A. I. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

'1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. L. Mechling Barge Lines , Inc.' and District 2,
Marine ^ Engineers Beneficial Association,
AFL-CIO, and-Inland Boatmen's Union ' of the
Seafarers , International Union - of North America,
AFL-CIO,2 Joint Petitioners . Case 13-RC-12165
August 27, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition 'and an amended petition duly
filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held
before D. Richard' Froelke, Hearing Officer of the
National 'Labor Relations' Board.3 Following the
hearing, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and
by direction of the Regional Director for Region 13,
this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Joint
Petitioners and Intervenors N.M.U. and M.M.P.
filed timely briefs,' and the'Eniployer filed a timely
memorandum, which has been duly considered.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations' Act, as' amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated' its
powers in connection with this 'case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing' Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error: They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs, memoranda and statements of the parties, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Inland Boatmen 's 'onion intervened in this proceeding on the basis
of interest among the subject employees. Thereafter, the' original petition
was amended to include the I B .U. with M:E.B.A. as Joint Petitioners.
3 Periliitted to intervene at the hearing on the'basis of their showings of
interest, were International Organization of Masters, Mates and ' Pilots,
Great Lakes and Rivers District, Local 47 (M.M P.); National Maritime
Union of 'North America, AFL-CIO (N.M.U); and Marine Officers'
Association, `Local 54, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America' (M.O.A ).
4 Union Barge Lines (a subsidiary of the Dravo Corporation), which
appeared and participated at the hearing as a possible party in interest, also
filed a statement with the Board.
5 Although the Employer declined at the hearing to stipulate that one of
the Joint Petitioners, District 2. M.E.B.A., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, the record shows that its purpose is to
represent persons employed in the marine industry for collective-bargaining
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate' the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved ' claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.5
3. . A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is a Delaware 'corporation
engaged in providing 'towboat, and'' barge inland
waterway transportation services. At the-time of the
hearing, the Employer -operated approximately, five
river tow vessels out of its principal facility located at
Joliet, Illinois.
The Joint Petitioners seek to represent a unit of all
employees of the Employer including pilots , assistant
engineers, head"deckhands,, relief head deckhands,
watchmen, deckhands , oilers ,, cooks, maids, mess-
men , and shorebased engineers , excluding all'other
employees including captains, relief captains, chief
engineers, relief engineers, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors' as' defined in the' Act.
Intervenor M.O.A. is 'willing 'to ` represent any unit
that the Board' deems' appropriate. Intervenor
N.M.U.'takes the position that pilots and shore-
based engineers should be excluded on the grounds,
respectively, of supervisory status, and' lack" of
community, of interest with the rew -`'members.
Intervenor M.M.P., too, 'would' exclude, the- pilots
and, in addition, the head deckhands and watchmen,
all on ; supervisory grounds. The ' Employer,' although
not 'opposing the unit sought, requests that the Board
make` specific unit findings with respect to pilots,
head deckhands, watchmen, assistant engineers, and
shore-based' engineers. '
In 1968, the M.O.A. was certified by the Board
pursuant to tan election conducted under the terms of
a Stipulation for Certification ' Upon Consent Elec-
tion in Case 13-RC-11378. The unit certified therein
is identical'to that in the above-described amended
petition.
The Employer operates five towboats. The typical
towboat crew consists of a master, pilot, chief
purposes; that it has been certified by the Board to represent certain
employees 'of Federal Barge Lines, Inc., for the purpose of negotiating their
wages, hours, and 'other terms and conditions of employment ; and that
employees participate in the affairs of the organization, which also
represents marine engineers, who'are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
In addition, M.M.P. refused to stipulate that the incumbent Intervenor,
M.O.A.; Local 54, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act. The record shows, however, that it is a party to contracts with
employers, concerning wages, hours , and other working conditions; that the
Board certified it in 1968 as representative of certain employees of the
Employer; that of its membership , about one-half are rank-and-file
employees and the other half, marine officers (masters, mates, and pilots);
and that employees participate in the internal affairs of the organization.
On the basis of the foregoing , we find that District 2, M.E.B .A., and
Local 54, M.O.A., are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
192 NLRB No. 166
A. L. MECHLING BARGE LINES 1119
engineer, assistant engineer, oiler, head deckhand,
watchman, four deckhands, a cook, and a maid .6 The
boats operate 24 hours a day. The master is in overall
charge of all aspects of the boat's operation, and is
on call 24 hours per,day. The crews work two 6-hour
watches in each 24-hour period. The master, chief
engineer, head deckhand, and two deckhands stand
the forward watch (from 6 a.m. to 12 noon, and from
6 p.m. to midnight). The pilot, assistant engineer,
watchman, and two other deckhands stand the after
watch (from 12 noon to 6 p.m. and from 12 midnight
to 6 a.m.).
The Pilots
Pilots spend the major part of their time steering
the vessel. In doing this, they periodically check the
radar equipment, tachometer, and various naviga-
tional guides. Pilots , also -direct the deckhands, in a
"team effort," in picking up and tying on barges;
and, when lining up - a tow, signals and verbal
instructions pass readily back and forth between the
deck and the pilot house.? This flow of instructions
from the pilot house to the deckhands varies with the
experience of the crew, the _ operational tasks con-
fronting them, and the personality of the pilot. Pilots,
when on watch, determine whether a lookout is,
needed and call for one over the intercom. All the
pilot's instructions, as to what barges to pick up,
where they are going, what to drop off, and where,
come from company headquarters or 'the master.
Masters decide, singly or ' together with the pilot, on
the specific arrangement of barges in a tow. Pilots;
while on watch in dock, routinely countersign the
crew separation report which all crew members must
sign when leaving the boat. Although pilots, like
masters, have manual ability to operate a vessel, they
do not perform the overall administrative or manage-
rial functions required of masters to command the
vessel and crew. Thus, the master is in overall charge
of the boat even when off duty and is available by
phone or messenger to the pilot at all times. Pilots, in
turn, are expected to contact the master, whether on
board or ashore, to make a decision in 'any
emergency.
The hiring of all boat personnel is done by Hilton,
the Employer's director of personnel aboard vessels.
Although Hilton testified that pilots could hire a
crew member, if an emergency situation arose during
an afterwatch causing the vessel to be a man short,
he conceded on further examination that he could
not recall any specific occasion on which this had
occurred, and also admitted it had not happened at
all in "recent years." Pilots do not have power to
discharge crew members; this and other personnel
decisions on the boat are made by the master and
Hilton. Although a pilot may recommend discharge
or discipline of a crew member to a master, the
master investigates the recommendations and, in
turn, makes his recommendations to Hilton who,
apparently, actually effects ' any discipline or dis-
charge and writes the letter of termination. Pilots are
hired in the same manner as all other crew members,
and receive the same fringe benefits as other
employees such as deckhands, except that pilots have
private sleeping accommodations on most boats,
while deckhands share a room. Pilots and deckhands
are all covered by the same company benefit plan.
Upon the foregoing, we conclude that the pilots, are
not supervisors within the meaning of, the Act. Most
of their time is spent in their primary duty, steering
the vessel; operating instructions to the deckhands
do not involve responsible direction within the
meaning of the statute, but cast pilots more in the
role of leadmen. They lack authority to hire, fire, or
discipline other crew members, and their recommen-
dations with respect to discipline are limited princi-
pally' in the interest 'of assuring a harmonious
relationship between themselves and the crew during
the lengthy periods they will be in constant contact
aboard the vessel.s In the circumstances present, we
find that duties of the pilot do not reflect the degree
of responsible direction or effective recommendation
necessary to constitute indicia of supervisory author-
ity within the Act's definition. Accordingly, we shall
include the pilots in the unit.
The Head Deckhands
The head' deckhands stand the forward watch.
They are responsible for the routine maintenance
and upkeep of the vessel-such as cleaning, scraping,
chipping," keeping the rigging straight, painting the
boat about twice a year, making line' lashings as
necessary, and splicing wires., The head deckhand-
performs this kind of work along with two deck-
hands. The instructions he gives to deckhands are
limited to the manner in which they perform their
immediate task. In addition to the foregoing' work,
the deckhands mop and swab the deck. Hilton
testified that the working relationship between
deckhands and the head deckhand approximates, that
of a plumber and his helper. Although there have
been occasions when head deckhands have recom-
mended the discharge of crew members, there is no
evidence that these recommendations were effective.
6 Some boats do not have an oiler or a maid.
7 For example, the pilot may say, "Untie that lme" or "Catch a Ime"
while crew members may call out, "Get down there ," "Get that barge over
in line," or "Get that ... boat over here."
s See Willis Shaw Frozen Food Express, Inc., 173 NLRB 487.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In these circumstances, we find that the head
deckhands are not, supervisors and, therefore, shalt
include them in the unit.
The Watchmen
The duties, of the watchman, who stands the after
watch, parallel those of, the head deckhand.,Hilton,
when asked "what the watchman does," testified,
"He is the head deckhand of that watch." Hilton also
testified that the only difference in authority or
responsibility between the head deckhand and the
watchman is that the former, as he goes off watch,
tells the watchman what remains to be done in
regard to boat maintenance. Inasmuch as the
watchmen perform duties and have responsibilities
substantially identical to those of the head deck-
hands, we find, . for the same reason, that the
watchmen are not supervisors, and shall include
them in the unit also.
The Shore-based Engineers
There are two shore-based engineers who normally
work at the Employer's shop located at Joliet,
Illinois . Their immediate supervisor is the port
engineer, under whose direction they work. The
shore-based engineers are usually promoted to that
classification from among chief engineers aboard the
vessels , an admittedly supervisory position. The
shore-based engineers possess welding, electrical,
and mechanical skills. They repair and build equip-
ment for the boats, make spare parts, and perform
major overhauls on the vessels. Their only contact
with the crew members of the vessels occurs when,
on occasion, they are aboard the boat to engage in
maintenance repair work, during an overhaul, or an
emergency breakdown. While working aboard the
vessel, the shore-based engineers remain under the
supervision of the port engineer, who is also normally
aboard for these situations. Shore-based engineers
normally work from 8 a.m. to 4:30 ,p.m., in contrast
to the two 6-hour watches of crew members, and
their vacation, sick leave, and overtime compensa-
8 Intervenor N.M.U. and Union Barge' Lines contend that an election
should not be conducted, but the proceedings held in abeyance, because the
Employer's vessels will assertedly accrete to an existing N.M.U. bargaining
unit at Union Barge Lines when the Employer is merged into the named
company. A petition to obtain the necessary , Interstate Commerce
Commission preliminary approval for such a merger has been initiated but
substantial details remain for determination and agreement 'in the event
such approval is received. As the contemplated 'merger is dependent on facts
which are uncertain both as to approval and time, we find that the proposed
merger is too speculative to warrant denial of a choice by employees
concerning representation at this time . Federal Electric Corporation, Western
Test.Range, 157 NLRB" 1130, 1133, fn. 6.
is In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
tion arrangements are also different from those of
vessel employees. Although a shore-based engineer
might substitute for a chief or assistant engineer on a,
vessel in an emergency (e.g., sickness), such instances
appear to occur very rarely. In light of their,separate
supervision, relative lack of work contacts, and
generally different hours' and working conditions, we
find that, despite their previous inclusion by agree-
ment of the parties in the historic unit, the shore-
based engineers lack sufficient community of interest
to warrant their inclusion in the unit and shall,
accordingly, exclude them.
The Assistant Engineers
The Employer requests that- the Board determine
the unit status of assistant engineers,-whose inclusion
is requested by the Joint 'Petitioners without opposi-
tion. The assistant engineers stand the afterwatch.
Their duties include maintenance of the equipment
in the engine room and keeping the engine' room
records. They are responsible to their chief' engineer;
are authorized to sign crew separation reports, and
may occupy a Iprivate'room, depending on `the-
particular boat. The assistant engineers have been
included in the historical unit, and we find that
assistant engineers are appropriately included in that
unit.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that- the
following employees of the Employer constitute d",
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees including' pilots, assistant engi-
neers, head deckhands, relief' head deckhands,
watchmen, deckhands, oilers, cooks, maids, and
messmen , but excluding all other employees
including captains, 'relief captains, chief , engi-
neers, relief engineers, . shore-based engineers,
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act .9
[Direction of Election10 omitted from
publication."]
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them , Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.LR.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.,` 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed, that an election 'eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters; must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director of Region 13 within 7 days of
the 'date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties -to the election . No"extension of'r'
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in,
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed.
ii As we find no merit in the objection thereto , the name of Joint
Petitioner I.B.U. shall appear in this manner on the ballot ,as requested.