American Freezerships, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1113 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

AMERICAN FREEZERSHIPS, INC. 1113
the Respondent's other defenses , I shall recommend dismissal of the 8 (a) (5) allega-
tions of the complaint. .
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, to the extent that they have been
found to constitute unfair labor practices , occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above , S-F, the Respondent herein , and Becker-Durham , together con-
stitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. The
Respondent 's unfair labor practices as found herein must be considered in conjunc-
tion with the unfair labor practices engaged in by Becker-Durham as found by the
Board in its decision in Becker-Durham , Inc., 130 NLRB 1356. The totality of the
violations engaged in by the Employer herein involved disclose a danger that the
Respondent may engage in other unfair labor practices , though not necessarily by
the same means. The preventive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the
recommended order is coextensive with the threat . To effectuate the policies of
the Act it will theretore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor pactices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 5) of the Act , as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]'
American Freezerships , Inc.' and Local 3, Fishermen and Allied
Workers of the International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse-
men's Union . Case No. 19-RC-2811. Febn iary 15, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before Howard E. Hilbun,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
I Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
135 NLRB No. 110.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees em-
ployed by the Employer on its vessel, the Theresa Lee. Intervenor
Marine Engineers Beneficial Association No. 38, Inc., AFL-CIO,
contends that a separate unit of licensed and unlicensed engineers is
appropriate. Intervenor Seafarer's International Union of North
America asserts that a unit of all employees excluding engineers is
appropriate. The Employer agrees with the Petitioner's unit
position.
The Employer is engaged in processing salmon and crabs for sale
to canneries. The entire operation takes place aboard its fishing
vessel, the Theresa Lee, and involves the purchase of fish from local
fishermen in Alaskan waters, the processing and freezing of the fish on
the ship, and the sale of the fish in the State of Washington.
The Employer's operations are divided into a 3-month salmon sea-
son which runs from June until September, and a 9-month crab
season. Its crew in both seasons includes a captain, a mate, two or
three engineers, two cooks, and several deckhands. In addition, it
employs approximately 4 salmon processors during the salmon season
and 10 crab processors for the crab season. For the most part, the
work involved in loading, processing, freezing, and unloading the
fish is done by the deckhands and processors.
The engineers spend most of their time in the engineroom and also
do maintenance on the refrigeration units aboard the ship. The
Employer had three engineers on the ship during the 3-month period
June to September 1961 that it was in Alaska processing salmon, but
has indicated that it intends to have only two licensed engineers, a
chief engineer and his assistant, on board when the ship leaves to
process crabs. However, due to certain Coast Guard licensing regu-
lations and the fact that one of the engineers whom the Employer
has indicated it will retain is not as yet licensed, the possibility re-
mains that there may be three engineers aboard the ship, both licensed
and unlicensed, when it leaves for Alaska. In any event, the Peti-
tioner, the Employer, and the Engineers Union are agreed that the
chief engineer, who alternates watches in the engineroom with his
assistant, is not a supervisor.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the em-
ployees sought herein. The Board has held that a unit of all em-
AMERICAN FREEZERSHIPS , INC. 1115
ployees aboard a fishing boat, including engineers , is appropriate .2
However, a separate unit of ship engineers is also appropriate where,
as here, a union seeks to represent them separately.' Accordingly,
we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall
first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections
directed below.
The Petitioner contends that the mate is a leadman, not a super-
visor, and should be included in the unit. The Seafarer's Union con-
tends that the mate is a supervisor and should be excluded. The
Employer is neutral. The mate regularly substitutes for the captain
about 50 percent of his time. The captain stands watch 6 hours and is
off duty 6 hours. During the latter period, the mate is in complete
charge of the ship. Although the evidence does not indicate whether
the mate has authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees, he
may effectively recommend such action to the captain. In view of
the mate's responsibility for the direction of the crew and the frequent
substitutions for the captain at regular intervals, we find that the
mate is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly,
we shall exclude him from the unit.'
5. The Seafarer's Union contends that no election should be directed
until the Employer has hired the crab processors it must have for its
crab processing operations. The Employer's salmon season ran from
June to September 1961, and since then the ship has been undergoing
repairs in Seattle, Washington. The Employer's president testified at
the hearing on remand that the Theresa Lee would be leaving for
Alaska and the start of its crab season before January 1, 1962. At that
time its crew would consist of a captain, a mate, two engineers, two
cooks, and three deckhands. In addition, 8 to 12 crab processors would
be employed, but the Employer did not know at the time of the hearing
whether it would hire these individuals before the Theresa Lee left
Seattle or after it reached Alaska. In any event, the election directed
herein will not be held prior to the Theresa Lee's arrival in Alaska, and
the commencement of its crab processing operations with a crew which
will, by that time, include crab processors hired either in Seattle or in
Alaska. Therefore, a postponement is unnecessary, and we shall direct
an immediate election.
Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following vot-
ing groups of employees employed by the Employer on its vessel the
Theresa Lee, excluding from each voting group guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
Group 1. All licensed and unlicensed engineers, including the chief
engineer.
2 General Foods Corporation, Birds Eye Division, 110 NLRB 1088, 1091.
8 Graham Transportation Company, 124 NLRB 960.
' General Foods Corporation, supra.
1116 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Group 2. All other employees, excluding the captain and the mate.
We shall place the names of the Engineers Association and the Fish-
ermen and Allied Workers on the ballot in the election among the
employees in Group 1, and the names of the Fishermen and Allied
Workers and the Seafarer's Union on the ballot in Group 2.
If the majority of employees voting in Group 1 select the Engineers
Association, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elec-
tions directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of rep-
resentatives to the Engineers Association for such unit, which the
Board, in such circumstances, finds appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in Group
1 do not vote for the Engineers Association, these employees will
appropriately be included with the employees in Group 2, and their
votes will be pooled with those in Group 2.5 The Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Fishermen
and Allied Workers or to the Seafarer's Union if either is selected by
the majority of the employees in Group 2 or in the pooled group, as the
case may be, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
6 If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes
for the labor organization seeking a separate unit in Group 1 shall be counted as valid
votes, but neither for nor against the labor organization which is seeking the more com-
prehensive unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for repre-
sentation by the union seeking the more comprehensive group or for no union.
American Lace Mills, Inc. and Local 222, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2,0-CA-848.
February 19, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1961, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and supporting briefs.'
i Respondent filed a memorandum in support of the recommendations of the Trial
Examiner that certain allegations of the complaint be dismissed , and further requested
135 NLRB No. 109.