Apex Tankers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

APEX TANKERS CO.
Apex Tankers Co.' and Radio Officers Union of the
United Telegraph Workers, AFL-CIO, Petition-
er. Case 15-RC-6683
August 12, 1981
DECISION ON REVIEW
On October 8, 1980, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 15 issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in
which he found appropriate the Petitioner's re-
quested unit of the Employer's two radio officers.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of the Acting Re-
gional Director's decision on the ground that he
departed from officially reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated November 12, 1980,
the request for review was granted2 and the elec-
tion, which had not as yet been scheduled, was
postponed pending decision on review. The Em-
ployer and Petitioner filed briefs on review.
The Board has considered the record in this
case, including the briefs on review, and makes the
following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a
vessel used to transport petroleum products to var-
ious States and territories of the United States. On
September 11, 1980, the Acting Regional Director
granted a motion to intervene filed by Apex
Tanker Officers Association based on a collective-
bargaining agreement between the Association and
the Employer. By the terms of the agreement, the
Association is recognized as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative for licensed officers employed
aboard the Employer's vessel, including the radio
officers sought by the Petitioner.
The Acting Regional Director reversed, sua
sponte, the order granting the motion to intervene
based on his findings that supervisors play a crucial
role in the internal affairs of the Association and
that there is a clear and present danger of a con-
flict of interest that would interfere with the col-
lective-bargaining process, citing Sierra Vista Hospi-
tal, Inc., supra. In this regard, the Acting Regional
Director found that 3 of the approximately 12 li-
censed officers represented by the Association are
supervisors, and that 2 of these-the master and
chief mate-were instrumental in negotiating the
agreement and were signatories on behalf of the
Association. He also found that the master, who is
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
'In the mailgram granting the request for review, the Board specifical-
ly invited the parties "to brief the issue as to whether bar quality should
be given to a contract negotiated by a union which would be disqualified
from bargaining under the Board's Sierra Vista rationale (241 NLRB 631
(1979))."
257 NLRB No. 96
in charge of labor relations aboard the Employer's
vessel and has final authority for all hiring, firing,
and disciplinary actions, was later instrumental in
modifying the agreement.
The Acting Regional Director found further that
the agreement between the Employer and the As-
sociation was not a bar to the petition, on grounds
it did not contain sufficient terms and conditions of
employment to stabilize the bargaining relation-
ship.3 We agree that the contract is not a bar, but
on a different ground.
The Board's contract-bar rules were designed to
promote stability in collective-bargaining relation-
ships. 4 Since the record supports, and we adopt,
the Acting Regional Director's finding that the In-
tervenor is disqualified from representing the Em-
ployer's employees because of a conflict of interest,
it would be anomalous to hold, nonetheless, that
Intervenor's collective-bargaining agreement bars
an attempt by another qualified labor organization
to represent these employees. As indicated, the
very agreement alleged as a bar was executed on
behalf of Intervenor by two of Employer's highest
ranking supervisors.
The Employer cites C. G. Willis, Inc., 119
NLRB 1677 (1958), in which the Board found a
contract a bar even though it purported to cover
several supervisors. The instant case is clearly dis-
tinguishable in that here, not only were supervisors
covered by the contract, but they were actual sig-
natories to it and their active participation in secur-
ing the contract led to the finding that Intervenor
had a disqualifying conflict of interest. We find
more apt the analogy, suggested by Petitioner, to
cases involving unions found to be defunct. The
contract of a union found to be defunct cannot
serve as a bar. Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 121
NLRB 901, 911 (1958). Although there is no evi-
dence or contention that Intervenor is defunct, its
disabling conflict of interest renders it as legally in-
capable of serving as bargaining representative as a
union found to be defunct. For the same reasons,
its contract cannot serve as a bar.
The Board has been administratively advised that
the Regional Director for Region 15 has already
conducted the election and impounded the ballots.
Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 15 for the purpose of opening
and counting the ballots in the unit as specified
herein.
1 The Association's collective-hargaining agreement contains clauses
pertaining to ages, benefits, probationary status, recognition, and nion
security, inter alia However, in view of our finding of no bar for other
reasons, we need not resolve this issue.
' Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 N.RB I 160, 163 (1958)
685