Bull Insular Line, Inc. et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 5, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining unit covered by the contract, not just those from
the group obligated to become union members by reason of
the contract.
We find that all employees of the Employer at its store at
166 E. Compton Boulevard, Compton, California, excluding
the store manager, the assistant store manager, salesfloor
supervisors, the personnel supervisor, the office supervisor,
the stockroom supervisor, learners, seasonal employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of an election under Section 9 (e) (1)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
THE PORTS OF PUERTO RICO (ILA)' Petitioner
PUERTO RICO MARINE CORP. ET AL. and UNION DE TRA-
BAJADORES DE ABORDO Y MUELLE DE PONCE INDE-
PENDIENTE, Petitioner
EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST), Petitioner and
LOCAL UNION NO. 1745, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION (ILA)
PUERTO RICO DRY DOCK AND MARINE TERMINAL, INC.:
and CONFEDERACION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES
DE PUERTO RICO (AUTENTICA), Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. and UNION DE EMPLE-
ADOS DE MUELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC., Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PORTS OF P. R.
MENDEZ & CIA., INC. and UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE MU-
ELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
1 The Board officially notices that on September 23, 1953, the ILA was expelled from the
American Federation of Labor. The ILA, as hereinafter appears, will therefore be de-
signated as ILA only. The original order consolidating these cases included No 24- RC- 198.
However, as the petitioner in that case, Union de Construccion Reparacion, Mantenimiento
y Trabajos Portuarios de Punta Santiago, P R. (Ind) was out of compliance, the petition
was dismissed Case No. 24-RC-200, Bull Insular Line and Union de Empleados de Muelles,
was withdrawn and Nos. 24-RC-359 and 24-RM-12, as indicated herein, were added to the
consolidated group.
Y The present name of this Employer appears as amended at the hearing. It was formerly
known as the Abarca Dry Dock Corporation.
107 NLRB.No. 153.
BULL INSULAR LINE , INC. ET AL. 675
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION ET ALS. and UN-
ION DE TRABAJADORES DE MUELLES Y RAMAS ANEXAS
DE PUERTO RICO ( Independent ) ( UTM), Petitioner
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and IN-
TERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and IN-
TERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION. Cases
Nos. 24 - RC-197, 24 - RC-248, 24 - RM-8, 24 - RC-225, 24-RC-
359, 24 - RM-12, 24-RC-246, 24 - RC-663,9 24 - RM-21, and
24-RM - 22. January 5, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTIONS OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the I$ational
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing in the original
above-entitled cases was held before George L. Weasler,
hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Motion for Intervention
This proceeding was initiated by petitions filed in 1951 by
the ILA, District Councils of Puerto Rico, which was then
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Several other
unions interested in representing employees working on the
waterfront of the Island of Puerto Rico filed additional peti-
tions and motions for intervention . After hearings were held
in the fall of 1951 , the record was ordered reopened for addi-
tional evidence on the unit issue . Further hearings were held
in February 1953 . Because of outstanding orders in unfair
labor practice cases4 involving the ILA, resolution of the
present proceedings has been delayed.
Following the expulsion of the ILA from the AFL in Septem-
ber 1953, it appears that several locals onthe Island of Puerto
Rico withdrew from the ILA . On December 3, 1953, the Union
De Trabajadores De Muelles Y Ramas Anexas De Puerto Rico
(Independent ) hereinafter referred to as UTM, filed a motion
(with affidavit of service ) to intervene in these proceedings,
alleging that it was the successor to ILA. In its motion, the
UTM stated that because the existing bargaining agreement
will expire December 31, 1953, an immediate election should
be ordered to avoid industrial strife. The Board is also ad-
ministratively advised that there has been substantial com-
3 The petition in this case was filed November 23, 1953 , and in the following two cases on
December 7, 1953.
4No. 24-CC-11--ILA District Council of P. R. etc., et als ., and El Mundo Broadcasting Co;
No. 24-CC-14--ILA etc , et als , and Lykes Lines Agency; No 24-CB- 13- -Local 16654 ILAetc.,
et als. , and Puerto Rico Steamship Association.
67 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pliance with its outstanding orders, so as to warrant directing
an election.
The UTM, whose card showing is dated subsequent to the
hearing, desires to be, placed on the ballot for the same units
as petitioned for by the ILA in the cases herein indicated.
The rule is well established that a labor organization which
seeks to intervene in a representation proceeding before the
Board must present a showing of interest dated as of or before
the hearing.' However, the Board has permitted two excep-
tions to this rule: (1) Where the representation proceeding
was delayed by the filing of unfair labor practice charges and
the original petitioner was, by its own practices, in part re-
sponsible for such delay;6 and (2) where a labor organization
claims to be the authorized successor of the contracting labor
organization.? The same principles apply to a petition brought
by an employer.
We find, on the basis of this record and the complaint cases
mentioned above of which we take official notice herein, that
the ILA, by its own unfair labor practices and its failure to
comply with the Board's decisions, caused the delay in the
issuance of the decision in the cases originally brought in
1951.6 Moreover, as a result of the alleged schism which has
developed in the ILA and the card showing of the UTM, we find
that the latter has made a colorable claim to be the successor
in interest of the ILA. Accordingly, we shall, under the fore-
going circumstances, permit the intervention of the UTM and
include its name on the ballot in all cases where the ILA is a
party to the proceeding.'
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units:
The Contention of the Parties : Case No. 24 -RC-197
At the original hearing the Petitioner, International Long-
shoremen's Association, hereinafter called the ILA, sought a
unit of stevedores and related classifications involving some
46 employers, including steamship companies, sugar mills,
5 United Boat Service Corporation, 55 NLRB 671.
6International Harvester Company, Canton Works, 91 NLRB 487.
7 A Siegel & Sons, Inc., 94 NLRB 471.
6 International Harvester Company, supra.
9As indicated in the caption, the UTM and the principal employers, the Puerto Rico
Steamship Association, filed petitions in Cases Nos 24-RC-663, 24-RM-21, and 24-RM-22.
Inasmuch as our disposition on the motion to intervene would also constitute in effect a
ruling on these petitions, the latter are hereby consolidated with the instant proceeding.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 677
and others . At the reopened hearing and also in its brief, the
ILA took several alternative positions.1°
The Employers designated in this petition include all ship-
ping companies doing any stevedoring work in the main ports
of the Island, members of the Puerto Rico Steamship Associ-
ation, steamship agents and subagents , lighterage companies,
docking companies , including several fertilizer companies
operating their own docks , and sugar mills and manufacturers
(called centrals ). Several of the employers appeared for the
sole purpose of objecting to the inclusion of their names in
the petition on the ground that there was no basis for involving
them in a multiemployer unit ; 11 others urged that their bar-
gaining had always been on a single-plant basis; still others
stated that while they had followed the practice of adopting the
master contract between the ILA and the Association, they
never participated in any joint bargaining with the Associa-
tion. Several employers sent no representatives to the hearing.
The Puerto Rico Steamship Association agreed that the only
appropriate unit was one limited to the employer members of
the Association , including all ports where these members
operate.
The petitioning Unions in the other consolidated cases urged
that the proposed ILA unit was much too broad , contending
that either a portwide or an individual employer unit was
appropriate . Upon request , the right to intervene was granted
to the following Unions : ( 1) Union No . 4 de Trabajadores de la
Industria del Abone , on the ground of an existing contract with
the Armour Fertilizer Works; 's (2) Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Almacenes de Punta Santiago , ( Ind) because of a
showing of interest in the employees of the Eastern Sugar
Associates ; 13 (3) Union de Trabajadores de Abordo y Muelle
de Ponce, ( Ind), which is also the petitioner in No . 24-RC-
248;14 ( 4) Union Independentiente de Muelles de Guanica,
because of its interest in the employees of the Ochoa Fertiliz-
er Company. 15
liThe alternative unit contentions are stated and considered infra.
uSeveral of these employers moved to dismiss the petition as to them . Inasmuch as the
elections hereinafter directed do not involve the employees of these employers , there is no
necessity of passing on this motion.
12 Both the Union and Armour Fertilizer Works objected to the inclusion of this Employer
in the unit . Inasmuch as the election directed herein does not involve this employer, there
is no need of considering the contentions of the parties in this intervention.
13This Union is the Intervenor in Case No. 24-RM-8 , and its position will be discussed
infra in connection with that petition.
'1A This union is the Petitioner in Case No. 24-RC-248, and its contentions will be dis-
cussed in connection with that petition.
15 This Union appeared in Case No. 24- RC-197 on the ground of a showing of interest in
the employees of the Ochoa Fertilizer Company, one of the Employers included in the pe-
tition. No evidence was introduced in support of any unit contention , and it appears that the
Union intervened only in order to object to the all inclusive unit claimed by the ILA. We
shall therefore not pass on the unit contention of this Intervenor.
67 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Bargaining History of ILA
Since the establishment of the ILA in 1938, the Board has,
on several occasions , considered the bargaining history of
waterfront labor organizations on the Island of Puerto Rico. W
There is no need of reviewing that history here. Suffice it to
say that since that date, the ILA has sought at various times
to represent stevedores and other classifications of workers
related to stevedoring on an islandwide basis.''
Up to 1949 , the Board recognized the appropriateness of
portwide units and denied requests for an islandwide unit upon
the ground there was no basis for a finding that such a broad
unit was appropriate . Accordingly , the Board directed elections
for units of various classifications at individual ports of the
Island." Beginning with 1949, however , the Board found an
islandwide unit of guards appropriate ." Subsequently , inOcto-
ber 1950, the Association executed separate islandwide con-
tracts covering stevedores represented by Councils No. 1 and
No. 2 of the ILA, effective from January 1, 1950, to December
31, 1951 . Apart from the fact that they covered different cate-
gories of employees , both contracts were substantially identi-
cal in terms . On March 6, 1952, following a strike, the Asso-
ciation and the ILA extended the 1950contractto December 31,
1953 . The unit recognized in this current contract covers
stevedores and related classifications ( except dock checkers
and clerks of the Bull Insular Line and its affiliates at San
Juan ) "and any other workers engaged in the manual operations
of loading and unloading of vessels and classification of cargo
in the various ports of Puerto Rico , who are employees of the
member companies of the Puerto Rico Steamship Association,
excluding watchmen, guards , foremen, professional , admini-
strative and executive employees , office clerical employees,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act." 2°
Appropriateness of the ILA Units
The history of collective bargaining culminating in an island-
wide contract with members of the Association is urged by the
ILA in support of its contention for a unit covering all steve-
dores and related classifications employed by the various
Employers , including the sugar mill companies , herein rep-
resented . As it is clear from the record that there is no his-
"56 NLRB 189; 58 NLRB 1301 ; 74 NLRB 55 ; 89 NLRB 452 (units for port of San Juan);
63 NLRB 154; (Guanica); 71 NLRB 38 (Humacao); 90 NLRB 1877 (Jobos , Aguire); 103 NLRB
1217.
17 See cases in footnote 16, supra.
Js See cases in footnote 16, supra.
m 81 NLRB 1034. The parties in that case agreed to the scope of the unit and no other
union sought to represent the guards on a narrower basis.
POSee Local 1664 (Dock Division ) ILA District Council No. 1, etc. , et als., 103 NLRB 1217,
Intermediate Report, Findings of Fact
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC ET AL. 679
tory of collective bargaining in which all these Employers
have participated and that there is no agreement among all
such Employers to be bound by joint bargaining negotiations
in the future, we find that this unit contention is without merit.
The several alternative positions of the ILA will, accordingly,
be considered.
As its first alternative unit position, the ILA states that it
will accept a unit of all job classifications for men engaged in
loading or unloading ships throughout the Island and employed
by companies other than sugar mill employers, both within
and without the Association. In essence, this unit contention
differs from the original islandwide unit contention only in
that it would exclude sugar mill employers. This unit sought
is otherwise the same and would include the employers of
steamship companies both within and without the Association,
on an islandwide basis. As a second alternative unit, the ILA
suggests a unit of all stevedores and related classifications
of all employers doing business at a given port. Finally, the
ILA would accept a unit limited to members of the Association
on an islandwide basis.
With respect to the first two alternative unit contentions, it
is to be observed that, while the geographical scope of each
unit contention may be supported either by bargaining history
or Board policy, in the absence of an agreement by the parties,
there is no basis in the record for a multiemployer unit which
is not limited to members of the Association and to companies
which have participated in the joint negotiations conducted by
the Association; accordingly, we find that these unit contentions
are without merit.21 The third alternative unit contention stands
in somewhat different light. As noted above, this unit contention
has the support of recent bargaining history between the ILA
and the Association in that the latter has contracted with the
ILA on an islandwide basis coextensive with the operations of
the member companies.22 It therefore appears that an Associ-
ation unit, islandwide in scope, might be appropriate in ac-
cordance with the ILA's alternative unit contention noted a-
bove.21 On the other hand, because of the comparative brevity
of islandwide bargaining history,24 the earlier bargaining his-
tory on a port-by-port basis, and the fact that several unions
are seeking units on that basis, 25 we find that the islandwide
21Associated Shoe Industries of Southern Massachusetts, Inc , 81 NLRB 224; Whiz Fish
Pcoducts Company, 94 NLRB 1303; John F. Humphrey, etc., et al , 100 NLRB 571; cf.
Western Association of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors, 101 NLRB 64.
22 The last contract was executed in March 1952 and will expire in December 1953.
23 The ILA seeks an election for purposes of certification in its contract unit See General
Box Company, 82 NLRB 678. The ILA does not raise its contrct as a bar to these pro-
ceedings.
24 We note that the islandwide contract had been in effect less than a year at the time of
the filing of the first petition in these proceedings.
25 See Cases Nos 24-RC-248 and 24-RC-359 considered herein.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit is not necessarily the only appropriate unit;26 accordingly
we shall defer our unit determination pending a consideration
of the other petitions for units limited to individual ports.
Appropriateness of the Individual Port Units
Case No. 24-RC-248-Puerto Rico Marine Corp. et al. (Ponce,
P. R.): The Petitioner, Union de Trabajadores de Abordo y
Muelle de Ponce Independiente, herein called the Ponce Inde-
pendent, seeks an association unit of stevedores limited to the
port of Ponce. The ILA urges that these employees should be
part of the islandwide unit under the present contract with the
Association.27 The Employers, of whom there are eight, take
no position on the unit issue.
The evidence shows that in August 1951, while the 1950 con-
tract between the ILA and the Association was still in force,
the Petitioner was organized because of dissatisfaction of its
members with the administration of the ILA contract. The Pe-
titioner now seeks a self-determination election to win from the
ILA those employees at the port of Ponce who are still mem-
bers of the latter organization. The Petitioner argues that its
members have no community of interest with employees in
other ports as they are subject different local conditions.
As indicated above, either a unit limited to a single port or
an islandwide unit may be appropriate. In view of the several
factors supporting either unit, including the diverse nature of
the bargaining history for the port of Ponce, and the brevity of
the most recent islandwide history including this port, we shall
make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be
guided in part by the desires of these employees as expressed
in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority of the em-
ployees vote for the Petitioner they will be deemed to have
indicated their desire to be represented in a unit limited to
the port of Ponce; if they vote for the ILA or UTM, and their
choice of bargaining representative is the same as that se-
lected by the employees in the associationwide group, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to join the em-
ployees in that group. However, if a majority of the employees
at the Ponce port vote for the ILA or UTM and their choice of bar-
gaining representative is not the choice of the bargaining repre -
sentative for the associationwide group, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit.
26 The Van Iderstine Company, 95 NLRB 966; Koppers Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 1186.
27 Prior to the islandwide contract of 1950, the operations of the Ponce pier were under
the control of the Ponce Municipal Government, which bargained with labor organizations
representing these employees. Although it is not clearly brought out in the record, we con-
clude that such bargaining between that government and such labor organizations was limited
to the port of Ponce in conformity with the jurisdictional limitations of the Ponce Municipal
Government.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 681
Case No. 24-RM-8--Eastern Sugar Associates: In this case,
Eastern Sugar Associates,EB which isatrustandnot a member
of the Association, filed this petition to resolve conflicting
claims of several unions on the one hand, and the ILA on the
other, for stevedores and related classifications employed at
the port of Humacao (Punta Santiago).
Two labor organizations were permitted to intervene. Union
de Construccion, Reparacion, Mantenimiento y Trabajos Port-
uarios de Punta Santiago, herein called Union de Construccion,
claims to represent a unit of the repair and maintenance em-
ployees, personnel on motor launches, captains, tally clerks,
etc., and workers engaged in unloading of sugar from Vieques
Island. The other labor organization, Union de Trabajadores
del Muelle y Almacenes de Punta Santiago, Humaco, herein
called Union de Humacao is requesting a unit of warehouse
stevedores , unloaders , and related classifications . The ILA
wishes all the employees of the Employer working at this port
to be included in one unit . 19 The Employer was in agreement
as to the appropriateness of the separate units sought by the
Intervenors, stating that even when the Intervenors were affil-
iated with the ILA, from which they seceded in 1951, it carried
on separate negotiations with each of these Intervenors.
As a single employerwide unit of the two groups as sought
by the ILA locals or because of the separate bargaining history,
the separate units as sought by the other Intervenors may be
appropriate, we shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these em-
ployees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed.,, If
a majority in each requested unit vote for the ILA, or the UTM,
they will be deemed to have expressed a desire to be repre-
sented in one combined unit;91 if the majority in either group
vote for their present bargaining representative, they will be
deemed to have expressed a desire to remain in a separate
unit.
Case No. 24-RC-225-Puerto Rico Dry Dock and Marine
Terminal, Inc.: In this case, the Petitioner, Confederacion
General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico (Autentica), seeks a
unit which was described in the record as covering a group
of employees engaged in cleaning , painting , carpentry, me-
chanical, and electrical work for this individual Employer,
formerly known as the Abarca Dry Dock Corporation, operating
at San Juan. Although this Employer is a member of the Associ-
ation, the record does not clearly establish that the particular
28 This Employer is primarily engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and has
no direct interest in the principal business of the members of the Association
29 In the past, bargaining negotiations were carried on by the Intervenors and another union,
not here involved, as it has not seceded from the ILA. This union represents the employees
of the Eastern Lighterage Company, a subsidiary of the Employer.
30 Associacion Cooperativa Lafayette, 94 NLRB 911.
3ISuch combined unit will be limited to the employees of the Employer, Eastern Sugar
Associates.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees herein sought are covered by the current ILA
islandwide contract. 32 In any event, the history of the island-
wide bargaining is of too recent origin, to be controlling, as
indicated above.
We therefore find that, in the absence of evidence warranting
a finding that this Employer has bargained for these employees
through the Association, or that islandwide bargaining is nec-
essarily controlling, they may be properly represented in a
single-employer unit which is presumptively appropriate.'
However, because the ILA seeks to represent them as part of
its association unit, they may also be included in such unit.
We shall therefore make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these em-
ployees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If
a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they
will be deemed to have indicated their desire to be represented
in a separate single-employer unit; if the majority vote for the
ILA or UTM, and their choice of bargaining representative is
the same as that selected by the employees in the association-
wide group, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
join the employees in that group. However, if a majority of the
employees vote for the ILA or UTM and their choice of bar-
gaining representative is not the choice of the bargaining rep-
resentative for the associationwide group, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit.
Case No. 24-RC-35934 --Bull Insular Line Inc., et als. Case
No. 24-RM-12--Bull Insular Line, Inc: In Case No. 24-RC-359,
the Petitioner, Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico,
hereinafter referred to as UDEM,petitions for aunit of clerks,
or checkers, as they are sometimes called, and maintenance
personnel employed by the Bull Insular Line, Inc., its affiliated
compa...es, and all other Employers, operating at the port of
San Juan. In Case No. 24-RM-12, the Bull Insular Line, Inc.,
is petitioning for the same unit on the ground that both the ILA
and UDEM are claiming to represent the same employees.
32 The Employer's representative testified that these employees were covered by the
current contract of the Association and the ILA, while the Petitioner denied that they were
so covered. The spokesman for the Association was of the opinion that since this Employer
began his operations after the 1950 contract, these particular employees were not included
in that contract, but that the Employer probably ratified the 1952 association agreement.
33 Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company, 93 NLRB 738. There is no contention, nor is there any
basis for contending that the pattern of multiemployer bargaining for dissimilar types of em-
ployees should control the scope of the unit of employees sought herein See Joseph E. Sea-
gram & Sons, Inc., 101 NLRB 101; Miller & Miller Motor Freivht Lines, 101 NLRB 581;
Lownsbury Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752.
34 At the original hearing, the UDEM filed thisidentical petition under No 24-RC-200, which
was withdrawn prior to the reopened hearing. Thereafter, the petitions herein indicated were
substituted for No. 24-RC-200. No evidence appears in the record as to the reason for this
change. Although no formal motion was made to incorporate the evidence in No. 24-RC-200,
as the evidence in the present petition, it is clear from the testimony that this was the in-
tent of the Petitioner in the latter case Accordingly, such evidence has been officially noted
and considered herein.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL 683
The record shows that for many years the UDEM has rep-
resented the checkers and maintenance workers of the Bull
Insular line and its affiliated companies , and more recently,
the UDEM has added to this group three other association mem-
bers.' The current contract covering all the foregoing em-
ployees expires in December 1953. The ILA has represented
the same classifications of employees of all other Employers
at San Juan and other ports , and now has an islandwide con-
tract with the Association, covering such workers, this con-
tract expiring at the same time as the contract covering ste-
vedores . r In the present petition , the UDEM is thus seeking
to broaden its unit by including these workers presently rep-
resented by the ILA at San Juan , and the ILA is seeking to
broaden its unit by taking into the islandwide unit those em-
ployees presently represented by the UDEM at this port. The
Employers in Case No. 24-RC-359 take no position on the unit
issue . In Case No. 24 - RM-12 , as indicated , the Bull Insular
Line, Inc. , is bringing this petition because of the conflicting
claims of the two unions.
As noted above, the Board has frequently held that a unit
coextensive with the operations of employers at a given port
is appropriate. We have also indicated in Case No. 24-RC-197,
supra, that an association islandwide unit may also be appro-
priate. In view of this policy and because the ILA's island-
wide bargaining history is comparatively brief, we find that a
unit for checkers limited to the port of San Juan may be appro-
priate. We shall therefore make no final unit determination at
this time , but shall be guided in part by the desires of these
employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed.
If a majority of the employees in these groups represented by
the ILA or UDEM, respectively, vote for the ILA or UTM and
their choice of bargaining representative is the same as that
selected by the employees in the associationwide group, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to join the em-
ployees in that group. However, if a majority of the employees
vote for the ILA or UTM and their choice of bargaining rep-
resentative is not the choice of the bargaining representative
for the associationwide group, they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. If a majority
vote for the UDEEM, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be represented by the latter in a unit limited to em-
ployer members of the Association operating at the port of
San Juan.
$ Puerto Rico Coal Company, Puerto Rico Lighterage Company, and Mendez & Company,
Inc.
36 The latest contract including the above-named additions was in force only a short time
before the filing of the first petitions in these cases , which filing occurred within a year
after the execution of the islandwide contract . See footnote 24, supra.
37 For many years it has been the practice to have checkers and maintenance employees
covered in one contract and stevedores in another . The ILA currently has two contracts with
the Association , one covering checkers and the other stevedores and related classifications
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 24-RC-246--Mendez & Cia, Inc.: This is a petition
by the UDEM (Petitioner in Case No. 24-RC-359, supra) for a
unit of warehouse checkers, laborers, and truckdrivers of this
Employer, doing business at San Juan. The Employer agrees
that these employees should be a separate unit. The position
of the ILA is not clear. 18
The evidence indicates that the warehouse operation of this
Employer is entirely separate and distinct from its shipping
operations. The employees work in a warehouse separated
from the other buildings, and they are under separate super-
vision and management. Their working conditions are also
different from those of other employees. Although the Em-
ployer is a member of the Association, its membership covers
only its shipping operations and not its warehousing. The Em-
ployer has contracts with the ILA covering stevedores and with
the UDEM covering checkers in its shipping operations. The
particular employees involved in this petition have no history
of collective bargaining.
We find on the basis of,the record that the employees sought
herein are an identifiable homogeneous group of warehouse
workers of the type whom the Board has frequently found con-
stitute an appropriate unit.' Because the islandwide associ-
ation contract does not cover these categories of employees
and because this Employer has not authorized the Association
to bargain for them, we find there is no basis for including
them in the ILA's islandwide association contract. Accordingly,
we find that these employees may best be represented for
purposes of collective bargaining in a single-employer unit.'
We find that all warehouse checkers, laborers, and truck-
drivers working for Mendez & Cia, Inc., at its cold storage
and general warehouse in San Juan, excluding all office and
clerical employees, administrative and professional employ-
ees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
(Case No. 24-RC-246).
We shall direct elections in the unit found above and in the
following voting groups. The Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives consistent herewith
to the bargaining agent or agents selected for such unit or
units, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be
38 The evidence concerning the intent of the ILA concerning these employees is conflicting.
The ILA stated that it is not interested in representing warehouse checkers as opposed to
delivery checkers On the other hand, the ILA has contracts covering stevedores with this
Employer. The evidence shows that these warehouse checkers have no history of collective
bargaining and that these categories were not included in the ILA's islandwide association
contract
39Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc , 100 NLRB 70. Cf Wilmington Terminal Warehouse Company,
et al, 68 NLRB 299
40 We are, however, placing the name of the ILA on the ballot for a single-employer unit
in the election we are directing for the UDEM. See footnote 41. infra
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 685
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Group 1--All stevedores on shore and aboard ships, water-
boys, winchmen, sewers, hatchtenders, motormen, fingerlift
operators , coopers , mechanics , blacksmiths , carpenters, elec-
tricians, mechanic helpers, blacksmith helpers, carpenter
helpers and electrician helpers, laborers, and all other work-
ers, delivery and receiving checkers, tallymen, all employees
engaged in the manual operation of loading and unloading ships
and the classification of cargo, maintenance of equipment,
piers , and warehouses in all the ports on the Island of Puerto
Rico wherever the members of the Puerto Rico Steamship
Association are doing business including further stevedores,
waterboys , sewers , stationary crane operators , and lightermen
on the piers and aboard lighters in the open ports, excluding
all office and office clerical employees, professional and
administrative employees, guards, watchmen, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act; and excluding the employees
enumerated in the unit found appropriate and in all other voting
groups. (Case No. 24-RC-197.)
Group 2--All stevedores on shore and aboard ships, water-
boys, winchmen, sewers , hatchtenders, motormen, fingerlift
operators , coopers, mechanics , blacksmiths, carpenters, elec-
tricians, mechanics helpers, carpenter- helpers, blacksmith
helpers and electrician helpers , laborers and all employees
engaged in the manual operation of loading and unloading ships,
maintenance of equipment , piers , and warehouses working at
the port of Ponce for employer members of the Puerto Rico
Steamship Association or those employers who are not mem-
bers of such Association but have participated in collective
bargaining conducted by the Association, excluding delivery and
receiving checkers, tallymen, office and clerical employees,
guards , professional and administrative employees , watchmen,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (Case No. 24-RC-
248.)
Group 3--All paymasters, timekeepers, acting chief delivery
clerks, delivery clerks, receiving clerks, utility clerks, cargo
inspectors , tally clerks, gatemen , mechanics , assistant me-
chanics, blacksmiths and blacksmith helpers, carpenters and
carpenter helpers , sailmakers and sailmaker helpers, gaso -
line expenders , laborers , weighmasters , crib inspectors,
clerks , senior clerks , inventory store clerks , storekeepers,
heavy crane operators , lightermen , firemen, crane operators,
pilot and launch operators, dockhands , oilers , barge seamen,
janitors , electricians and assistant electricians, welders,
painters , lethmen, refrigerator operators , messengers, re-
ceiving and delivery clerks of raw sugar to the boat, And
masons working at the port of San Juan for employer mem-
bers of the Puerto Rico Steamship Association or those Em-
ployers who are not members of such Association but have
participated in collective bargaining conducted by the Associ-
ation , but excluding executive and professional employees,
337593 0 - 55 - 45
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen, guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(Cases Nos. 24-RC-359 and 24-RM-12.)
Group 4--All employees engaged in cleaning , painting, car-
pentry, mechanical, and electrical work employed by the Puerto
a^^o n=y Deck and Marine Terminal, Inc., at its drydock in
San Juan , Puerto Rico , excluding all other employees, exec-
utive , administrative , and professional employees , office and
clerical employees, `guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. (Case No. 24-RC-225.)
Group 5--All repair and maintenance employees, including
welders , cutters , carpenters , masons, helpers , and laborers,
personnel on motor launches , captains , tally clerks on board,
bag sewers on board , and workers on the unloading of sugar
cane from Vieques Island and presently handling the shipment
of molasses to the ship ' s side , employed by the Eastern Sugar
Associates at Punta Santiago port, but excluding all other
employees , executive , administrative , clerical , and office em-
ployees , guards , watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in
the Act. (Case No. 24-RM-8.)
Group 6--All warehouse stevedores and unloaders , workers
in the unloading of sugar at the piers, workers in transferring
of sugar in the warehouses , workers in the loading and un-
loading of material, in the cleaning of warehouses , scrubbing
and washing of warehouses , sewing , checkers of sugar bags,
tallymen in the warehouse , loading and unloading of trucks,
winchmen on the docks, transfer table in wharf and warehouses,
waterboys in the warehouse and wharf employed by the East-
ern Sugar Associates at Punta Santiago Port, but excluding
all other employees , office and clerical employees , profes-
sional employees , guards , watchmen , and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. (Case No. 24-RM-8.)
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT); IN-
TERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDE-
PENDENT); AND NEW YORK DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (IN-
DEPENDENT)' and NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION.
Case No. 2-CC-246. January 6, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1953 , Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
t The names of the Respondents have been changed to reflect the disaffiliation of the Re-
spondent international from the American Federation of Labor.
107 NLRB No. 152.