Connie Jean, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1609 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CONNIE JEAN,-INC. 1609
3. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), or (5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed.
Connie Jean, Inc. and Cannery Workers & Fishermen 's Union of
San Diego, AFL-CIO
Fishermen 's Union Local 33, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen 's Union ( Connie Jean , Inc.) and Cannery Work-
ers & Fishermen 's Union of San Diego , AFL-CIO. Cases 21-
CA-7092 and f1-CB-2693. February 13,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 14, 1966, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Louis S. Penfield in San Diego , California, on April 28, 1966 , upon a consolidated
complaint of the General Counsel and answers by Connie Jean, Inc., herein called
Respondent Employer , and Fishermen's Union Local 33, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union , herein called Respondent Union .' The issues
'The complaint issued on April 8, 1966. The complaint is based on an original charge
in Case 21-CA-7092 filed on February 21, 1966, and an amended charge in the same case
filed on April 7, 1966 , and a charge in Case 21-CB-2692 filed on February 21, 1966
Copies of the complaint , the charges , and the amended charge have been duly served upon
Respondents.
162 NLRB No. 154.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
litigated were whether Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3), and whether Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.2
Upon the entire record, including consideration of briefs filed by the General
Counsel and Respondent Union,3 and upon my observation of the witnesses I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent Employer is a corporation which owns and operates a fishing vessel
named the Connie Jean. The vessel is a new one, and it was scheduled to sail on
its maiden voyage on or about the first week of May 1966 from San Diego,
California. Thereafter Respondent Employer by using the Connie Jean planned to
engage in the business of tuna fishing on the high seas. It was anticipated that in
the course and conduct of such business Respondent Employer in a 12-month
period to commence in the first week of May 1966, would catch tuna valued in
excess of $50,000 which it would sell to fish canneries located in the State of
California. It was agreed that such fish canneries annually ship directly to points
located outside the State of California canned fish and other products valued in
excess of $50,000. On the basis of the foregoing I find Respondent Employer to
be engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding to be warranted.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union and Cannery Workers & Fishermen's Union of San Diego,
AFL-CIO, herein called Cannery Workers, are each labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2T5) of the Act.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The central issue in this proceeding , arising on substantially undisputed facts,
is whether Respondent Employer and Respondent Union violated the Act by the
execution of a collective -bargaining agreement on February 16, 1966. The General
Counsel asserts the contract to have been executed at a time when two unions
were advancing conflicting claims to representation of the crew of the Connie Jean.
The General Counsel asserts that under the circumstances a real question concern-
ing the representation of the crew existed , and that the execution of the contract
and its later enforcement constituted unlawful assistance and discrimination by
Respondent Employer , and constituted unlawful coercive and discriminatory con-
duct by Respondent Union . Respondent Employer and Respondent Union defend
their actions by (1) denying the existence of a real question concerning repre-
sentation at the time the agreement was executed , and by (2) asserting that even
in the face of conflicting claims the execution of a collective-bargaining contract
with a union representing a majority in an appropriate unit is not unlawful absent
a showing of coercion or other independent acts of assistance.
A. The background of the dispute
For many years prior to the fall of 1965, Eugene Cabral had been part owner
and master of a tuna fishing vessel known as the Ecuador. In recent years the
crew of the Ecuador had been represented for collective-bargaining purposes by
Cannery Workers, and had been covered by a collective-bargaining contract
which, among other things, contained a union-security clause. It is the uniform
practice in the tuna fishing industry for the master of a vessel to hire and termi-
nate the crew. The conclusion of a particular voyage, however, will not ordinarily
result in termination of the employment relationship, but the crew members will
continue working at various tasks preparing the vessel for the next voyage which
will ordinarily follow shortly after the sale of the catch. In October 1965, when
the Ecuador had completed a voyage, Cabral did terminate the employment of his
2 The General Counsel filed a motion to correct the ti anscript in certain particulars. No
opposition has been received , and the corrections are deemed appropriate . Accordingly the
motion is hereby granted.
s Respondent Employer signified that it joined in the positions taken by Respondent
Union.
CONNIE JEAN, INC. 1611
entire crew because he was selling his interest in the Ecuador and no longer
planned to continue as its master. At the time Cabral was part owner of the
corporation which had the Connie Jean under construction, and it was planned
that he would sail as its master when the vessel was completed. In October it was
anticipated that the ship might be ready to sail by January 1966. Actually the
vessel was not completed until sometime later, and, as we have seen, at the time
of the hearing it had not yet gone out on its maiden voyage, although this was
expected to take place during the first week in May.
There were a total of 12 members who comprised the crew of the Ecuador
when it completed its last voyage with Cabral as its master. When these crew
members were terminated a number of them asked Cabral if they might have
employment with him on the Connie Jean when it was ready to sail. Cabral
replied "if they were in [he] would give them preference over someone else."
B. The representation claims and the signing of the contract
On January 19, 1966, Cannery Workers filed a petition with the Board's
Regional Office in a proceeding entitled Case 21-RC-9906, claiming to represent
the crew of the Connie Jean. On February 4, 1966, the Regional Director dis-
missed this petition setting forth that the question concerning representation sought
to be raised thereby was premature "inasmuch as the fishing vessel involved was
still under construction and its crew had not been hired." In a letter dated Febru-
ary 9, 1966, counsel for the Cannery Workers advised Cabral that despite the
dismissal of such petition he was being "put on notice that said union has and
claims an interest in representing the crew members of the boat when the crew
has been hired."
By mid-February, the Connie Jean was still in Tacoma with final outfitting
not yet completed. It is the usual industry practice that crews for a vessel will
be hired in advance of sailing, and that crew members thus hired will be expected
to work on the nets and other things which relate to the preparation of a voyage.
Crew members receive no compensation for this advance work, but are com-
pensated solely by shares in the catch at the end of a voyage. Custom, however,
dictates that the employment relationship commences on the date when they first
report for voyage preparation. On or about February 9, Cabral communicated
by telephone with various persons who had signified an interest in becoming crew
members of the Connie Jean. He made arrangements that 10 persons were to
report on February 15 to work on nets which were to be used on the Connie Jean
when it sailed. Of the 10 reporting on this date, 8 had been members of the
Ecuador crew on its final voyage, and it stands undisputed that the 10 persons
were on this day hired as crew members of the Connie Jean.4
When the 10 crew members reported on February 15, to commence work on
the nets, Cabral addressed them as a group stating that "they would probably be,
confronted by the Unions today and [he] said that [he] assumed that there would
be two unions and [he] said of the two unions [he] would prefer the ILWU
(Respondent Union)." Cabral did not mention Cannery Workers by name. At
about 9 or 10 a.m., after the crew had commenced its work on the nets, Cabral
was approached by John Royal, a representative of Respondent Union. Royal
requested, and was granted, permission to talk to the crew members. Cabral was
not approached at this or any later time by any representative of Cannery
Workers, and he took no steps to notify Cannery Workers that he had hired a
crew. On the same day, Royal obtained the signatures of eight of the crew mem-
bers to a petition on which they purported to "designate the Fishermen Union
Local 33, ILWU, as [their] collective bargaining representative" and to authorize
such union to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes with Respondent
Employer. Seven of the eight who signed such petition had been members of the
crew of the Ecuador on its last voyage. All seven of course had been members in
good standing of Cannery Workers while sailing on the Ecuador. Membership records
of Cannery Workers indicate that each of the eight of the former Ecuador crew
hired on the Connie Jean was at the time of hiring listed on the books of the
Cannery Workers as a member in good standing. Some had paid additional dues
since termination of the last voyage of the Ecuador, but others had not, and pre-
sumably their membership might have lapsed in the near future, pursuant to the
provisions of the constitution of Cannery Workers, if they had not paid the
additional dues.
* The Connie Jean expected to have a crew of 13 when it eventually sailed. Others were
hired at a later date.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- On the same or the following day, Royal showed the petition with the signa
tures of the crew members to Cabral, and on February 16, between 4 and 5 p.m.,
Cabral met with representatives of Respondent Union and executed a 3-year con-
tract, including, among other things, a union-security clause, purporting to cover
the crew of the Connie Jean. On February 21, 1966, Cannery Workers filed
another representation proceeding with the Board purporting to cover crew mem-
bers of the Connie Jean. This proceeding is presently being held in abeyance pend-
ing resolution of the unfair labor practice charges presently before us.
C. Discussion of the issues and conclusions
The single issue in this proceeding concerns the applicability of the Board's
so-called Midwest Piping Doctrine.5 At the outset it should be noted that there
is no allegation of any coercive act by Respondent Employer, nor is it claimed
that Respondent Employer engaged in any act of assistance other than the signing
of the collective-bargaining agreement on February 16 and its subsequent enforce-
ment. The alleged violation by Respondent Union is purely derivative, stemming
solely from the fact that it demanded, entered into, and enforced an agreement
which was not lawful under the circumstances. Cannery Workers claim repre-
sentation in the same bargaining unit ,- and the General Counsel does not question
that a majority of the crew hired on February 15 signed a petition on the same
date designating Respondent Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
Thus it is the exclusive recognition accorded Respondent Union by the execution
of the agreement occurring in the setting in which it did that alone establishes
the unfair labor practices if any there be.
Respondent Union and Respondent Employer first assert the Midwest Piping
doctrine to be inapplicable because the representation claim of Cannery Workers is
of such an inconclusive nature that it will not support a finding that a real
question concerning representation existed when the contract was executed. Let
us first examine the rationale of the Midwest Piping doctrine itself, and then con-
sider its application to the facts'at hand.
The Midwest Piping doctrine is a well established one which has been the
subject of many decisions by both the Board and the courts. Essentially, Midwest
Piping and the cases that have applied it stand for the proposition that an
employer confronted with rival claims by two unions to represent his employees
interferes with the rights of the employees when he resolves the question of repre-
sentation by extending recognition and executing a contract with one or the other
of the rival unions. The doctrine rests on the premise that a grant of exclusive
recognition affecting, as it does, all employees in the unit must only follow the
free choice of a representative by a majority of the employees themselves, and
that where an employer awards such recognition to one of two rivals under circum-
stances in which the choice of the employees has not been reliably established,
he has given assistance to the recognized -union and interfered with the rights of
his employees. Thus it is held that where rival unions are competing for representa-
tion but the only evidence of the choice of employees is found in possibly con-
flicting designations, such designations are to be regarded as unreliable, and the
choice of an exclusive representative must await an appropriate election. Section
9 of the statute and the resultant Board election machinery are designed essentially
to resolve issues of just this nature, and to provide means for determining beyond
reasonable doubt which, if either, of the competing labor organizations the
employees actually wish to represent them. Thus a so-called Midwest Piping viola-
tion results when an employer fails to turn to such machinery but arrogates unto
himself the determination of the issue of representation. Board cases have uni-
formly followed a rule that recognition alone under such circumstances, even if not
accompanied by other independent acts of coercion or assistance, will suffice to
establish a violation.6
The doctrine, however, has its qualifications. It is not unlawful for an employer
voluntarily to recognize a union without resorting to Board machinery if, in fact,
6 The doctrine takes its name from the lead case, Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc , 63
NLRB 1060.
6 Midwest Piping & Supply Co , Inc , supra ;'Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573,
Pittsburgh Valve Company, et al , 114 NLRB 193; Brittany Dyeing and Printing Corp,
126 NLRB 785 ; Air Master, Inc, et at, 142 NLRB 181.
CONNIE JEAN, INC. 1613
such union represents a majority in an appropriate unit and no real issue of con-
flicting rival claims is presented? Thus an unsupported or specious claim , or even
a valid and supported claim of which the employer had no knowledge will not
invoke the doctrine. The Midwest Piping case itself involved two unions openly
competing for the allegiance of the employees, a fact which was well known to
the employer when it accorded one of them recognition. Respondents argue that
in the instant case there is no clear cut evidence of open rivalry for the allegiance
of the crew members, and in addition that the only evidence which exists that the
crew members desire Cannery Workers to represent them is of such an incon-
clusive nature that it will not support a representation claim. Respondents insist
that dual membership in the industry is not uncommon, and the fact that the
majority -of the crews were technically still members in good standing of Cannery
Workers when the contract was signed does not establish that they wished Cannery
Workers to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes with Respondent
Employer.
It is argued that this constitutes insufficient basis to support a finding that a real
question concerning representation of employees by rival organizations existed. I
do not agree.
When Cabral signed the contract with Respondent Union he was well aware
that a majority of the crew hired for the Connie Jean had not only been members
of, but had been represented by, Cannery Workers on the Ecuador. The crew was
a small one whose members knew Cabral personally, and there is no showing that
any one of them had affirmatively signified to Cabral that he had shifted his alle-
giance. Cannery Workers undoubtedly had learned that Cabral had signified his
intention to give preference to former Ecuador crew members, and it had taken
all possible steps to apprise Cabral of its continuing claim to represent them. It
filed a petition which was dismissed only 11 days before the crew was hired. The
petition was dismissed not as unsupported by a showing of representation, but
because it was premature.8 Cannery Workers followed the dismissal with a letter
asserting its continuing claim to representation. Cabral himself not only recognized
that the two unions might be competing-for the allegiance of the crew, but he also
announced such fact to the crew at the time it was hired, simultaneously stating
that of the two he preferred Respondent Union. While Cabral permitted Respond-
ent Union to address the crew, he made no effort to notify Cannery Workers that
a crew had even been hired. Instead he accepted as determinative the designations
on a petition signed after his statement of preference and immediately, without
seeking to use Board machinery or even notifying Cannery Workers, signed a con-
tract with Respondent Union containing a union security provision. We may regard
Cabral's statement of preference containing, as it did, no promise of benefit or
threat of reprisal as privileged under Section 8(c), and hence not unlawfully
coercive, but we need not ignore it as a factor calculated to influence the crew to
favor the preferred union. The issue here does not center on coercion or even
preference, but the vice attacked is arrogation by an employer of the choice of an
employee representative under circumstances where there is no clearly reliable
measure that it is the true choice of the employees. There is no showing that Board
representation machinery was not readily available or that economic necessities or
other matters would have rendered its use either impractical or burdensome. When
we consider the past relationship between Cabral and the very same employees
which he hired as the crew of the Connie Jean, the past relationship that each had
7 Even in a one-union situation, however, a voluntary grant of exclusive recognition to
a. union which is not in fact a choice of the majority will in itself be an unlawful inter-
ference with employee rights and unlawful assistance because, as pointed out above, the
Act requires that the choice be that of the majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit, and not that of the employer even though he may honestly believe that a majority
has chosen the union recognized.
s The Board does require that representation petitions filed by unions be supported by
a showing that at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit have indicated that they
wish the petitioning union to represent them. This showing may be in the form of signed
designation cards, a signed petition,-or membership records The membership records here
show all eight of-the former Ecuador crew members were still members in*good standing
at the time the petition was filed as well as when the contract was signed There can be
no doubt but that under standard Board'practice such evidence would have sufficed to meet
its interest showing requirements
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Cannery Workers and Cabral's full knowledge of its nature, Cabral's state-
ment of preference and his precipitant recognition of the preferred union, the con-
clusion becomes inescapable that Respondent had not seen fit to leave the choice
to the employees, but that faced with a real question concerning representation he
had elected to make his own choice without regard to whether the designation of
Respondent Union represented the true wishes of the crew. Under the circum-
stances, the case appears to fall squarely within the rationale of the Midwest
Piping doctrine, and I so find.
Respondent argues further that even if it be found that the Midwest Piping
doctrine as heretofore enunciated is appilcable to the facts of this case, the doctrine
itself should be reconsidered and no violation should be found absent evidence
that the employer had influenced the choice by acts of coercion and assistance
over and above the mere act of recognition and signing an agreement. Respondent
cites a number of cases decided by courts of appeal in several circuits that appear
to point in this direction.9 I will not attempt to analyze or possibly to distinguish
any of these court cases, for even if it be assumed that each stands for the prop-
osition which respondents assert, I note no case in which the Board has adopted
a rationale of this nature. On the contrary, as noted above the Board has con-
sistently and for many years adhered to the view that where a real question con-
cerning representation exists, the principle to be applied is that recognition alone
without any extrinsic additional evidence of coercion or assistance is sufficient to
establish the violation. Even if expressions by courts are properly construed to
reach a contrary conclusion, I would regard myself as bound by such Board
precedent.lo
Having found the Midwest Piping principle to be applicable to the factual situa-
tion presented in this case, I further find that Respondent Employer, by executing
and maintaining the contract with Respondent Union, has assisted Respondent
Union in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act, that by entering into and enforc-
ing as contract with union-security provisions it has discriminated against its employ-
ees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and that by the same conduct
it has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that by accepting recognition and entering into
and maintaining the contract with Respondent Employer, as described above,
Respondent Union has caused Respondent Employer to discriminate in regard to
its employees in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, and has restrained and
coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent Employer 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) by recognizing and entering into a contract with Respondent Union while
there was a question concerning representation, and by enforcing and maintaining
such contract which contained a union-security clause, I shall recommend that
Respondent Employer cease and desist from enforcing and maintaining such con-
tract and withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent Union, or any
successor, as the collective-bargaining representative of the crew of the Connie
lean unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified by the
Board. Having found that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2)
9 Cleaver-Brook Mfg . Corp . v. N.L.R.B., 264 F.2d 637 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 361 U.S. 817;
District 50 UMW v. N.L.R.B., 234 F 2d 565 (C.A. 4) ; N.L R.B. v. Air Master Corporation,
et at., 339 F 2d 553 (C.A. 3) ; N.L.R.B. v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 210 F.2d 510
(C.A. 7) ; N.L R.B. v. Swift A Company, 294 F .2d 285 (C.A. 3) ; N.LR.B. v. North Electrie
Company, 296 F.2d 137 (CA. 6). No case decided by the Court of Appeals for Circuit 9
In which the instant case arises has either been urged or found.
10 Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573.
CONNIE JEAN, INC. 1615
by demanding and accepting recognition from, and entering into a contract with
Respondent Employer while there was a question concerning representation, and
by enforcing and maintaining a contract which contained a union-security clause,
I shall recommend that the Respondent Union cease and desist from enforcing
and maintaining such contract and from demanding or accepting recognition from
Respondent Employer as the collective-bargaining representative of the crew of
the Connie Jean unless and until it shall have been certified by the Board.
Because of the narrow scope of the unfair labor practices found herein, I shall
recommend a narrow cease and desist order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union and Cannery Workers are each labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. A question concerning representation existed among the crew members of
the Connie Jean at all times between their employment on February 15, 1966, and
the signing of the agreement between Respondent Union and Respondent Employer
as described above.
4. By recognizing and entering into a contract with Respondent Union, while
there was a question concerning representation, and by enforcing and maintaining
such contract, which contained a union-security clause, Respondent Employer
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) of the Act.
5. By demanding and accepting recognition from and entering into a contract
with Respondent Employer while there was a question concerning representation
and by enforcing and maintaining the contract which contained a union-security
clause, Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that:
A. Connie Jean, Inc. and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing or contracting with Respondent Fishermen's Union Local 33,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, or any successor
thereto, as the statutory representative of the crew of the Connie Jean until such
labor organization shall have been certified by the Board.
(b) Enforcing or maintaining its collective-bargaining contract with Fishermen's
Union Local 33, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union entered
into on February 16, 1966, or any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal
thereof unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of the crew of the Connie Jean.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the
crew members of the Connie Jean in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Fishermen's Union Local 33,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, or any successor
thereto, unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified by the
Board as the statutory representative of the crew members of the Connie Jean.
(b) Post at appropriate places on the vessel Connie Jean, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the
n In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words , "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to the crew are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Employer to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this' Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.12
B. Fishermen's Union Local 33, International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Demanding or accepting recognition from or contracting with Connie Jean,
Inc. for the crew of the vessel Connie Jean as the statutory representative of such
crew members until it shall have been certified by the Board as such representative.
(b) Enforcing or maintaining its collective -bargaining contract with Connie
Jean, Inc., entered into on February 16,.1966, or any modifications, extensions,
supplements, or renewals thereof unless and until it shall have been certified by the
Board as the statutory representative of the crew members of the Connie Jean.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Connie
Jean , Inc. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls and mail to each of the crew members
of the Connie' Jean copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 13 Copies
of such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21
after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained for a period of 60 days thereafter in conspic-
uous places, including such places where notices to members are customarily posted,
and immediately mailed by regular mail to crew members of the Connie Jean at
their last known addresses. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union
to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent Union has taken
to comply herewith.14
IT Is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision and Recommended Order, Respondents notify the Regional Direc-
tor that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor
Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondents to take the action aforesaid.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
is See footnote 11.
14 See footnote 12.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended- Order of'a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Cannery Workers & Fishermen's
Union of San Diego, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by discrim-
inating as to the hire, tenure, or other terms or conditions of employment of
any of our employees.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Fishermen's Union
Local 33, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen'.s Union as the
exclusive representative of our employees, and WE WILL NOT enforce the con-
.tract entered into with such union on February 16, 1962, unless and until such
union is .certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive re-
presentative of the crew members of the Connie Jean.
LOCAL NO. 825, OPERATING ENGINEERS 1617
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the rights of
our employees as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
CONNIE JEAN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5229.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT demand or accept recognition from or contract with Connie
Jean, Inc. as the representative of the crew members of the vessel Connie
Jean, nor will we enforce the contract entered into with Connie Jean , Inc. on
or about February 16, 1966, unless and until we have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such crew
members.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, restrain or coerce crew mem-
bers of the Connie Jean in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
FISHERMEN'S UNION LOCAL 33, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5229.
Local No. 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and Burns & Roe, Inc.
Local No. 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and White Construction Company. Cases 4-CC-359 and
4-CD-144. February 13, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 28, 1966, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
162 NLRB No. 155.
264-047-67-vol. 162-103