Charles Zubick

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CHARLES ZUBICK, EMPLOYER and NATIONAL MARITIME
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1734.-Decided June 23,194 7'
Mr. Harland I. Casteel, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. Hymen Schlesinger, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, on April 21, 1947, before Henry Shore, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Charles Zubick, an individual , is engaged in the operation of tug
boats on the Alleghany , Monongahela , and Ohio Rivers. The Em-
ployer transports approximately 50,000 tons of coal and 100,000 barrels
of oil per month . As part of its operations , the Employer 's boats
travel to and from points along these rivers in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania , the State of Ohio, and the State of West Virginia.
The Employer admits and we find that he is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVFD
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
74 N. L. R B., No. 60.
336
CHARLES ZUBICK
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
357
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of unlicensed personnel employed by
the Employer on its tug boats , excluding engineers , masters, mates,"
and pilots. The Employer agrees that the employees sought by the
Petitioner comprise an appropriate unit, but would include engineers,
masters, mates , and pilots , who are also unlicensed.
Masters , Mates, Pilots , and Engineers : The Employer has five mas-
ters, four pilots , and six engineers , who are all unlicensed . The mas-
ters supervise all personnel on the boats and have the authority to hire
and discharge employees . The pilots are second in command to the
masters, are in charge of the boats ' operation in the absence of the mas-
ters, and they have authority effectively to recommend the disciplining
of personnel under their supervision . The engineers are responsible
for the operation of the power machinery running the boats. The
record discloses that all of these employees , although unlicensed, per-
form the same duties as licensed employees in similar classifications.2
Employees in these categories , even though unlicensed , have been re-
garded, both traditionally and by the Board, as officer personnel. As
such, the Board has recognized that their interests are substantially
different from those of the rank and file employees , and has normally
grouped them in conventional units of "masters , mates and pilots,"
and "engineers ," respectively .' We are of the opinion, therefore, that
the unlicensed masters , mates, pilots , and-engineers should be excluded
from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all unlicensed personnel employed by the Employer on
its river boats, excluding masters, mates , pilots, and engineers , and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees , or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appro-
Theie were no mates employed by the Employer at the time of the hewing
2 Since the employees in these classifications operate Diesel powered boats , they are not
required by law to be licensed
8 Matter of Central Barge Company, 61 N L. R B. 784 and 64 N L R . B 1059 , Matter
of Warrior and Gulf Navigation Company , 67 N L R . B. 709 ; Matter of Standard Oil
Company of California, 67 N L R B 506
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Charles Zubick, Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Di-
rection, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
-excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to date of the elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Na-
tional Maritime Union of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HErzOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.