
- About six weeks later, the parties executed a collective-bargaining agreement; by then, ILGWU had obtained majority support.
- The NLRB found the employer violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2) by recognizing and supporting a minority union, and the union violated § 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting exclusive recognition without actual majority support, despite both acting in good-faith mistake.
- The Board ordered the parties to cease and desist and directed that a representation election be held; the D.C. Circuit enforced the order.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2) by granting exclusive recognition to a union that in fact lacks majority support, even if the employer acts in good-faith mistake.
2. Whether a union violates NLRA § 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting exclusive recognition when it in fact lacks majority support, even if the union acts in good-faith mistake.
3. Whether the union’s subsequent acquisition of majority support and execution of a collective-bargaining agreement cures the illegality of the initial minority recognition.
4. Whether the NLRB’s remedy requiring cessation of recognition and a representation election is permissible.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed enforcement of the NLRB’s order.
- The employer’s extension of exclusive recognition to a minority union constituted interference with employees’ § 7 rights and unlawful support, violating §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2), notwithstanding good faith.
- The union’s acceptance of exclusive bargaining authority without actual majority support violated § 8(b)(1)(A), notwithstanding good faith.
- Later majority support did not retroactively validate the initial recognition or the resulting agreement; the initial recognition imposed an exclusive representative without majority choice.
- The recognition agreement was void in its entirety and could not be enforced even as to employees who had signed authorization cards.
- The Board’s cease-and-desist and election remedy was upheld as an appropriate means to restore employee free choice.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusive recognition requires actual majority support at the time recognition is granted; mistaken belief in majority status does not excuse unlawful recognition.
- An employer’s good-faith mistake is not a defense to liability for recognizing and supporting a minority union under §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2).
- A union’s good-faith mistake is not a defense to liability under § 8(b)(1)(A) for accepting exclusive representative status without actual majority support.
- Subsequent attainment of majority support does not cure an earlier deprivation of employees’ § 7 right to choose their bargaining representative.
- The NLRB may order an election and withdrawal of recognition to remedy unlawful minority recognition and to protect employee choice.

## Conclusion

The Court held that both the employer and the union committed unfair labor practices by entering an exclusive-recognition arrangement when the union lacked actual majority support, even though both acted in good-faith mistake; later majority support did not cure the violation, and the Board could require withdrawal of recognition and a representation election.


Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. NLRB (Bernhard-Altmann Tex. Corp.), 366 U.S. 731 (1961)