Curtis Bay Towing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 360 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY and MARINE ENGI-
NEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-365
III the Matter of ATLANTIC TRANSPORT COMPANY and MARINE ENGI-
NEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-366
In the Matter of CHESAPEAKE LIGHTERAGE COMPANY and MARINE
ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-367
In the Matter of COTTMAN COMPANY and MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFI-
CIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-368
In the Matter of A. J. HARPER and MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL
ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-369
In the Matter of BAKER-WHITELEY COAL COMPANY and MARINE
ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-370
In the Matter of DONALDSON TOWING AND LIGHTERAGE COMPANY and
MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 5
Case No. R-371
In the Matter of BAKER-WHITELEY COAL COMPANY and MASTERS,
MATES AND PILOTS, LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-372
In the Matter Of CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY and MASTERS, MATES
AND PILOTS, LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-37-3
360
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 361
In the Matter Of CHESAPEAKE LIGHTERAGE COMPANY and MASTERS,
MATES AND PILOTS, LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-371
In the Matter of ATLANTIC TRANSPORT COMPANY and MASTERS, MATES
AND PILOTS, LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-375
In the Matter of COWMAN COMPANY and MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS,
LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-376
In the Matter of A. J. HARPER and MASTERS , MATES AND PILOTS,
LOCAL No. 14
Case No. R-377
Shipping Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning
representation of employees : rival organizations ; controversy as to appropriate
bargaining unit-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : licensed marine
engineers , excluding deck officers ; history of collective bargaining relations
with employer ; history of collective bargaining relations in industry ; occupa-
tional differences ; skill-Jurisdictional Dispute : between two unions affiliated
with same parent body ; petition for investigation of such dispute dismissed-
Labor Organization : Board will not interfere in internal affairs of-Elections
Ordered-Certification of Representatives-Petition Dismissed : no representa-
tive chosen by majority of employees of one company.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Mr. L. Vernon Miller, of Baltimore, Md., for Curtis Bay Towing
Company and Donaldson Towing and Lighterage Company.
Mr. I. Duke Avnet, of Baltimore, Md., for M. E. B. A. and M. M. P.
Mr. Charles Jackson, of Baltimore, Md., and Mr. O. L. Boni f a y,
for I. L. A.
Mary Lemon Schleifer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
December 3, 1937
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 29, 1937, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association
No. 5, herein called M. E. B. A., filed six petitions with the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) alleging that
362 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of the licensed marine engineers employed by Curtis Bay Tow-
ing Company, Atlantic Transport Company, Chesapeake Lighterage
Company, Cottman Company, A. J. Harper and Baker-Whiteley
Coal Company,' all of Baltimore, Maryland. On October 6, 1937,
M. E. B. A. filed a similar petition concerning the representation of
the engineers employed by Donaldson Towing and Lighterage Com-
pany, Baltimore, Maryland. On October 9, 1937, Masters, Mates
and Pilots, Local No. 14, herein called M. M. P., filed six petitions
with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region concerning the
representation of the licensed deck officers employed by the same
companies, concerning which petitions had been filed September 29,
1937, by M. E. B. A. All of the petitions requested the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, to conduct investi-
gations and to certify representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On October 12, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of -National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered investi-
gations and authorized the Regional Director to conduct them and to
provide for appropriate hearings upon due notice, and acting pur-
suant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regula-
tions, further ordered that the cases be consolidated for the purposes
of hearing.
On October 18, 1937, the Regional Director issued notice of a hear-
ing to be held in Baltimore, Maryland, on October 26, 1937. Copies
of the notice of hearing were duly served upon the companies men-
tioned above, M. E. B. A. and M. M. P.
On October 22, 1937, Licensed Tugmen Protective Association.
Local No. 1510, International Longshoremen's Association, herein
called I. L. A., filed a petition requesting permission to intervene.
On October 25, 1937, the Regional Director granted the request of
I. L. A. permitting it to intervene in the proceedings.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Baltimore, Maryland,
on October 26, 1937, before Leo J. Kriz, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, Curtis Bay Towing Company,
Donaldson Towing and Lighterage Company, M. E. B. A., M. M. P.,
and I. L. A. were represented and participated in the hearing. A
representative of each of the other companies testified as a witness
at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was, afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing,
I The Trial Examiner granted motions made at the hearing to amend the notice of
hearing from A. J. Harper Company to A. J. Harper , and to amend the notice of hearing
from Baker Whiteley Company to Baker-Whiteley Coal Company
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 363
counsel for I. L. A. moved to dismiss the petition concerning Donald-
.son Towing and Lighterage Company. Decision was reserved by the
Trial Examiner. The motion is hereby granted, for the reasons
hereinafter set forth. Other motions and objections to the introduc-
tion of certain evidence were made by representatives of the various
parties during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner on such motions and objections
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
A. Curtis Bag, Towing Company
and
Donaldson Towing and Lighterage Company
Curtis Bay Towing Company is a Maryland corporation engaged
in the operation of tugboats in the harbor in Baltimore, Maryland.
Three of the nine tugboats which it operates are owned by the com-
pany; the remaining six are chartered by Curtis Bay Towing Com-
pany on bare boat charters from Donaldson Towing and Lighterage
Company, a Delaware corporation.
The tugboats operated by Curtis Bay Towing Company are en-
gaged in assisting the movement of vessels engaged in interstate and
foreign commerce from dock to dock in the harbor and in towing
barges carrying freight. Freight carried on the barges is in part
taken from railroad terminals to ocean-going vessels in the harbor.
Barges carrying freight- are also taken to railroad terminals by tug-
boats owned by the company and loaded freight cars are towed from
one railroad terminal to another. Eight of the tugboats operated
by the company are licensed to tow outside the State of Maryland,
and occasional trips are made by the company to ports in Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, or the District of Columbia.
Donaldson Towing and Lighterage Company, with the exception
of the tugboats which it charters to Curtis Bay Towing Company,
is otherwise not engaged in any operations in the harbor of Balti-
more, Maryland. Under a bare boat charter, the crews employed in
the operation of the chartered boats are employees of the lessee,
Curtis Bay Towing Company.
B. Atlantic Transport Company
Atlantic Transport Company, a West Virginia corporation, and a
subsidiary Of International Mercantile Marine Company, New York
364 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
City, is engaged in the operation of tugboats and lighters in the har-
bor of Baltimore. The company tows lighters carrying cargo to and
from railroad terminals from and to vessels engaged in interstate and
foreign commerce; also from railroad terminals to various plants and
factories within the harbor. None of the five tugs operated by
Atlantic Transport Company does any towing outside the State of
Maryland.
C. Chesapeake Lighterage Company
Chesapeake Lighterage Company is a Maryland corporation en-
gaged in the general towing and lighterage business in the Baltimore
harbor. Tugs of the company tow lighters carrying freight to and
from railroad terminals from and to ocean-go. ng vessels. The tugs
also tow loaded barges and lighters to factories situated on the har-
bor. The four tugs operated by the company in these activities are
licensed to operate throughout Chesapeake Bay, in addition to the
Baltimore harbor, but have not been used outside the harbor for some
years.
D. Cottman Company
Cottman Company, a Maryland corporation, is engaged in three
sorts of business, as follows, stevedoring, acting as steamship agent
for foreign operators, and operating tugboats and lighters. As
steamship agent, the company makes arrangements for arrival of
foreign vessels, sees that vessels are handled with dispatch, keeps the
owners informed of vessels' positions, and charters freight for car-
riage on such vessels. The tugboat operations, which are carried
on separate and apart from the company's activities as steamship
agent, consist in the docking and undocking of ocean-going vessels,
and in towing barges carrying freight. The tugs of the company
are regularly used to transport freight to Richmond and Norfolk,
Virginia, and to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in addition to their
operations in the Baltimore harbor.
E. A. J. Harper
A. J. Harper, Baltimore, Maryland, owns two tugs which are
employed in the towing of barges carrying freight from various rail-
road terminals - at Baltimore harbor to other points in the harbor.
The freight so towed consists almost entirely of iron ore and coal,
which are towed from such railroad terminals to the plant of the
Bethlehem Steel Company located at Sparrows Point, Maryland.
Iron ore and coal consigned and so towed by A. J. Harper to the
Bethlehem Steel Company come from points outside the State of
Maryland.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 365
F. Baker-Whiteley Coal Company
Baker-Whiteley Coal Company is a West Virginia corporation
engaged in the operation of coal mines in Pennsylvania and of tug-
boats in the harbor at Baltimore, Maryland. The four tugs operated
by the company in the Baltimore harbor are engaged almost ex-
clusively in the docking and undocking of ocean-going vessels in the
harbor and in moving such vessels to various points within the harbor.
On rare occasions these tugs are also used to tow barges within the
harbor. While all tugs operated by the company are licensed to
operate throughout Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the tugs have
not been operated outside of the Baltimore harbor for some years.
In Foster et al. v. Davenport et all. ,2 the Supreme Court of the
United States held that steamers engaged in lightering goods from
steamers in a bay to a wharf and in towing vessels in and out of a
harbor are engaged in interstate commerce. The Court said :
The character of the navigation and business in which it was
employed cannot be distinguished from that in which the vessels
it towed or unloaded were engaged. The lightering or towing
was but the prolongation of the voyage of the vessels assisted
to their port of destination.
As stated above, all of the companies herein involved with the
exception of A. J. Harper are engaged in the towing and lightering
of ocean-going vessels. A. J. Harper, however, is engaged in the
completion of shipments of coal and iron ore from without the State
of Maryland to Bethlehem Steel Company within the State of
Maryland.
We find that Curtis Bay Towing Company, Atlantic Transport
Company, Chesapeake Lighterage Company, Cottman Company,
A. J. Harper, and Baker-Whiteley Coal Company, herein collectively
called the Companies, are engaged in trade, traffic, transportation,
and commerce among the several States, and that the licensed officers
employed by the Companies are directly engaged in such trade, traffic,
transportation, and commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
M. E. B. A. is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization. It admits to membership licensed marine
engineers.
M. M. P. is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor. It admits to membership licensed deck officers.
I. L. A. is likewise a labor organization affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor. Local 1510 chartered by I. L. A. in
2 63 U S. 244 (1859).
366 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August, 1937, admits to membership licensed marine engineers and
licensed deck officers.
III. THE PETITIONS OF M. M. P.
As just previously stated, M. M. P. and I. L. A. are both affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. The petitions filed by
M. M. P. state that I. L. A. likewise seeks to represent the licensed
deck officers employed by the Companies. This claim was also made
by I. L. A. at the hearing. In conformity with our prior decisions 3
refusing to exercise jurisdiction in cases where two unions, each affil-
iated with the same parent body, seek to represent the same employ-
ees, we will refuse to exercise jurisdiction in the dispute between
M. M. P. and I. L. A., and will dismiss the petitions filed by M. M. P.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Al. E. B. A. has for many years represented the licensed marine
engineers in negotiating contracts with the Companies and still claims
the right to represent them. Membership lists and signed authoriza-
tion cards were submitted in evidence by M. E. B. A. at the hearing to
substantiate this claim. I. L. A. likewise submitted in evidence cards
signed by some of the licensed marine engineers employed by each
of the Companies authorizing I. L. A. to represent them. Practically
every card offered in evidence by I. L. A. was that of a person who
had also signed a card within a recent period authorizing M. E. B. A.
to represent him or was claimed by M. E. B. A. to be a member
of that organizatiton. It is obvious that under such circumstances
a question exists as to which of these organizations a majority of the
licensed marine engineers employed by each of the Companies desire
to have represent them.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
the licensed marine engineers employed by each of the Companies,
respectively, and that such questions tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
M. E. B. A. contends that the licensed marine engineers employed
by each of the Companies, respectively, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. I. L. A. on the other hand
contends that all licensed officers, including deck officers, employed
by each of the Companies, respectively, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America and Aluminum Workers Union No.
19104, 1 N L R B 530; Matter of Aston-Fisher Tobacco Company and International
Association of Machinists, Local No. 681, and Tobacco Workers' International Union,
Local No. 16, 1 N. L. R B. 604.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 367
The evidence shows that for many years the Companies have en-
tered into a single yearly contract covering wages and working con-
ditions of both licensed engineers and licensed deck officers. However,
these contracts were negotiated and signed separately by M. E. B. A.
representing the engineers and M. M. P. representing the deck offi-
cers. M. E. B. A. and I. L. A. each point to these contracts to prove
its contention as to the appropriate unit, M. E. B. A. relying on the
separate negotiations and signatures, and I. L. A. on the joint exe-
cution of the contract. I. L. A., in addition, states that certain
working conditions such as hours of employment must be similar for
both types of officers or there cannot be effective operation.
Representatives of the Companies stated that certain working con-
ditions of the two groups must be comparable, but admit that the
qualifications, training and duties of engineers differ greatly from
those of deck officers.
We find no evidence in this record that convinces us that the reasons
which led us to find that licensed engineers constitute a separate
appropriate unit in ocean-going vessels are not equally applicable and
decisive in the case of licensed engineers employed on tugboats .4
In order to insure to the employees the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise to
effectuate the policies of the Act, we find that the licensed marine
engineers employed by each of the Companies, respectively, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As previously stated, M. E. B. A. and I. L. A. each submitted
certain evidence at the hearing, including membership lists and au-
thorization cards, to prove its claim to represent a majority of the
licensed marine engineers employed by each of the Companies. Be-
cause many of these employees have signed cards in both of these
organizations and because of the unsettled labor conditions which
existed among these employees during the time these authorization
cards were signed, we feel that these cards should not be used for
the purposes of certification. We will accordingly direct that elec-
tions by secret ballot be held among these employees. Those eligible
to vote will be the licensed marine engineers who were employed on
September 28, 1937, the date on Which the petitions were filed, by each
of the Companies, respectively, except those who have resigned or
have been discharged for cause since that date.
See Molter of Panama Rail Road Company and Marine Engineers' Beneficial Asso-
ciation, 2 N. L R B 290.
368 NITION.\L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following conclusions of
law:
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of the licensed marine engineers employed by each of the
Companies, respectively, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The licensed marine engineers employed by each of the Com-
panies, respectively , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449 , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigations , authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within a
period of fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction of Elec-
tions, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region , acting in this matter as agent of the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the licensed marine engineers em-
ployed by Curtis Bay Towing Company, Atlantic Transport Com-
pany, Chesapeake Lighterage Company, Cottman Company, A. J.
Harper and Baker-Whiteley Coal Company, respectively, on Sep-
tember 28, 1937, except those who have since quit or been discharged
for cause , to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Association or by International Long-
shoremen's Association for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither.
ORDER
The petitions filed by Masters , Mates and Pilots, Local No. 14, for
investigation and certification of representatives of the licensed deck
officers employed by Baker-Whiteley Coal Company, Curtis Bay Tow-
ing Company , Chesapeake Lighterage Company , Atlantic Transport
Company, Cottman Company and A . J. Harper are hereby dis-
missed.
a DECISIONS AND ORDERS
f SAME TITLE]
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND
ORDER
369
January 10, 1938
Pursuant to the Direction of Elections issued by the Board on
December 3, 1937, the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Balti-
more, Maryland) conducted elections on December 11, 1937, among
the licensed marine engineers employed by each of the above-named
employers. On December 17, 1937, the said Regional Director act-
ing pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued and duly
served upon the parties an Intermediate Report on each of the elec-
tions. No objections or exceptions to the Intermediate Reports have
been filed by any of the parties.
As to the results of the balloting, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Curtis Bay Towing Company
Number eligible to vote_______________________________________________
Number of ballots cast________________________________________________
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association----
13
12
12
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen' s Association____ 0
Number of votes in favor of neither organization________________________ 0
Number of blank ballots_______________________________________________ 0
Number of void ballots ------------------------------------------ 0
Number of challenged ballots___________________________________________ 0
Atlantic Transport Company
Number eligible to vote_________________________________________________ 6
Number of ballots cast------------------------------------------------- 6
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association----- 5
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen's Association____ 1
Number of votes in favor of neither organization_________________________ 0
Number of blank ballots_______________________________________________ 0
Number of void ballots_________________________________________________ 0
Number of challenged ballots___________________________________________ 0
Chesapeake Lighterage Company
Number eligible to vote________________________________________________
Number of ballots cast_________________________________________________
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association_____
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen's Association----
Number of votes in favor of neither organization________________________
Number of blank ballots_______________________________________________
Number of void ballots_________________________________________________
Number of challenged ballots___________________________________________
370 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cottman Company
Number eligible to vote------------------------------------------------
Number of ballots cast-------------------------------------------------
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association---- 8
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen's Association_____ 0
Number of votes in favor of neither organization________________________ 0
Number of blank ballots_______________________________________________
Number of void ballots_________________________________________________
Number of challenged ballots___________________________________________
A. J. Harper
Number eligible to vote________________________________________________
Number of ballots cast_________________________________________________
8
8
0
0
0
3
3
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association____ 0
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen's Association____ 3
Number of votes in favor of neither organization________________________ 0
Number of blank ballots -----------------------------------------------
Number of void ballots-------------------------------------------------
Number of challenged ballots__________________________________ _________
0
0
0
Baker-Whiteley Coal Company
Number eligible to vote________________________________________________ 6
Number of ballots cast_________________________________________________ 6
Number of votes in favor of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association--___ 0
Number of votes in favor of International Longshoremen's Association-___ 6
Number of votes in favor of neither organization________________________ 0
Number of blank ballots_______________________________________________
Number of void ballots-------------------------------------------------
Number of challenged ballots___________________________________________
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
0
0
0
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and
9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Marine Engineers' Beneficial Associa-
tion has been selected by a majority of the licensed marine engineers
employed by Curtis Bay Towing Company, Atlantic Transport Com-
pany, and Cottman Company, respectively, all of Baltimore, Mary-
land, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association is the exclu-
sive representative of all such employees of each of said employers,
respectively, for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment; and
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion has been selected by a majority of the licensed marine engineers
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 371
employed by A. J. Harper and Baker-Whiteley Coal Company, re-
spectively, both of Baltimore, Maryland, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9
(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, International Longshore-
men's Association is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees of each of said employers, respectively, for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
ORDER
Pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by Marine Engineers' Beneficial
Association No. 5 for investigation and certification of representa-
tives of the licensed marine engineers employed by Chesapeake Light-
erage Company, Baltimore, Maryland, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Certification of Representatives and Order.