General Marine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1395
grievances, was not granting concessions lending additional prestige
to the Union, but was merely permitting the incumbent union to
continue to administer its contract, as it was required to do. While
the Employer's agreement to make any subsequently granted wage
increase retroactive might, standing by itself, be vulnerable, its effect
was totally dissipated and effectively neutralized by its letter to the
opposing union, thereafter fully publicized, explaining that the Em-
ployer would negotiate on an identical retroactive basis with which-
ever union won the election.
Nor can we agree that the circumstances surrounding Teamsters'
acquisition of bargaining status or the execution of its contract may
be considered to add "significance" to the Employer's conduct. As
those circumstances occurred before the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election, consideration of their significance in connection with
objections to the election is contrary to the rule adopted in F. W.
Woolworth Company." The Board there held that, in the interest
of insuring equitable and orderly administration of the Act, election
objections based upon interference which occurs prior to the issuance
of the decision and direction of election will not be considered by the
Board.
Accordingly, as the Employer's conduct did not, in our opinion,
interfere with the employees' free choice in the election, we would
adopt the Regional Director's recommendations, overrule the objec-
tions, and certify Teamsters as the bargaining representative of these
employees.
11109 NLRB 1446. See also National Furniture Company , Inc., 119 NLRB 1.
General Marine Corporation and Seafarers International Union
of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District , AFL-CIO. Case
No. 15-CA-946. June 13, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 30, 1957 , Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceedings , finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and the Respondent filed a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
120 NLRB No. 185.
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
'Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
-of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, General Marine Corpora-
tion, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Preparing revocations, distributing them to employees, per-
mitting the use of its office for signing them, participating in their
execution by witnessing them or in any other way, or inviting em-
ployees to forward signed revocations to its office.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment by threatening
to close down its business if the Union organized its employees.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Seafarers' International
Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(a) Cause, at its expense, the notice hereto attached marked
"Appendix All to be reproduced and mailed to each of its present
employees at their jobs.
(b) Post at its office at Harvey, Louisiana, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana) shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Company's representative, be posted by said Company immediately
upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecu-
1 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ex-
tended the Board's jurisdiction to commerce between States of the United States and
points on the outer Continental Shelf. We find , as did the Trial Examiner , that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. In so finding we rely upon
the fact that the services rendered by Respondent outside the State of Louisiana meet
the Board's direct outflow standards.
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order," the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1397
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that such notice is not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act and the policies of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT prepare revocation slips or forms to assist our
employees in withdrawing their authorizations to Seafarers In-
ternational Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District,
AFL-CIO, to represent them for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
WE WILL NOT distribute revocation slips for forms to our
employees.
WE WILL NOT permit the use of our office for the signing of
revocation slips or forms.
WE WILL NOT participate in the execution of any revocation slips
or forms by witnessing them or in any other way.
WE WILL NOT invite our employees to forward signed revocation
slips or forms to our office.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment by
threatening to close down our business if the above-named Union
organizes them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Seafarers In-
ternational Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members of the above-named Union or any other labor or-
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
National Labor Relations Act.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------ ---------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 (herein called the Act), was heard in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on May 7 and 8, 1957, pursuant to notice to all the parties. The com-
plaint, issued on April 4, 1957, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board' and based on charges duly filed and served, alleged that the Re-
spondent, General Marine Corporation, had engaged in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The complaint alleged that during
July 1956, Respondent advised its employees that it would close down its business
if the Company was organized by a union; prepared and distributed a form re-
voking the employees' designation of the Union as a collective-bargaining agent,
and solicited and urged employees who had, and who had not, signed union
designations, to sign the revocation form, and submit it to Respondent, and assisted
them in executing it; solicited and urged employees to abandon their union mem-
bership and activities. In its answer Respondent denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Prior to the hearing the General Counsel moved that certain paragraphs of the
answer be stricken and that certain matters alleged in the complaint be deemed
to be admitted and found to be true. The motion to strike was granted and action
on the motion for summary judgment deferred to the opening of the hearing.
At that time the motion for summary judgment was denied and the Respondent was
permitted to amend its answer.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence,
to argue orally, and to file briefs. No party made oral argument. The General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs, which have been carefully considered. Some-
time after the conclusion of the hearing, I sent the parties an order to show cause
why certain additional information relating to the Board's jurisdiction over the
Continental Shelf should not be supplied to the record, either by stipulation or
by reopening the hearing. Respondent filed an objection to the order, in sub-
stance refusing to stipulate and objecting to reopening the hearing. The General
Counsel filed an answer to the order giving it as his opinion that the record had
sufficient evidence upon which to base the Board's jurisdiction. (My order, Re-
spondent's objection, and the General Counsel's answer, have been placed in the
exhibit file as Trial Examiner's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, and 3.) In view of these re-
actions to the order, in order to minimize the cost of this proceeding, and upon
further consideration of the evidence in the record, I have decided not to reopen
the hearing to take further testimony.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
1 The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him at the hearing are
referred to herein as the General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board as
the Board.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1399
Ii. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE QUESTION OF THE
BOARD'S,JURISDICTION
A. Respondent's business
General Marine Corporation, a Louisiana corporation, is engaged in the busi-
ness of rendering "boatel service" in the offshore oil industry in the Gulf of
Mexico. General Marine's president, Wallace M. Taylor, defined "boatel service"
as "a contractor service of operating stewards departments on oil rigs." It fur-
nished, prepared, and served food, furnished utensils on which to prepare and eat
or drink it, and kept the living quarters clean for the employees who worked on
oil rigs and "drilling tenders" which served rigs. Respondent was a subcontractor
for the feeding of "both the Marine personnel on the tenders and the drilling per-
sonnel." in July 1956, its 275 employees performed these services on 20 to 25
"jobs" located over an area 600 miles in length-a . few "inland ," a few "in the
bayous," and most of them "in the Gulf"-from Port Aransas Pass, Texas (lust
northeast of Corpus Christi) to the Venice area near the mouth of the Mississippi
River, either in, or offshore, Louisiana. [Emphasis supplied.]
Respondent has raised these questions: (1) whether the Board has jurisdiction
herein; and (2) whether, assuming the Board has jurisdiction, the Board will as-
sert jurisdiction under its present jurisdictional standards.
During 1956, for rendering its boatel service on 4 drilling tenders located either
in Louisiana or the Continental Shelf opposite Louisiana, under contract with Con-
tinental Oil Company , Respondent received in excess of $900,000 . In making this
contract Continental was acting as the operator in a joint venture with three other
oil companies. As of December 31, 1956, Continental held 218,000 net acres in
the area offshore from Louisiana and Texas, a portion of which was held in an un-
divided interest with Cities Service Company, Atlantic Refining Company and
Tidewater Refining Company. This portion was referred to as "CATC." The
parties stipulated in substance that a statement supplied by an attorney for Con-
tinental contained the truth. This statement contained the following: "CATC is
not a corporate or business entity , but is merely a convenient term using the re-
spective initials to indicate a group of leases in which the named companies, each,
own an undivided twenty-five percent interest. These four companies have desig-
nated Continental as the operator (in certain specified areas offshore Louisiana).
Accordingly (in those specified areas), Continental performs the duties of exploring
for and producing crude oil and natural gas on such leases; the oil and gas so pro-
duced is the property of the individually named companies." The parties stipulated
also that the following is the truth:
The expenses of the joint venture and partnership known as CATC are shared
equally by Cities Service, Atlantic, Tidewater and Continental. The expenses
are estimated for the ensuing month and that amount of cash put up by the
partners. All expenses of operating are paid by Continental from this fund.
At the end of the month Continental renders the partners an operating re-
port and if this shows a deficiency, the partners put up this amount pro rata.
If there is a surplus, it is credited to next month's operation. Any expense
item above $25,000 must be approved by all and also the location of any drill-
ing operations must be approved by all partners.
During 1956 Continental purchased from points outside of Louisiana, for use
in Louisiana , material and supplies valued in excess of $5,000,000 . During 1956,
in addition, Continental purchased from points outside Louisiana, for use in con-
nection with the CATC operations, pipe and casing valued in excess of $2,000,000.
During 1956 Continental manufactured at its Lake Charles, Louisiana, refinery,
products valued in excess of $95,000,000, of which products valued in excess of
$60,000,000 were sold and shipped to points outside of Louisiana.
In addition, during 1956, Respondent rendered its boatel service, "which we define
as a contractor service . . ." to the drilling operations of the Brewster-Bartle Drilling
Company located in the Gulf of Mexico off of Port Aransas Pass, Texas, which
is just northeast of Corpus Christi. For these services Respondent received in
excess of $84,000.
It is clear that here Respondent's services, including the serving of food to
the crews , were rendered to the drilling companies under contract , and that its
services were therefore nonretail in character. Jerry's Restaurant, Case No.
12-RM-3, issued May 31, 1957 (not published); Potash Mines Transportation
Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1295, 1296; see J. S. Latta & Son, 114 NLRB 1248,
1249; see also, C. R. Brown d/b/a C. R. Brown Cafeterias, 115 NLRB 1772. Re-
spondent's services offshore Texas were under the supervision of its home office
in Louisiana ( its only office insofar as the record shows ). Respondent's president
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that Respondent had no office in Texas. Under the circumstances of this
case , the Board applies its nonretail standards . Barring any other considerations,
Respondent's operation in or offshore Louisiana satisfies the Board 's indirect out-
flow standard , in that it sells more than $ 100,000 worth of service to Continental
which has more than $60,000,000 outflow. Its contract was with Continental, it
served Continental 's employees exploring on leases in which Continental owned an
undivided one-quarter interest and from which Continental owned presumably one-
quarter of the gas and oil. In the view at least of Continental 's attorney its relation-
ship with the other three oil companies "is not a corporate or business entity," and
it appears , in any case, that CATC did not take title to the oil and gas produced
but that the companies did. Under all the circumstances it is clear that Respondent
had a direct business relationship with Continental , that the value of Respondent's
service to Continental was one-quarter of $900 ,000 or $225,000 , which is in excess
of the Board's minimum of $ 100,000 for indirect outflow.2
.Barring any other considerations , also, Respondent 's operation in or offshore
Texas satisfies the Board 's direct outflow standard , in that Respondent sells more
than $50,000 worth of services directly outside of Louisiana. The T. H. Rogers
Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732; Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110
NLRB 481; Whippany Motor Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 52. See also Coastwide
Service, Inc., 15-RC-1543, issued June 20, 1957 (not published).
But there are other considerations in the case , squarely raised by Respondent,
relating to the Board 's jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf. These problems
are considered below.
B. The Continental Shelf
The record does not disclose exactly where the drillings operations served by
Respondent were located off Louisiana and Texas and it does not therefore appear
whether they were located in Louisiana , Texas, or in an area under the jurisdiction
and control of the United States. In its brief Respondent contended that the
operations off Port Aransas Pass were being carried on in an area beyond the
jurisdiction of Texas and under the jurisdiction and control of the United States.
Respondent 's president testified in substance that Brewster -Bartle's operations being
served by Respondent were located between 10 and 20 miles off the Texas shore,
but that he did not know where the shoreline was, to start measuring from . Present
law establishes the boundary along the line of the historic boundary of the State,
which Texas claims to be 3 leagues or about 101/2 miles from the nearest point
of land. As to the operations off Louisiana, the record reveals only that they
were far enough out so that Respondent's employees went out "on location" usually
for 10 days and "stayed aboard," and then went home for 5 days off. One of the
"jobs" was 40 or 50 miles "off Morgan City," which was said to be about 100
miles west of New Orleans , but the record does not establish that this was one
of the jobs Respondent was performing under its contract with Continental. From
the record I conclude only that Respondent's services were not proven to have been
rendered in Louisiana and Texas, and that as they were , otherwise, rendered on the
"outer Continental Shelf," the question of the Board's jurisdiction on the Continental
Shelf must be considered . (Further , the Board has held that for the indirect out-
flow standard to apply, the indirect outflow must flow from the same State in which
the service by the Respondent was rendered . Brown Marine Drilling Company, 117
NLRB 331.) Respondent contends that the definition of commerce in the Act does
not embrace commerce between a State and a point outside the boundaries of the
State and within an area under the jurisdiction and control of the United States,
and therefore that it has not been proven that the Board has jurisdiction herein.
The Act, which in Section 10 empowers the Board to prevent the commission of
unfair labor practices affecting commerce , defines commerce as follows (Section
2(6)):
The term "Commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce , transportation , or com-
munication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or
2 Respondent contended that the relationship between the four oil companies constituted
them partners , and that as CATC had no outflow the case should be dismissed under the
Board's decision in Brown Marine Drilling Company, 117 NLRB 331 . I do not believe the
record establishes that the four oil companies were partners . This view is supported by
the following cases, among others Laughmer v. Wally, 269 Pa 5, 112 A. 105, 106; Beard
v.,Rowland, 71 Kans 873 , 81 Pa. 188, 189; Commonwealth v Southeastern Iron Corpora-
tion, 142 Va. 107, 128 S E. 528, 532 ; Hughes v. Ewing, 162 Mo. 261, 62 S W. 465 ;
Parchen v Anderson, 5 Mont. 438 , 5 Pa. 588, 590 ; Johnson v . Rothschslds , 63 Ark. 518,
41 S. W. 996, 997 ; Wattling v. Schreiber, 202 S. W. 418, 420.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1401
any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory , or between
any foreign country and any State , Territory , or the District of Columbia, or
within the District of Columbia or any Territory , or between points in the same
State but through any other State or any Territory or the District ' of Columbia
or any foreign country.
It will be noted that this definition does not cover trade, traffic , etc., between a State
and an offshore point not within a State but within the jurisdiction of the United
States-unless such offshore point be considered a Territory of the United States.
The latter is unlikely , as "Territory" with a capital "T," presumably was intended
to cover only an organized Territory . Although Congress intended to exercise all
the power it had to regulate commerce under the Constitution ,3 it recognized its
failure to cover offshore areas in either the Wagner Act or the Taft -Hartley Act,
by making special provision for the Board 's jurisdiction over those areas in the
"Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act," as given below.
Further, in a letter dated May 15, 1953 , to the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs of the United States Senate, the Board expressed it as its opinion , having set
forth the Act's definition of commerce as given above, that:
It seems to us that this definition of the scope of our jurisdiction would not
include within its ambit either private employers or their employees engaged
in work on installations restricted to the "outer Continental Shelf." Moreover,
it is clear that the act would be applicable to such employers and employees
respecting any of their operations otherwise falling within the present definition
of the [sic ] commerce in section 2 (6). Thus, it is probable that the act
would apply to their mainland operations , and to the transporting of personnel,
supplies, or products , to and from the mainland.
Because the nature of the work to be performed on the "Continental Shelf"
would seem to be the type of operation otherwise included within its coverage,
it is our impression that the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , ought to be made applicable to the same extent as elsewhere in
our national economy. If the Congress concurs in this judgment, it appears to
us that additional appropriate legislation providing for that statutory coverage
will be necessary.
In this letter the Board said also, referring to the committee 's letter of request to
the Board,
You have indicated the committee assumes that the work to be performed
in the areas "will be done from structures built on or moored to the Continental
Shelf which could not be considered to be `vessels .' " . but if we may add
our assumption that such work would be performed under appropriate arrange-
ments by private employers , it seems to us that whether such work were
performed on stationary structures or vessels , it would be the type of business
enterprise respecting which Congress intended the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , to apply, and we have normally applied it.4
After extensive consideration over a period of years, in 1953 , in the "Submerged
Lands Act" 5 and the "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act" 6 Congress determined
that title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within their
historic boundaries in such oil-producing areas as the Gulf of Mexico , should
belong to the coastal States, and that the area beyond the historic boundaries should
be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government . Between them these two
acts covered all of the area from the coastline to the outer edge of the Continental
Shelf. With respect to Louisiana and Texas the area landward from the boundary
lines are, for the Board's purposes , within the State of Louisiana or the State of
Texas. The "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act" provides for the area beyond
the historic State boundaries . This Act provides in pertinent part (43 U. S. C. A.,
sections 1332 and 1333 ) as follows:
8 N. L R. B. v Fainblatt , 306 U. S. 601, 607 ; N. L. R. B. v. Gonzalez Padin Company,
161 F 2d 353 , 355 (C. A. 1), enfg. 68 NLRB 520.
• Letter May 15, 1953, from the National Labor Relations Board, Paul L. Styles, Acting
Chairman , to Hon Guy Gordon , Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U. S. Senate,
Washington, D. C., reprinted in Outer Continental Shelf-Hearings Before the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, U. S . Senate, 83d Cong., 1st sess , on S. 1901 and S. 1901
Amendment , May 16 , 18, 20, 21, 22 , 23, 25, 28, and June 1, 1953, at pp. 52 and 53.
8 67 Stat 29-32, 43 U. S. C A . pars. 1301-1315.
6 67 Stat 462-470, 43 U S. C. A. pars. 1331-1343.
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 3 , 67 Stat . 462 (1332):
(a) It is declared to be the policy of the United States that the subsoil and
seabed of the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the United States and are
subject to its jurisdiction , control , and power of disposition as provided in this
subchapter.
(b) This subchapter shall be construed in such manner that the character
as high seas of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right to
navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected.
Section 4, 67 Stat. 462, (1333) :
(a) (1) The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the
United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental
Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected
thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing , and trans-
porting resources therefrom , to the same extent as if the outer Continental
Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State.
(2) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with this
subchapter or with other Federal laws . now in effect or hereafter adopted,
the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State as of the effective date of
this subchapter are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion
of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial islands
and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within the area of the
State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer
Continental Shelf. . . . All of such applicable laws shall be administered and
enforced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States. .. .
(b) The United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction of cases
and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted
on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing,
removing or transporting by pipeline the natural resources , or involving rights
to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental
Shelf, and proceedings with respect to any such case or controversy may be
instituted in the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest the place where
the cause of action arose.
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, any
unfair labor practice, as defined in such Act, occurring upon any artificial island
or fixed structure referred to in subsection ( a) shall be deemed to have occurred
within the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest the place of location of
such island or structure.
(e) (1) The head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating
shall have authority to promulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations
with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment , and other
matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property on the islands
and structures referred to in subsection ( a) or on the waters adjacent thereto,
as he may deem necessary.
* * * * * *
(f) The authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent obstruction to
navigation in the navigable waters of the United States is hereby extended to
artificial islands and fixed structures located on the outer Continental Shelf.
The language and legislative history of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
indicate beyond any doubt that Congress intended to extend the Federal jurisdiction
and the Federal laws, including the National Labor Relations Act, over the subsoil,
seabed , and natural resources under the waters of the outer Continental Shelf and
the business of discovering and extracting the natural resources , to the fullest extent
possible without interfering with the waters over the Continental Shelf as a highway
for the world 's navigation , and without interfering with fishing rights. These matters
are discussed below. Of concern herein, also, is whether the Board's jurisdiction
over that area covers only unfair labor practices occurring on permanently fixed
structures, or whether it properly covers also unfair labor practices occurring upon
mobile platforms , or on drilling tenders attached to the fixed structures and anchored
to the seabed and subsoil , and necessary to the functioning of the drilling operations.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was passed as it came from the conference
of representatives of the House and Senate. What became section 4 and its various
subsections had been introduced in the Senate, rewritten in 1953 by the Senate com-
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1403
mittee, and the rewritten section 4 accepted by the Senate before and after and by
the House after, the conference. The conference report by the managers on the part
of the House stated: 7
In the matter inserted in the conference report, the jurisdiction and control
of the United States is extended to the seabed and subsoil of the entire outer
Continental Shelf adjacent to the shores of the United States instead of merely
to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed as in the original House ver-
sion and also to the structures for their development such as artificial islands,
drilling platforms, etc.
To the extent that the laws of adjacent States are not inconsistent with this
act and other Federal laws and regulations, the laws of adjacent States are
adopted as the laws of the United States for those particular areas. As provided
in the original House bill, State taxation laws are specifically banned. These
State laws are adopted as Federal law for the area of the shelf that would be
in the boundaries of the State if such boundaries were extended seaward to the
outer margin of the outer shelf. Provision is made for the jurisdiction in the
United States district court for cases and controversies arising on the outer
Continental Shelf, and certain Federal laws are made applicable to the area such
as the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. Enforcement of the regula-
tions with regard to lights, warning devices, etc., is placed upon the Coast Guard.
[Emphasis added.]
In presenting to the Senate floor, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, S. 1901, where what became sections 3 and 4 (1332 and 1333)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act first appeared, Senator Cordon, the acting
chairman of the committee, explained: 8
Section 3 of S. 1901 (Section 1332 a, quoted above) is the general jurisdiction
clause of the measure. It declares that "the subsoil and seabed of the outer
Continental Shelf appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdic-
tion, control, and power of disposition."
I call to the attention of the Members of the Senate the fact that the jurisdic-
tion declared embraces the seabed and subsoil as an entity, and is not merely
asserted over the natural resources of that seabed and subsoil, as was provided
in the proclamation of September 28, 1945, and by section 9 of Public Law 31.
This broadening of the jurisdiction asserted was made by the committee after
hearing expert testimony on the national and international problems connected
with the administration of the outer shelf, and after long deliberation.
Senator Cordon continued that while the committee took the "necessary and logical
step forward of bringing the entire area within the jurisdiction of the United States,"
At the same time we were careful to provide that jurisdiction asserted is a
"horizontal jurisdiction." Subsection (b) of Section 3 (1332 above) provides
in very specific terms that
This act shall be construed in such manner that the character as high seas
of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right to navigation
and fishing therein shall not be affected.
Thus, the jurisdiction asserted is only over the seabed and subsoil, not over
the waters above that seabed and subsoil.
Senator Cordon then explained that by this act the United States would not be
extending its national boundaries or its national sovereignty out into the high seas.
He said, "No change with respect to either navigation or fishing is provided or
contemplated."
Continuing, Senator Cordon said:
Section 4 (Section 1333, quoted above) might be said to be the heart of
the bill legislatively and administratively. This section attempts to deal with
the very complex problem of providing a body of 'law for the administration
and development of the area over which jurisdiction and control is asserted.
I may state that the committee considered several approaches to this problem.
Obviously, one such approach would, of course, have been the extension of
State laws and with them State boundaries to the outer edge of the shelf, thus
4 U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83d Cong., 1st seas., 1953, vol. 2,
p. 2184.
8 Cong Rec,, 83d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 99, pt. 5, pp. 6962-6964.
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bringing the seabed and subsoil within the boundaries of the States adjacent
to it, ... -
On the other hand, as pointed out in the report made by the Department
of Justice on S. 1901 , the area is one in which national and international
problems intermingle. The outer Continental Shelf is not and never has been
within the boundary of any State or Territory, and it is, therefore, uniquely
an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction and control. The report submitted
on behalf of Attorney General Brownell stresses these two facts.
* * * * * *
The report of the Department of Justice states in part:
Particularly in view of the intermingling of national and international
rights in the area, it is important that the Federal Government, which
has the responsibility for handling foreign relations , have the exclusive
control of lawmaking and law enforcement there.
The report of the Secretary of the Interior . . . is in full accord with the
views of the Department of Justice.
* * * * * * *
However, as every Member of the Senate knows, the Federal Code was
never designed to be a complete body of law in and of itself. It has grown
up side by side and along with State laws, and under our system of dual
State-Federal sovereignty , the greater part of the conduct of everyday affairs
is under State law and State administration.
The committee first attempted to provide housekeeping law for the outer
shelf by applying to the structures necessary for the removal of the minerals
in the area under [sic] the maritime law of the United States. This was first
attempted by incorporating by reference the admiralty statutes. This solution
as [sic ] first seemed to be a reasonably complete answer to the immediate
needs for mineral development in the area , inasmuch as the drilling platforms
would have been treated as vessels . Maritime law, which applies to American
vessels, would have applied under that theory to the structures themselves.
However , further consideration clearly showed that this approach was not
an adequate and complete answer to the problem . The so-called social laws
necessary for protection of the workers and their families would not apply.
I refer to such things as unemployment laws, industrial -accident laws, fair-
labor-standard laws, and so forth . It was necessary that the protection afforded
by such laws be extended to the outer Shelf area because of the fact that
ultimately some 10,000 or more men might be employed in mineral-resource
development there. The several "social laws" were first applied by reference.
[Emphasis added.]
After a further and more thorough consideration of the overall problem,
and the hearing of expert testimony from competent lawyers practicing in the
field of admiralty law, the committee , by a divided vote , determined to apply
to the area , first , that body of basic Federal law found in the United States
Constitution. Incidentally, it was necessary to make specific provision for
application of the Constitution , or it would not have been applicable . Second,
it was determined to make applicable the whole body of Federal law which
applies today to those areas inside the States owned by the Federal Government
under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
By the use of this particular approach, it became unnecessary to make
applicable to the structures, by reference to either the maritime law or the
social laws, as all those laws, so far as necessary, were made applicable by
the extension of the whole body of Federal law to the area. Thus, the legal
situation is comparable to that in the areas owned by the Federal Government
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government and lying within
the boundaries of a State in the uplands.
The acting chairman of the committee feels that . there is set forth in
the bill enough basic housekeeping legislation to permit the going forward of
the operations for the development and removal of the presently known mineral
values of the shelf.
There is no interference with the international situation with respect to the
outer Continental Shelf area. There is a recognition, from cover to cover in
the bill, of the sole jurisdiction and control of the seabed and subsoil by the
Federal Government, but no change in the character of the waters nor with
respect to fishing or navigation in them.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1 405
Mr. President, I shall not go into detail as to the specific provisions in the
bill which were found necessary in order that the housekeeping requirements
might be met. I refer, among other things, to jurisdiction for the purpose of
providing a forum for the trial of cases or controversies, for application of the
Federal law for workmen's compensation, for special jurisdiction with respect
to the National Labor Relations Act and its administration, and so forth. Those
are matters concerning which the committee found it necessary to particularize
in the bill.
During the discussion of an amendment to S. 1901 (which was rejected) designed
to extend State laws to the Continental Shelf, "so that the adjoining States shall have
the right to administer the civil and criminal laws appertaining," Senator Ellender
stated: 9
Let me point out to my distinguished friend that when the bill was first
introduced, it contemplated having our maritime laws apply. In Section 4
(Section 1333, quoted above), the laws applicable to the outer Continental
Shelf were to be the same as those which apply to a ship. It was sought to
treat the platforms or artificial islands created in the water as ships, thereby
applying to those islands the same jurisdiction', so far as Federal laws are con-
cerned, as in the case of ships, so that in the event a crime were committed on
one of these artificial islands, the Federal Government would have jurisdiction
under our maritime laws. However, in the course of the hearings, and when
the bill was redrafted, that approach was discarded. These islands are made
subject to our domestic law, to be administered exclusively through the Federal
courts, rather than treating them as ships. They are treated just as though they
were islands created by nature, insofar as the application of our domestic laws
is concerned.
During the discussion of this amendment, Senator Kefauver asked Senator Ellender:
I should like to have the Senator make clear whether in the area involved there
are any islands or substantial bodies of land that would thereby come under
State control, or whether the amendment would simply apply to employees who
might be engaged in working on facilities on the Continental Shelf?
Senator Ellender replied:
There are no islands whatsoever, except those artificially created by the
building of derricks or foundations for derricks, living quarters, and the like,
-and on which substantial numbers of workers would be employed, boarded,
and lodged.
Senator Kefauver then asked:
May I ask further if State jurisdiction, both civil and criminal , is not extended
to the workmen when they are actually working beyond the 3-mile limit, or,
with respect to Texas or Florida, beyond whatever limit might be established?
Under what jurisdiction would they come if this amendment were not agreed to?
Senator Ellender replied:
That is a question I cannot answer.' We are here recognizing and literally
erecting a new body of land. It is not recognized as territory. It is a body of
land, not heretofore claimed by the Federal Government; the land is com-
pletely covered by water, but upon it drilling structures-referred to in the bill as
"artificial islands"-have been erected in the area adjacent to the Louisiana
coastline, and whose number will be substantially increased as mineral develop-
ments progress.
As my distinguished colleague may know, resources beneath the subsoil are
obtained by the anchoring on the sea bottom, foundations for derricks. These
are usually of steel pipe. The base of the foundation, may be 40, 50, or 100
feet square. The foundations may protrude above water from 30 to 40 feet.
The derricks and living quarters are erected on top of the foundations. Many
persons live on one of these rigs and operate the machinery that is utilized in
order to explore for oil and other resources.
Senator Long then said:
It is even more important that State law should apply on the artificial islands
than on natural islands, because many of the natural islands are not inhabited.
Probably there would be as many as 4,000 persons working on rigs out in the
9 Cong. Rec., 83d Cong, 1st sess., vol. 99, pt. 6, p. 7235.
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sea, and there might be more than that during some periods of time. There
may be persons working on a rig 4 or 5 miles south of Grand Isle. The local
courts would have jurisdiction. Local officials on Grand Isle would administer
the needs of those persons, if my amendment should be agreed to.
On the other hand, if the amendment fails of adoption, with respect to any
disputes which may arise or with respect to violations of law, those accused
or involved would have to be taken 100 miles away to the Federal district
court at New Orleans, La.
At the beginning, during 1953, of the deliberations upon S. 1901 by the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, section 4 (e) (which became section 4'
(d)) read:
For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, any
unfair labor practice as defined in such Act occurring upon any structure referred
to in Subsection (a) shall be deemed to have occurred within the judicial district
nearest the place of location of such structure.'°
Subsection (a) referred to,
any structure (other than a vessel), which is located on the outer Con-
tinental Shelf or in the waters above the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose
of exploring for, developing or removing the natural resources of the subsoil or
seabed of such outer Continental Shelf, .. .
At this time S. 1901 contemplated applying maritime law to the Continental Shelf.
At the hearings Peter W. LeRoux, of the office of the Legislative Council of Congress,
which drafted section 4 of the bill," explained to the committee the meaning and
purpose of that section and its subsections. Concerning section 4 (e), LeRoux said: 12
Subsection 4 (e) provides that for the purposes of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, unfair labor practices occurring upon structures on the Continental
Shelf shall be deemed to have occurred within the judicial district nearest the
place of location of such structure. Under that Act, enforcement proceedings
may be brought in the district where the unfair labor practice occurred or where
the person guilty of the unfair labor practice resides or transacts business.
Likewise, proceedings for review of the Board Orders may be brought in the
district where the unfair labor practice occurred or where the person resides
or transacts business. It is recognized that in most cases, unfair labor practices
affecting employees employed on structures on the outer Continental Shelf
would actually occur on shore and that even where unfair labor practices do
occur on such a structure, actions could be brought in the judicial districts in
which the persons guilty of such practice reside or transact business. It is
likely that the National Labor Relations Act would be held applicable to em-
ployment relations on the outer Continental Shelf even in the absence of this
subsection. In order to resolve all possible doubts, however, it would seem
desirable to include in the bill some indication of the intent of Congress with
respect to the applicability of this act. This Subsection contains such an
indication. [Emphasis supplied.]
After its deliberations during 1953, the Senate committee rewrote section 4 (a)
and the section relating to the Act, and they were adopted as rewritten by the com-
mittee. They are section 4 (a) (1) and 4 (d), given above.
The pertinent alteration in section 4 (a) (1) was changing, "any structure (other
than a vessel)," to "the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to
all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected thereon. . In
its written report of June 15, 1953, at page 23, the committee explained this change,
in pertinent part, as follows:
Section 4 (a) . . . as introduced extended the maritime and admiralty laws of
the U. S. to structures used in connection with mineral development on the
outer shelf. It is stricken because the committee determined to extend juris-
diction over the whole of the seabed and the subsoil, as well as to operational
structures. [Emphasis supplied.]
10 Hearings (p. 2) before Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong,
1st sees, on S. 1901 and Amendment, May 16-23, 25, 28, and June 1, 1958 Paperbound
volume is entitled "Outer Continental Shelf." This volume is hereafter refereed to as
Hearings.
n Hearings, p. 6.
32 Hearings, p. 23.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1407
The pertinent alteration in 4 (e), which became 4 (d), was changing "occurring
upon any structure referred to in subsection (a)" to "occurring upon any artificial
island or fixed structure referred to in subsection (a)." At page 24 of its written
report of June 15, 1956, the committee, in its "explanation" for the change, charac-
terized the change as "perfecting." Clayton Orn, head of the legal department of
the Ohio Company for the States of Texas and New Mexico, and chairman of the
legal group representing operators in the Continental Shelf area,13 also reviewed the
proposed bill before the committee. With reference to Section 4 he stated: 14
The rights of the employees are further protected in Section 4 by the application
of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, the National
Labor Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Federal Com-
pensation Laws which will apply are more favorable to the workmen than are
the compensation laws of many of the States. .. .
At these Senate committee hearings during 1953, just before the passage of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Senators gave close attention to the inter-
national question involved, and to the theory upon which the United States should
assert its claims. Its claim was to be based on the "continental shelf principle"
rather than on territorial annexation. The United States would assert jurisdiction
and control over the subsoil and seabed under the waters of the Shelf, but not
sovereignty. As explained to the committee by Jack B. Tate, Legal Adviser to the
Department of State: 15
572
The practical importance of the Continental Shelf principle is that it furnishes
the basis for utilization by the contiguous state of the resources, especially oil,
in the submerged lands beyond the limit of territorial waters. The undi'sputed-
and I would like to emphasize that fact that the claim is undisputed-claim
by this nation of the right to the exclusive exercise of jurisdiction and control
over such resources accomplishes this purpose.
The assertion of jurisdiction and control in accordance with the President's
1945 proclamation is believed to be preferable to an assertion of sovereignty.
Sovereignty, traditionally an absolute concept, might be regarded as affecting
the freedom of the waters and the air space above the seabed and subsoil despite
the disclaimers to the contrary.
573
Claims to sovereignty over the waters and air space above the Continental
Shelf extending as far as 200 miles from the coast had in fact been made by a
number of nations. This government opposes such claims. They constitute,
in its view, unwarranted extensions of the Continental Shelf principle and
violations of the principle of freedom of the seas traditionally supported by the
United States.
The exercise of jurisdiction and control permits full utilization of the resources
of the Continental Shelf without casting doubt on our continued support of
the freedom of the seas. We consider it important in dealing with the resources
of the Continental Shelf to make this point clear.
The character as high seas of the waters above the Continental Shelf remains
unaffected by the assertion or exercise of jurisdiction and control over its
resources, and consequently rights to free navigation and fishing in such waters
also remain unaffected.
In order to reduce to a minimum the interference with navigation and fishing
which may result from the presence in the waters of structures erected for the
exploitation of the resources of the shelf, adequate warning signals or other
devices should be placed on or near the structures.
As there is need to exercise a certain amount of control around the structures
for purposes such as safety, the control should be limited to such purposes, and
not be made a pretext for claiming extensive rights or jurisdiction around these
structures similar to those normally exercised in territorial waters.
Extension of the laws of the contiguous territory to the area of exploration
and exploitation of the Continental, Shelf should be limited to the structures
erected in the high seas and to the sea bed and subsoil and should not apply
to the waters themselves.
This outlines the principles which have guided the department in its handling
of the international aspects of the Continental Shelf question . We believe that
r
13 Hearings, p. 609.
14 Hearings , p. 512.
15 Hearings , pp. 572-573.
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the domestic problems of exploitation of the resources of the Continental Shelf
should be resolved within this framework... .
In the language of Senator Price Daniel , who spent much effort on the so-called
"tidelands" problems:
In the case of the Continental Shelf, you could not under international law
extend your line to take in international waters. We all recognize that . Beyond
our territorial waters or historic boundaries the over lying waters on top of
the Continental Shelf belong to the family of nations and the United States
cannot have exclusive rights; neither can the States . But international law
is developing now to the point where it is pretty well recognized that the seabed
and subsoil can be annexed separately from the waters . Unless the trend
changes on us and that is one important thing I think we ought to watch. .
We have helped and other nations have followed us in this trend . Our action
here could help reverse this trend if we do not follow the theory on which the
presidential proclamation of 1945 was made-that the seabed and subsoil
underneath the waters can be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and control
of our nation.
Now you have to envision a jurisdiction that goes out over the waters, air
space and all, to the territorial water limit or the historic boundaries ; then you
go down to the seabed and out to the edge of the shelf , leaving out the overlying
waters of the outer Continental Shelf. Now international law is recognizing
that is all right for the adjacent nation to claim exclusive jurisdiction over seabed
and subsoil.
As Mr. Tate from the Secretary of State's office told us in here, whatever we
do in that area of exclusive jurisdiction is a matter of domestic law. The theory
for our claim in international law is that the shelf is just an extension of our
continental land mass and that the United Nations or other international groups
should not have jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil because it takes coopera-
tion from the shore to develop resources just like all these oil operations out
there. They begin from the shore , they are supplied from the shore and the
oil is finally brought back to the shore . So under that reasoning the theory now
prevalent in international law is that the coastal nation can have exclusive
jurisdiction and control and can put its constitution and laws out over the seabed
and subsoil but not over overlying waters.16
The Senators were concerned, also, with the fixed structures necessary for the
drilling and production of oil . Early in the hearings , Senator Daniel said:
Now as to the fixed structures tied in the soil below supporting a platform
above the waters , I think you can apply land law. Some people object to calling
them islands but I think Senator Long has a pretty good analogy there. At
least they are tied to the soil below. They are there for the purpose of pro-
ducing oil from the soil below . So I think domestic law could apply so long
as it does not conflict with any international rights in waters . Now the fixed
platforms out there do not even touch the waters except for the supporting
pipes or "legs" which go through the water down into the ground. I think
you can treat those platforms as connected with the soil and development of the
soil rather than treating them as vessels . 17 [Emphasis supplied.]
Dr. Joseph Walter Bingham , who testified , was introduced by Senator Daniel as a
distinguished visitor:
I have worked with him on this Continental Shelf situation for several
years. . . He has served as chairman of the International Law Association
Committee on rights in the seabed and the subsoil , American branch. He served
as professor of international law at Stanford University from 1907 to 1944, and
has written many papers on the subject . I have no hesitancy in saying that this
gentleman contributed as much towards the proclamation of President Truman
and in helping to bring about this development in international law as any other
one man.18
Dr. Bingham was asked , "What would be the effect of this concept of claiming the
subsoil and full ownership when you erect a structure upon the subsoil in order to
have a platform above the sea? How would this concept apply ?" Dr. Bingham
replied,
1e Hearings , p. 160.
17 Hearings , pp. 21, 22.
28 Hearings , pp. 435-436.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1409
Well, that poses an entirely novel question . One can only speculate about
that. . . That is a problem I should say, as far as our domestic law is con-
cerned , would have to be worked out by Congress . It is a political, economic,
and social question . That is outside the range of my present ability. . . I
do not think it would be recognized in international law as an island and treated
that way. That would involve the question of territorial waters around the island
which is denied, of course. . . Here you have a totally novel problem. It is
not an island, not a ship . It is a novel thing. I am quite sure that international
law would support the erection of the derrick because the admitted basis of ex-
tension is the oil resources and other resources . So you have to have some
means of development . Beyond that , I think you have a practical question that
will have to be resolved by consideration of the practical factors. I do not think
you get any place by trying to compare it to a ship or island. . as to anything
solid, the shelf or anything connected with it, I should say.the land laws are to
apply. [Emphasis supplied.] 19
During the appearance of Jack B . Tate of the State Department , Senator Daniel
stated to Tate:
I believe that the last time you appeared before the committee , Mr. Tate, in
answer to a question by Senator Cordon , you said that it would be , in inter-
national law, considered as a reasonable use of the waters to build these structures
going down into the waters for the purpose of exploring the subsoil.
Tate replied:
It would be reasonable , and there would be no objection to it in international
law. It would have to be reasonable, of course. You could not put a structure
that would be a barrier to navigation there, and that sort of thing. But I would
assume you could do anything reasonably necessary in order to extract the
resources of the seabed and subsoil . [ Emphasis supplied.] 20
A little later Senator Jackson said:
Mr. Chairman , first of all I can reason out to , I think , a substantial point why
we exercise control over the land mass beneath the waters . It also follows to me
that we can do those things necessary and incidental to the control of that land
mass and the waters above. If logically you are entitled to the subsoil and
resources in it you have the right to take the necessary steps in the waters above
to get those resources , but now we are in a situation with fisheries which are
totally disconnected from the subsoil . . . . [ Emphasis supplied.] 21
During the Senate committee hearings on S. 1901 during 1953, Section 3 (b) read:
(b) This Act shall be construed in such manner that the character as high
seas of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right to their free
and unimpeded navigation and the navigational servitude shall not be affected.
[Emphasis supplied.]
When the bill was reported out by the committee this section read , as given below:
3 (b) This subchapter shall be construed in such manner that the character
as high seas of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right to
navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected.
During the hearings , Senator Watkins raised a question "about this unimpeded
navigation" in Section 3 (b). He added: 22
If you get a lot of wells out there , and platforms , and whatnot, can you say
navigation will be unimpeded ? . . . Is there any other way of saying it without
using the word "unimpeded " where ordinarily we could go right straight through?
Do we not put up certain impediments to navigation?
J. Lee Rankin , Assistant Attorney General of the United States, who was then ap-
pearing before the committee , replied: 23
That is true . I think the language was developed with the idea of trying to be
certain to protect the rights of other nations to navigate, without control of
19 Hearings , p. 442.
00 Hearings , p. 595.
21 Hearings , p. 601.
re Hearings , pp. 639, 640.
Hearings, p. 640
483142-59--vol . 120-90
1410 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
navigation in that area. That is so that there could not be any claim that the
sovereign was asserting a territorial right, .. .
Senator Watkins then said:
If I should see wells down in the Continental Shelf as thick as I have seen them
,down in California in places, I would say that the area would be impeded. At
least the navigation would be impeded in that direction.
-Mr. Rankin replied:
You might put in a word that we lawyers use rather loosely, "unreasonable."
The discussion then concerned itself with whether the Corps of Engineers should be
given authority on the outer Continental Shelf, as it already had in territorial waters,
to grant permits to erect artificial structures. In substance Mr. Rankin observed that
allowing such permits would go contrary to the right of free, unimpeded navigation.
Senator Cordon replied, "We are going to have to indulge the presumption of those
structures as being so small with respect to the vast area of the sea, that they do not
,,represent impediments." [Emphasis supplied.]
The discussion continued: 24
SENATOR LONG: We should continue the usual procedure by which navigation
interests are given notice that in a given area there will be obstruction to navi-
gation during a certain period of time where these operations are being con-
ducted. Anyone who buys a map can see that if he charts a certain course he is
sailing on the high seas where he need not worry about obstructions because
of fog or anything like that, and then there is an established procedure for
going through the Corps of Engineers to take care of those things. If you do
not do it you will get into some confusion and someone will run into one of
those platforms out there where it was not chartered on the map.
SENATOR WATKINS: What about the commerce of other nations on the high
seas?
SENATOR LONG: When they entered the territorial waters the standard proce-
dure we go through is that the Engineers issue a permit and I assume they
inform the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and they put out all of the notices and
corrections to the charts and maps, and that sort of thing.
SENATOR WATKINS: This is the first time we have claimed this as territorial
waters, though.
SENATOR LONG: That is the effect. There should be some way where you
follow some procedure to take care of those details, and the way to do it
would be to allow the Engineers to handle that function beyond our 3-mil'e
limit as they have been doing, as well as within our 3-mile limit which they
undoubtedly have the authority to do.
SENATOR MILLIKIN• Is there a point made that we cannot have other language
on the grounds that we would be upsetting some other right that we want
to protect? Why could we not have the necessary protective language here
that would reconcile the right of navigation and the right to have these
impediments?
SENATOR CORDON: We are faced with, the proposition itself which denies
that it is in any way affects the waters above the Continental Shelf as a part
of the high seas or the right to the unimpeded navigation of those waters.
SENATOR MILLIKIN: Is that phrase construed to permit reasonable impedi-
ments
SENATOR CORDON: In practice it must have been so construed because there
have been such impediments outside of our territorial waters, and the hearings
indicate several of them around the world that come to the notice of the
State Department. Of course, they were aids to navigation.
SENATOR WATKINS: The question has never been raised by someone being
damaged; there has never been a case in court where it was raised.
SENATOR CORDON: The Chair knows of none.
SENATOR DANIEL: The UN Commission on International Law recognizes that
such structures would not be considered as impeding navigation , and I do not
think that there has been any evidence that any such structures have impeded
navigation anywhere along our coast thus far, has there, Mr. Rankin?
u Hearings, pp. 640-642.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1411
Mr. RANKIN: I have never heard of it.
Mr. EDELSTEIN: This language was taken out of President Truman's proc-
lamation of 1945, and that proclamation contemplated the exploitation of the
natural resources.25
SENATOR DANIEL: These derricks with lights out there at night are actually
aids to navigation instead of impeding the navigation because you have plenty
of water on all sides of the derrick.
SENATOR WATKINS: Suppose the light goes out , or someone runs into it in a
fog.
SENATOR DANIEL: All of the maps of the Coast and Geodetic Survey-I have
just sent for them-have the area marked with language on there that anybody
sailing those seas will look out for derricks or oil structures because the language
says that they are in this area, but I want to point out, of course, that this is
in a shallow area and usually large vessels do not sail in an area shallow
enough to permit the platforms to be erected unless they are sailing through
the channels which of course are always kept open.
SENATOR LONG: When you get into 40 feet of water you can sail a battleship.
To be noted at this point, is that section 4 (f) grants authority to the Secretary
,of the Army (and through him presumably to the Corps of Engineers) to prevent
obstruction to navigation by artificial islands and fixed structures located on the
Continental Shelf.
During the hearings before the Committee, Fred M. Nelson, president of Texas
Gulf Sulphur Company, spoke concerning the business of extracting sulphur from
the Continental Shelf. Asked, "Would you expect to have a substantial number of
people living on the platform or would you keep your people living on shore?"
he replied,
Our plan would be to anchor boats with sleeping quarters for men and then
operate the same as the oil companies do. We would have our town sites on
shore and then take our men out and keep them 48 hours, or 2 or 3 or 4
days at a time and then give them time off. [Emphasis supplied.]
Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to administer the provisions of the Act relating to the leasing of the
outer Continental Shelf. The lease form used by the Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, grants the leasee, in Section 1 (c),
The right to construct or erect and to maintain within the leased area all artificial
islands, platforms, fixed or floating structures, sea wall, docks, dredged channels
and spaces, buildings, plants, telegraph or telephone lines and cables, pipelines,
reservoirs, tanks, pumping stations, and other works and structures necessary
or convenient to the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this lease.26
As has been seen above, section 4 (e) (1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, in substance gives the United States Coast Guard authority to promulgate and
enforce regulations with respect to lights, warning devices, safety equipment, and
other matters relating to the promotion of safety or life and property on the islands
and structures referred to in subsection (a). The Coast Guard's regulations for the
area include mobile platforms, together with "built-up" platforms, as fixed struc-
tures In section 140.05-1, its regulations state that,
This subchapter shall be applicable to all artificial islands and fixed struc-
tures. . . . The phrase "artificial islands and fixed structures" includes both
mobile and built-up platforms.. . .27
Its regulations define artificial island or fixed structure as follows:
This term means a building or platform secured to the seabed by fixed means
or submerged onto the seabed so that for all practical purposes it becomes
stationary. This includes both mobile and built-up platforms.28
25 After this discussion, the committee's written report, p. 23, stated that the words "free
and unimpeded" were stricken from section 3 (b) "as surplusage."
28 D. S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Form 4-1255.
n Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, ch. I, subch. N (Artificial Islands and Fixed
Structures on the Outer Continental Shelf), sec. 140.05-1.
as Sec. 140 10-1.
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mobile platform is defined as follows:
This term means an artificial island or fixed structure which includes as an
integral part of itself features which permit it to be moved as an entity from
position to position and to be fixed to or submerged onto the seabed 29
C. The use of drilling tenders on the Continental Shelf
For enlightenment concerning the offshore oil industry, to cast light upon, impart
meaning to, and assist in the evaluation of, the facts in the record; and to assist in
the solution of the jurisdictional question; I hereby take official or judicial notice 30
of a technical study presented by the United States Delegation (Committee I), on
March 19, 1956, at the Inter-American Specialized Conference of the Organization
of American States, on Conservation of Natural Resources-The Continental Shelf
and Marine Waters, held at Ciudad Trujillo, Dominican Republic, March 15-28,
1956. The study, Conference Document 28 (available at the Organization of Ameri-
can States, Washington, D. C.), was presented to the Conference by Edwin M.
Thomasson, Staff Petroleum Engineer, Conservation Division, Geological Survey,
U. S. Department of the Interior. This study was entitled, "Technical Problems
of Mineral Development on the Continental Shelf." The study stated, inter alia:
DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS
Once an oil operator has decided, after conducting preliminary prospecting
surveys and obtaining a lease, to test an apparently favorable geological struc-
ture with the drill, he is confronted with a whole new series of problems. First
among these is choosing and obtaining suitable equipment on which to base
the drilling rig.
In general, two basic types of "foundation" for drilling rigs are used in the
Continental Shelf. The first, but seldom used, is a rock or earth filled "artificial
island," sufficiently large to support all necessary equipment. One such island
is being successfully used in relatively shallow waters off the coast of Cali-
fornia. However, the construction of such an island in waters of considerable
depth, while theoretically possible, involves excessive costs and, under current
economic conditions, is not considered economically feasible. To date, ^no
"artificial island" has been used in the Gulf of Mexico.
In more general use are platforms, supported on pilings sunk deep into the
subsoil of the Continental Shelf, and extending sufficient distance above the
ocean surface to escape wave action. Such platforms can be classified into four
general types.
The first type of platform is usually called a "self-contained" platform. It is
large enough to support all drilling equipment, all supplies, crew quarters, mess
and kitchen facilities, and even recreation facilities for off-duty crew members.
Obviously, such a platform is, of necessity quite large.
In order to avoid the extremely high cost of the self-contained platform, the
oil industry developed a smaller platform, serviced by a tender vessel moored
alongside. With this type of platform, only the minimum equipment, such as
the derrick and drawworks, are located on the platform itself. All other equip-
ment, including motive power (usually diesel engines), storage, drill pipe,
casing, crew quarters, mess and kitchen facilities, and recreation facilities, is
located on the tender vessel. In the beginning, surplus LST's (landing ship-
tank) left over from World War II were purchased from the United States
Government and converted to use as tenders. More recently, as the supply of
surplus LST's was exhausted, the industry began building, from keel up, special
vessels to use as tenders. [Emphasis supplied.]
In order for the drilling tender to perform its functions properly, i. e., to
serve as a base for the drilling operations, it must be sufficiently large to pro-
vide the necessary storage and quarters space, and it must be sufficiently sea-
worthy, to withstand considerable rough weather. As a result of these con-
siderations, the average tender vessel is quite large, ranging up to 300 feet or
more in length. As an economy and space-saving measure, many (but not all)
rB Sec 140.10-30.
80 Cf Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WOH), 98 NLRB 1090; footnote 4,
Bill Heath Inc, 89 NLRB 67, 69; Wray Bros., 89 NLRB 592, 593; Brown v Board of
Education of Topeka, et al, 347 U S 483, footnote 11; Inland Steel Company, 77 NLRB 1,
footnote 4, enfd. 170 F. 2d 247 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 336 U. S. 960.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1413
tenders contain no motive power, depending upon tugs to move from one loca-
tion to another.
The platform and tender combination has several advantages over the self-
contained platform but also has several disadvantages. The chief advantage is
cost and versatility. The fixed platform cost is considerably reduced, and the
tender vessel can be moved easily from one location to another. Also, in the
event of serious storms, the tender can be removed to protected locations, thus
lessening the risk of serious damage to valuable equipment.
The chief disadvantage to the platform and tender combination is the fact
that the tender is subject to wave movement. This is particularly true at
substantial distances from shore where the ground swells of the ocean often
make it impossible to transfer men or materials to the tender , resulting in
costly rig shut-down.
Initial costs of tender vessels are quite high, from $1,500,000 to $2,500,000.
However, such cost is partially offset by use of the tenders for drilling suc-
cessive wells.
It seems likely that the platform and tender combination will remain a
favorite of the oil industry for operations in water depths not in excess of
100 feet. It should be of particular advantage in the drilling of exploratory
(wildcat) wells by avoiding excessive cost until oil or gas accumulation is
definitely proven.
More recent developments in the design of offshore drilling equipment are
mobile platforms of various types. In general, these are of two types-barges
and movable platforms.
Actually, there is nothing really new in the concept of a drilling barge as
such equipment has been used for years in the swamps and marsh land of the
Gulf Coast area... .
* * * * * * *
Another type of rig, with, however, limited usage, is the mobile platform.
This consists of a water-tight, seaworthy hull, through which fit several steel
caissons. All drilling equipment is mounted on the deck of the hull. The
whole platform is floated into position, and the caissons are dropped. Then,
using air-jacks, the caissons are forced into the subsoil. When sufficient resis-
tance is reached, the hull literally climbs up the caissons, raising itself well
above the ocean level. Drilling then proceeds in the normal manner. .. .
* * * * * * *
All offshore structures are required to be equipped with adequate lights and
warning devices to warn vessels of their existence. To limit any hazards to
navigation that drilling structures might create, the erection of such structures
is not permitted in shipping fairways. Beyond the three-mile limit, the char-
acter of the high seas is preserved as directed by the Congress of the United
States in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The safety and welfare of workmen engaged in Continental Shelf activities
is of utmost concern to the operators . Standby boats are in constant attendance
at offshore platforms during drilling operations to remove any seriously injured
personnel . Radio-telephone communication is maintained at all times with
the shore base. . .
Considerable thought and effort are given to make the crew quarters as
attractive as possible. In many cases, crew quarters are airconditioned for
additional comfort. Meals are substantial, well-prepared, and attractively
served. Wherever reception is available, television is installed in crew lounges,
and books and magazines are provided. Also, off-duty crew members seem to
do considerable fishing from the platform. In general, most crews spend
about a week on the platform, then return to shore for several days off-duty....
TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
One difficulty with crew boats for personnel transportation is the slowness
of the boats. To speed crew movement, many companies have turned to the
use of helicopters. Landing space is now incorporated on many offshore
structures, .. .
* * * * * * *
To avoid the high initial investment required to purchase crew boats or heli-
copters and to establish maintenance facilities, many oil companies have adopted
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a policy of leasing boats or helicopters from service companies . Contract
service is usually on a monthly basis, at a fixed fee, regardless of the actual
service time of the vessel.
A substantial fleet of vessels is necessary to supply logistic support to a
drilling well in the Continental Shelf. A minimum requirement would prob-
ably be three crew boats, one stationed at the platform, one at the shore base,
and the third in a standby capacity; one or more equipment barges, with suitable
tugs, or a self-propelled vessel capable of transporting heavy supplies; and
possibly one or more helicopters, either in routine service or on standby for
emergency. [Emphasis supplied.]
* * * * * * *
ECONOMICS OF CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
What factors account for the extremely high cost of shelf operations? The
answer is, of course, the ocean. Transportation over water and platform
construction account for the major increases in cost above land operations.
There are wide variations in the conditions under which oil and gas wells
are drilled in the Continental Shelf. It has been said that there is no such
thing as an "average" well in the Gulf of Mexico. However, let us examine
briefly the cost and effort that go into the drilling of a hypothetical well located
on the shelf. Assume our typical well is located about nine miles from the
nearest land, in about 40 to 50 feet of water. The well location is about 50
miles from the nearest deep-water harbor. We will assume 12,000 feet as
the projected depth of the well and will use a combination platform and
tender throughout the operation.
Approximately 200 men will be engaged in the drilling of the well at some
stage of the operations. This will include about 36 members of the seismic
exploration crew, 24 men engaged in the construction of the platform and
drilling rig, 30 members of the drilling crew, 10 men supplying special services,
such as oil well cementing, electrical logging, and mud logging, 64 marine
workers, including crew members on the construction vessel, the drilling tender,
and the crew boats, and 36 supervisory, administrative, and unclassified
personnel.
* * * * * * *
Operational costs will average about $5,000 per day throughout the
drilling of the well.
A shore base will be required, at which will be located a dock, warehouse,
office, communication facilities, and quarters for base personnel.
The above figures, while hypothetical, present some idea of the magnitude
of effort required to drill and complete a well on the Continental Shelf of
the Gulf of Mexico,
For the same purpose as for the above study, I hereby take official or judicial
notice, also , of a "Special Report On Offshore Oil=On the Continental Shelf:
A Whole New Business Is in the Making," reprinted from Petroleum Week, copy-
righted by McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., Inc., and published by McGraw-Hill, 330
W. 42d Street, New York 36, New York.31 The articles reprinted had appeared
in Petroleum Week in several issues in August 1955. These articles stated, inter
alia:
The cost of probing for oil on the Continental Shelf is tremendous. On
land an operator usually thinks in terms of thousands of dollars in drilling a
wildcat in virgin territory . But in the Gulf of Mexico an operator has to
think of drilling in terms of millions of dollar.
* * * * * * *
These high costs are the main reason why a number of big combines have
been formed. Operators spread the costs of offshore work among themselves;
if a big hit is made all share. But if the program falls short of expectations
no one gets hurt too much.
The largest combine is the CATC Group, which is made up of Continental
Oil Co., operator ; Atlantic Refining Co ., Tide Water Associated Oil Co., and
si Cf. cases cited in footnote 30 above, and also United States v. D. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, et al, Oct. Term 1956, No. 3. Decided by U. S. Supreme Court
June 3, 1957, footnotes 17 and 18.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1415,
Cities Service Oil Co. Each has a 25% interest. This group has been working
mostly off Louisiana, and recently formed the first offshort unit , on Federal
"tidelands" off Grand Isle, La. (Special Report, pp. 4-5.)
The CATC Group has found both oil and gas production off Louisiana. It
is currently operating from a huge $1.5-million permanent-type platform off
Grand Isle, La., in 97 ft. of water. Just last week CATC brought in a good
oil discovery at this location. This is the deepest water that operators have
ventured out in so far. (Special Report, page 5.)
After the first offshore discovery by Kerr-McGee in 1947, operators who
wanted to get their feet wet in the Gulf of Mexico were stymied: They
couldn't find suitable ships or other equipment to use as tenders for drilling
platforms. The only ships available over the next few years were surplus
naval vessels. Some operators were fortunate enough-and smart enough-
to buy up a lot of old LST (Landing ship-tank) vessels. For a time these
ships carry the brunt of offshore drilling. Their owners converted them to'
drilling use, tying them up to template platforms. [Emphasis supplied.]
Since only a limited number of these ships, and the YF (yard freighter)
vessels, were available, the supply was soon exhausted. New tender ships
had to be designed from the ground up. And it wasn't an easy task.
Gulf Oil Corp. took delivery last year on the first ship built especially as
an offshore-drilling tender vessel. The CATC Group came along later with
three brand-new non-self-propelled ships, made especially for this work. It
will soon take delivery on the fourth. Each cost about $1.5-million. (Special
Report, p. 6.)
When drilling gets under way offshore, the job of keeping the rig supplied,
and moving crews to and from the drill-site, creates more problems.
The mobile rigs and tender ships now in use in the Gulf of Mexico can
start out fairly well stocked to meet drilling needs. But any resupply must,
come by barge. The self-contained platforms must be supplied and resupplied
by this method, and the operation of barges is tied closely with prevailing
weather. On many days out of a given period, supply barges cannot operate
due to high seas. So, large stockpiles must be brought in during calm weather
to take care of any eventuality.
It is costing the operator hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to move
the drilling and producing equipment, supplies, and personnel to and from
the offshore locations. Boat companies up and down the coast are prospering
as a result; building of supply barges, equipment, and personnel craft keeps
Louisiana and Texas shipyards busy.
In many instances an operator prefers to have his own onshore base near
his offshore operation, so he can stockpile huge amounts of spare parts and
auxiliary equipment. When a drilling location is not too far from shore, the
drilling crew often lives onshore in company-owned bunkhouses. The men are
ferried out to location by boat or by helicopter. In the case of tender-ship
operations or self-contained platforms, the drilling and producing crew lives
right on the ship or platform, changing shifts about once a week. (Special
Report, p. 9.) [Emphasis supplied.]
To date, offshore drilling operations have been carried on in three general
ways: (1) from permanent, steel drilling platforms, self-contained and includ-
ing crews' living quarters; (2) from permanent template platforms, which use
attending vessels to hold necessary equipment and to serve as quarters for the
crew: and (3) from the new-type submersible units, which, built in the form
of barges or "mobile platforms," are completely portable, and can go from
location to location. (Special Report, p. 12.) [Emphasis supplied.]
The template-type platform, smaller in size than the self-contained plat-
form, and calling for use of a tender ship, is cheaper to construct. It will re-
main popular in waters up to 75 ft. or 100 ft. deep. There are two drawbacks
to such a setup however: (1) The tender ship costs from $1.5-million, de-
pending upon its type, and on whether or not it is self-propelled; and (2)
farther out from shore, where ground swells of the ocean are greater, the ten-
der ship is subject to too much down-time because the sea often makes it im-
possible to transfer men and equipment from smaller personnel and equipment
boats to the tender itself.
Also, it becomes impossible at times, because of the weather, to move equip-
ment from the tender to the platform to which it is tied. (Special Report,
p. 12-13.) [Emphasis supplied.]
The CATC Group and Gulf Oil Corp. have led the way in new tender-ship
design. Gulf took delivery on the first such new vessel about a year ago.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Then the CATC Group ordered four brand-new vessels from Levingston Ship-
yards, at Orange, Tex. Each of them cost more than $1.5-million, and they
can operate in waters up to 150 ft. deep. Numerous innovations have been
built into these ships. Each has' its own helicopter-landing deck, improved
radio and radar facilities, air-conditioned crew quarters, and safety devices.
(Special Report, p. 15.)
D. Whether the alleged unfair labor practices occurred on fixed structures,
or on drilling tenders
As is developed more fully below, one of the alleged unfair labor practices
committed by Respondent was the statement to a number of Respondent 's employees
by its president, Wallace Taylor, to the effect that he would close down the busi-
ness if Respondent was organized by a union . Whether these statements were made,
and whether, it so, they amounted to an unfair labor practice, are considered be-
low. Of concern at this point is where-whether on fixed platforms or on drilling
tenders-the statements were made, assuming that they were made. Also, as is
considered more fully below, Respondent drafted and sent to the men at the jobs,
revocations to the pledge cards in the Union signed by some of the men, and
other documents . Of concern at this point is whether Respondent 's employees were
working on the platforms, or whether they were working on drilling tenders.
The testimony of Respondent 's president , Mr. Taylor, shows that its employees
were working on tenders , drilling tenders, and converted LST's. Taylor testified
that on July 14, 15, and 16 , 1956, he (together with Respondent 's personnel man)
went "out on the jobs out in the Gulf." "I visited several jobs over that week-end,"
and had conversations "at more than one location where the company was operating."
One of these conversations took place on the Miller, one of the tenders serving drilling
personnel and rigs engaged in exploring for or producing crude oil and natural gas
on a CATC lease offshore Louisiana . He also talked with "the engineer on one of
the other tenders." "I think we visited a total of five or six jobs" and he made the
statement at each job . "I only spoke to one or two on each of the several three or
four jobs." "Now , generally on these jobs or in the dining room we have a cup
of coffee and sometimes there is just one or two of us there and there may be some
other people around ." "The way the jobs work , we have only , unless it is at meal-
time, there is only one or two or three people in the dining room, galleys, where
you generally talk to these people." "The galley and dining room of these places
are open . . You go out there and you have a cup of coffee and maybe you
stand up in the galley and talk to the cook or steward and maybe you sit down in the
dining room and have a chat with them , and maybe there are a couple of people
more that will come in, . . . There are a lot of other people around on this ship,
roughnecks and all of that. . . ." Some few of the jobs are inland, but most of
them are in the Gulf. "There are some jobs that are relatively close where they
have two or three rigs in a close location . we had two or three drilling tenders
working within it relatively close proximity to one another. By that I mean within
anywhere from two to ten miles. . Then there is another group that probably
is 40 or 50 miles off Morgan City," which is about 100 miles west of New Orleans.
[Emphasis supplied.]
Taylor testified further that a steward "is the man that is in charge of the mess
aboard the vessel," an engineer is in charge of the engine personnel aboard the vessel.
He stated that the personnel man and he "visited the boats together." In substance
he stated that in July 1956 , Respondent had about 275 employees working on various
drilling tenders and converted LST's in about 20 or 25 places in the Gulf, in the
bayous and inland . These tenders or drilling tenders were being operated by other
companies , and Respondent was responsible for the feeding of both the marine
personnel on the tenders and the drilling personnel , and also for cleaning the areas
where the drilling crew and marine crew lived . On most of the offshore jobs
Respondent's employees were on duty for 10 consecutive days, and then were off for
5 days. "They actually go on location for 10 days and they stay aboard. . . . Then
at the end of 10 days they leave the job completely to return to their homes. They
have five days off and then they return back to the job." When they are on location
"they don't work 24 hours a day," but presumably have certain hours on duty and
certain hours off duty. [Emphasis supplied.]
Concerning the revocations and other documents prepared by Respondent and
sent to employees at the jobs , President Taylor testified as follows: Concerning
Respondent 's initial letter to the employees (considered more fully below)-he would
say that it was distributed to substantially all of Respondent 's employees.
Our operations are pretty well spread out and when we distribute anything
except pay checks, it might be a few people some of this doesn't get to when
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1417
we distribute through the mail, but I would say substantially it was distributed
and was intended to be distributed to all of our employees . . . . I mean they
were intended to be distributed to everybody , but whether they got on to all
of the jobs or not , I think eventually they did , but immediately I don 't know.
[Emphasis supplied.]
He testified that the revocation form was given the same distribution by the
Company as the initial letter. Respondent also prepared several other communi-
cations for distribution to its employees.
Respondent 's initial letter to its employees said , among other things,
2. At the present time for every drilling tender being built there are six to
eight self-contained or mobile platforms being built . It is my opinion that, if
there is a strike or if the costs of running a drilling tender got too high, the
drilling tenders would be laid up, the equipment removed and put on self-
contained drilling platforms . Drilling tenders have been a pretty good deal
for certain types of drilling, but they are a long way from being a necessity.
As seen above, when President Taylor went out to see the men on a number of
the jobs one weekend in July 1956, he visited them on drilling tenders or LST's,
on which Respondent 's employees were responsible for feeding (presumably three;
times a day on all shifts , if there was more than one shift ) both the marine personnel
on the tenders and the drilling personnel , and on which Respondent was also
responsible for cleaning the living quarters of both the marine personnel and the
drilling personnel. In order for the drilling personnel, who worked on the platform,.
to be fed and housed on the drilling tender for 10 days at a time while they were
"on location," and in order for them to have been able freely to go from the platform
to and from the tender-to and from their living quarters and their work-the drill-
ing tender must necessarily have been attached to the platform or rig it was serving
for as long as drilling operations were being carried on . On the record considered
as a whole, I so find.
On the basis of the above testimony , and on the entire record, I conclude that
Taylor spoke to the employees on the drilling tenders rather than on the rigs, and
that the distributions were sent to the employees on the jobs on the drilling tenders.
E. Conclusions as to the Board 's jurisdiction
As was stated above at the beginning of the discussion of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, the language and legislative history of that Act leave no room for
doubt that Congress intended by that Act to extend the Federal jurisdiction and the
Federal laws, including the National Labor Relations Act, over the subsoil, seabed,
and natural resources under the waters of the outer Continental Shelf and the busi-
ness of discovering and extracting the natural resources , to the fullest extent possible
without interfering with the waters over the Continental Shelf as a highway for
the world's navigation , and without interfering with fishing rights. The legislative
history indicates beyond any doubt , also, that Congress intended the Federal , includ-
ing the Board 's, jurisdiction , to cover all of the structures reasonably necessary to,
the exploitation of the natural resources , so long as they did not conflict with the
theory upon which the Federal jurisdiction was asserted-including drilling tenders
attached to the fixed structures and anchored to the seabed , and necessary, as a.
practical matter, for their operation. The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Interior have so interpreted that Act . These conclusions flow from the
following considerations:
1. Section 3 (a) and (b) assert the new Federal policy over the area , and provide
that it shall be construed so as not to affect the rights of navigation and fishing on
the high seas.
2. The conference report by the managers on the part of the House stated that
jurisdiction and control of the United States was extended to structures for the
development of natural resources , such as artificial islands, drilling platforms, etc.
It said also that "certain Federal laws are made applicable to the area ," without
limiting the coverage of these Federal laws to the permanently fixed structures.
3. In presenting the final draft of the bill to the Senate floor, Senator Cordon,
the acting chairman of the committee , said that if Maritime law had been made
applicable to the area , as was first considered , the social laws "necessary for protec-
tion of the workers and their families would not apply. . . . It was necessary that
the protection afforded by such laws be extended to the outer Shelf area because of
the fact that ultimately some 10,000 or more men might be employed in mineral-
resource development there." Senator Cordon gave it as his judgment that the bill
as presented (which was ultimately accepted by both Senate and House and became
the law ) included "enough basic housekeeping legislation [including that with
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reference to the National Labor Relations Act and its administration] to permit the
going forward of the operations for the development and removal of the presently
known mineral values of the shelf."
4. Clayton Orn, the representative of the oil operators, gave it as his opinion that
the rights of employees are protected by the application of the National Labor
Relations Act. -
5. As originally drafted to accommodate maritime jurisdiction, the subsection spe-
cifically referring to the National Labor Relations Act was designed (according to
LeRoux, one of the drafters) to give a clear intent of Congress that this Act would
apply to "employment relations on the outer continental shelf." This statement of
clear intent was not altered when the language of the subsection was changed by way
of "perfecting" it.
6. As has been seen above, as originally drafted, the language referring specifi-
cally to the Act referred to unfair labor practices occurring upon any structure (other
than a vessel) located on the "outer continental shelf for the purpose of exploring
for . . . natural resources." When the committee altered this section to make it
conform to the new subsection (a) of section 4, the committee's written report called
the insertion of "artificial island or fixed" before "structure," merely "perfecting"
language, thus indicating that the committee did not consider this a great substantive
change in the section. Section 4 (d) referred to 4 (a), and as to the changes it made
in subsection (a), the committee's written report said the change in language was
"because the committee determined to extend jurisdiction over the whole of the
seabed and the subsoil, as well as to operational structures." [Emphasis supplied.]
The italicized language indicates that the committee was thinking of "fixed struc-
tures" as operational structures, and was not thinking of limiting jurisdiction to what
was permanently tied to the seabed and subsoil.
7. As has been found above on the record in this case, the drilling tenders or LST's
with which we are here concerned were tied to the platforms the employees living on
the tenders were serving. This conclusion was corroborated by the information of
which I have taken official or judicial notice above, which establishes that the plat-
form-tender ship combination is one of the several types of equipment currently used
in the Gulf of Mexico, and that in this combination the tender is necessary to the
operation of the platform, in that it contains motive power necessary for the opera-
tion of the platform, and also other equipment, including storage space, drill pipe,
casing, etc. The information establishes also that where the platform-tender ship
combination is used, the tender is as permanent a fixture while the platform is being
used for drilling as is the mobile platform while it is being used for drilling. In
the platform-tender combination, the tender is not only attached to the platform,
but is also moored alongside it. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright,
1951 by G. & C. Merriam Co.) defines "to moor" as follows: "Naut. To secure (a
vessel) in a place by fastening with cables and anchors or with lines." 32 It is a fair
presumption that the tenders are not only attached to the platforms, but in order
to stabilize them, to hold them fast against ground swells and wave action, that they
are also attached securely to the subsoil and seabed by anchors. I so find. This
being true, they become as much fixed structures during their stay in that spot as
are mobile platforms when their caissons are down, and as are the permanent, self-
contained platforms. As has been seen, the Coast Guard considers mobile platforms
as fixed structures. The language and legislative history of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act will not permit a construction giving the Board jurisdiction over a
self-contained platform, but denying that jurisdiction over a mobile platform when
its caissons are down, and denying jurisdiction over a platform-tender combination
when the platform's legs are in the subsoil and the tender is both attached to the
platform and, by anchor, to the seabed and subsoil.
8 The Senators and experts who spoke on the subject, indicated an intent to extend
the coverage of the Federal social laws, including the Act, to all of the employees who
worked on the platforms, not to just some of them. There was no expressed or im-
plied intent to extend the Act only to permanent, self-contained platforms, which as
the industry has developed, are being outmoded by lighter, less-expensive, and more
mobile equipment. Although the Senators did not discuss the precise equipment used
by the industry to extract the natural resources, there was an awareness that there
as Webster's New International Dictionary defines "moor" as follows :
Naut To fix or secure (a vessel) in a particular place by fastening with cables and
anchors or with fastening lines; specif., to secure (a vessel) by putting two anchors
down in opposite directions from the vessel so that her head is held on the line be.
tween them ; as, the vessel was moored in the stream ; they moored the boat to the
wharf.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1419
would be practical questions which would have to be resolved by administrative deci-
sion. As a practical matter, if the land law (the social laws as distinguished from
maritime law) reaches only to the permanent, self-contained platforms, that jurisdic-
tion is rapidly shrinking as platform-tender ship, and mobile platforms take over.
Surely Congress intended the social laws, rather than maritime law, to apply when
the tender is tied to the platform and anchored to the subsoil, or when the caissons
of the mobile platform are in the seabed-at which times the platform-tender com-
bination and the mobile platform must be "fixed structures" within the meaning of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If they are not then "fixed structures," the
employees who work on them when they are drilling for or producing natural
resources would be deprived of the protection of the Act and the protection of the
other social laws, thereby thwarting the desire of Congress to give this protection to
all of the employees.
In fact the template platforms, to which drilling tenders are attached, appear to be
as permanently placed in the seabed as are the self-contained platforms. The
legislative history did not indicate that Congress wished employees who worked on
and lived on the self-contained platforms to be protected by the Act, but desired
employees who worked on the template platforms and lived on attached tender-ships
not to be protected by the Act.
9. Construing the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act so as to include the drilling
tenders within the Board's jurisdiction, does no violence to the theory upon which the
United States has asserted jurisdiction and control over the area, according to the
views of the experts.
An authority on the international law questions involved in the assumption of
control over the Continental Shelf, Dr. Bingham, gave it as his opinion that inter-
national law "would support the erection of the derrick. . . Beyond that, I think
you have a practical question that will have to be resolved by consideration of the
practical factors . as to anything solid, the shelf or anything connected with it,
I should say the land laws are to apply." Dr. Bingham felt that anything connected
with the subsoil-such as an anchored drilling tender attached to a platform attached
to the shelf-would be covered, not just the platform which was attached to the shelf.
Mr. Tate, the legal adviser to the State Department, gave it as his opinion that,
.. I would assume you could do anything reasonably necessary in order to extract
the resources of the seabed and subsoil."
Senator Jackson thought that, "if logically you are entitled to the subsoil and
resources in it you have the right to take the necessary steps in the waters above to
get those resources... [Emphasis supplied.]
10. As has been seen above, when the Senators were discussing keeping navigation
above the shelf unimpeded, they realized there were "a lot of wells out there, and
platforms, and whatnot," and that these things would impede navigation somewhat.
As they were discussing authorizing the Corps of Engineers to grant permits to erect
artificial structures, they realized that, as Mr. Rankin, assistant attorney general,
pointed out, permitting such structures would be bound to affect navigation. Mr.
Rankin suggested use of the word "unreasonable"-meaning, evidently, permitting
any structure which was not an "unreasonable" impediment to navigation. Senator
Cordon then said, "We are going to have to indulge the presumption of these struc-
tures as being so small with respect to the vast area of the sea, that they do not
represent impediments." Senator Long then informed the Senators that shipping
interests, including foreign vessels, could be informed of the whereabouts of the struc-
tures by having the Corps of Engineers issue permits and the Coast and Geodetic
Survey place the permitted structures on the charts which guide the ships-on the
Continental Shelf the same as they do in territorial waters. Congress took care of
this in Section 4 (f), given above. [Emphasis supplied.]
I conclude from the above paragraph that Congress knew that structures attached
to the seabed, and other floating structures as well, would interfere somewhat with the
rights of navigation, but that they considered such structures so small in the vastness
of the high seas that they would consider them no effect at all upon the rights of
navigation. If this was true,as to the permanent structures, it was likewise true, as a
practical matter, as to attending drilling tenders, which took up very little more space
in the vastness of the sea than the permanent structures. The Secretary of the Army
(and through him presumably the Corps of Engineers), whose authority to prevent
obstruction to navigation is extended in section 4 (f) of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to artificial islands and fixed structures, must evidently not consider at-
tached drilling tenders an obstruction, because they presumably could not remain
attached without his permission.
11. The lease form used by the Secretary of the Interior, who is responsible under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for administering the provisions of that Act
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relating to the leasing of the Shelf, grants to the lessee the right to maintain on his
lease , on the Shelf, among other things, floating structures and other structures neces-
sary or convenient to his full enjoyment of his lease. Thus, the Secretary of the
Interior must consider that the Federal jurisdiction under that Act reaches to floating
structures attached to fixed structures, and that the words "artificial islands or fixed
structures " were not intended to be strictly 'construed.
12. The Board 's jurisdiction herein derives from section 4 ( a) (1) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. Section 4 (d) relates not to the Board's having or
asserting jurisdiction in the first place, but to what Federal District or Circuit Court
shall have jurisdiction over a controversy for injunctive purposes or to review a
Board order. Thus section 4 (d) assumes that the Board has entered a final order,
and any such order must, of course, have been preceded by the Board's having and
having asserted jurisdiction . If the Board has jurisdiction herein under section 4
(a) (1), and finds that an unfair labor practice has occurred, the unfair labor practice
will have occurred, by operation of section 4 (d) (considered with Section 10 (e)
and (f) of the National Labor Relations Act) within a Federal judicial district in
Louisiana or Texas.
13. Not to be lost sight of in the consideration of the jurisdictional question, is
the possible impact upon commerce of a strike of Respondent's employees, living on
some 20 to 25 jobs in close confinement with the employees of other contractors,
including the drilling and marine crews. It is difficult to imagine that such a strike
would not affect the flow of oil and gas across State lines within the United States.
14. My overall conclusion is that the National Labor Relations Act has been
extended to protect employers and employees engaged in the discovery and exploita-
tion of the natural resources in the Continental Shelf to the fullest extent within the
power of Congress without affecting navigation or fishing rights, that this extension
encompasses anchored drilling tenders attached to fixed platforms and necessary
to the functioning of the fixed platforms, that the Board has jurisdiction over this
proceeding , and that asserting its jurisdiction herein will be in conformity with its
present direct outflow and indirect outflow jurisdictional standards.
III, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
Upon his return from a trip on about June 26, 1956, Respondent's President Taylor
learned from some of the people in his office that , "there were some (union ) organ-
izers at one of the shore bases that had been actively contacting our employees and
trying to get them to sign pledge cards or join the union .. . Also his attention
was called to a mimeographed form which said, "'S. I. U. News Letter' at the Top."
In due course he was also shown one of the pledge cards of the Seafarers' Inter-
national Union of North America, affiliated with AFL-CIO. The "pledge" on
these cards read as follows:
I, hereby designate, appoint and authorize the SEAFARERS' INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, to represent me in
any and all negotiations relative to collective bargaining with my present or
any future employer.
This authorization shall continue in full force and effect until I have revoked
same by written revocation delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer of said Union.
After consultation with his attorneys and others in his office, Taylor had one of his
attorneys draw up a revocation form to revoke the "pledge," addressed to the
secretary-treasurer of the Union at its New Orleans address, and reading as follows:
DEAR SIR: I hereby revoke the authorization designating, appointing and
authorizing the Seafarers' International Union of North America to represent
me in negotiations relative to collective bargaining with my employer. This
revocation shall be effective immediately.
Very truly yours,
Respondent had a quantity of these forms reproduced.
At about the same time Respondent drew up and had reproduced a letter dated
July 4, 1956, addressed "All General Marine Personnel" from "Wallace Taylor."
This was a long document, some 51/2 legal sized pages double-spaced. It gave
Respondent's view of what a pledge card was-that it gave the Union a sufficient
percentage to be able to petition the Board for an election . Among other things
it said,
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1421
Once you have signed a "pledge card" your name and address is on record
with the union so that they will be able to follow you and harass you and
your family any time they feel like it.
You do not have to sign a "pledge card" in order to vote. . If you
have signed a "pledge card," the union will know your name and address, and
they can follow you to your home to annoy you and your family there to
persuade you to vote for the union.
The decision as to whether you want to sign a "pledge card" or do not
want to sign one is your own. Before you decide, here are some facts that
you should consider:
* * * * * * *
3. You are now in personal control of your job... .
* * * * * * *
5. It is a tough and toilsome task to build something worthwhile. There
are many greedy, selfish and ruthless men who would like to come in and suck
out the strength of something that has been built, for they have nothing to
lose if it is destroyed and everything to gain if they have their way.
6. Freedom, independence and liberty, are sacred words to a true American.
The bodies and blood of many men have been left on the battlefield protecting
these rights for you and me. Don't let these precious privileges be taken
away from you a little bit at a time until you become a slave to a dictatorial
power.
* * * * * * *
8. I don't think they have anything to offer. .
9. You have your job, you have earned it and it is and it is yours as long
as you do your job in a good, happy, loyal manner. You have more control
over protecting your job than anybody else. For my part I would like to
see you be a good God-fearing American and keep it that way.
As has been seen above, Taylor testified in substance that this letter, and the
revocation form, were distributed by Respondent to substantially all of its em-
ployees on the jobs . He testified in substance , also , that according to his infor-
mation , some of the revocation forms were distributed to jobs where the Union
had not undertaken to organize the employees . Vice-President Dixon testified in
substance that in its first distribution , Respondent mailed a copy of the revocation
form to each employee.
Taylor testified further that the revocation forms came back to the company-"I
think we signed up 95 to 98 percent of the employees." Taylor stated, further,
.. as I recall, they would come in by a group-from each job . where they did
come in from one job, practically everybody on that particular job seemed to have
signed them." On about July 27, 1956, Respondent sent to the Union a volume
containing 154 signed revocation forms. (A set of photostatic copies was sent to
the Board's Regional Office.) They had been signed by Respondent's employees,
and, some of them, possibly, by Respondent's supervisors. Some of them were
signed in Respondent 's office in the presence of Respondent's vice president, who
signed them as a witness.
Prior to the sending of the revocations to the Union, Respondent addressed two
other communications to its employees , and Taylor and Respondent's personnel
man took a 3-day trip to a number of "jobs" where they talked with people.
On July 12, Taylor wrote his employees, in pertinent part,
I want to take this opportunity to personally thank each and every one of
you for the terrific response you gave me to my letter of July 4th. Signed
"revocation slips" have been pouring in to this office with the instructions from
the signers for us to transmit them, as, if and when we thought it necessary.
To me it was a real vote of confidence from the men with the "guts" to get up
on their hind legs and say "We are free and independent Americans, and that's
the way we want to stay."
There is one group that came in from a job where everybody on the job
signed a "revocation slip." They told us "None of us have signed 'Pledge
cards,' but we feel so deeply about this we want to sign the 'revocation slips'
and show you where we stand."
* * * * * * *
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I like the idea, of these boys who signed "revocation slips" and sent them
in, even though they hadn't signed "Pledge cards." So, let's keep them coming
in. Whether or not you have been fooled or coerced into signing a "Pledge
Card," sign a "revocation slip" anyway. [Emphasis supplied.]
And don't let anyone frighten or threaten you into signing a "Pledge card."
I thank you again from the bottom of my heart for the show of strength. I
can assure you with this spirit that you are going to have a company where
you can stay in control of your jobs, and earn your promotions.
You will be able to do this without paying tribute to a bunch of union
dictators.
Taylor's next communication stated that his letter of July 12 had been "sent out."
A few days later, after his trip to the jobs, Taylor addressed his employees as
follows:
Things have been moving fast in the attempt of the Union to take over our
company. On the 26th of June, I learned that the Union was openly trying
to have you all sign pledge cards. I immediately went into intensified study
to find out the nature and reasons of pledge cards. On the 4th of July I wrote
you a letter telling you briefly what I had learned. A few days later forms
were sent out which would allow those of you who had been led into signing
pledge cards an opportunity to revoke these documents.
The response was so great that on the 12th of July I sent out a letter of
appreciation for your show of faith in our company. Nothing that has hap-
pened in the years has so warmed the old man's heart as the splendid showing
of confidence and loyalty. Not only did we receive these revocations, or, as
a few of our men so aptly put them, General Marine Pledge Cards, from the
people who had originally signed union pledge cards, but they started coming
in from everybody, regardless of whether or not they had signed the union
pledge cards. On many jobs they came in 100%.
I have been told that some of the men who signed the revocation slips were
promised that the slips would not be sent to the union unless the men were
informed and their permission was received. In view of the fact that the
response was so tremendous, it seems quite probable that we will make a
decision to submit these to the union.
I want to show the same faith in you that you have shown in me and the
purpose of this letter is to make definitely sure that we have this permission.
In my opinion, the future of our little company is brighter than ever and we
may want to send these revocations so that the union organizers may feel free
to devote their time to more productive fields.
By signing this letter below and returning it to me you consent to our use-
of the revocation slips and reaffirm that in signing the revocation slip you did,
so of your own free will, without threat of retaliation or promise of reward.
As I told those of you whom I had the opportunity to see personally, there
will be no discrimination against anyone who fails to sign a revocation slip.
To each and every one of you I again give you my heartfelt thanks and God
bless you.
WALLACE TAYLOR.
To: Mr. WALLACE TAYLOR,
President, General Marine Corporation,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
This will confirm revocation of authorization designating , appointing and,
authorizing the Seafarers International Union of North America to represent me
in negotiations relative to collective bargaining with my employer, dated
July , 1956.
Both the aforesaid revocation and this confirmation were and are signed of
my own free will and without any threat of retaliation or promise of reward
by you or any other officer or representative of the Company and you are
specifically authorized to send my original revocation to the Union.
Dated:
------------ 1956
As has been seen above, on July 14, 15, and 16, 1956, Taylor and Respondent's
personnel man visited a number of the jobs-they went "out on the jobs out in the
Gulf"-where they had conversations with a number of the men on the drilling
tenders During these conversations Taylor threatened to close down his business
if the Union were successful in organizing the employees. The question is whether
this threat was made in the presence of employees.
GENERAL MARINE CORPORATION 1423
Taylor testified that to a limited number of people out there he made the
statement that he would close down his business if the Union organized his em-
ployees. He recalled specifically the 1 or 2 persons he said that to on each of 3
or 4 jobs. Two of these persons were identified as supervisory employees, one a
steward who was in charge of the "mess" on the drilling tender, and the other an
engineer who was in charge of the "engine personnel aboard the vessel." The iden-
tity of the other persons to whom he remembered making this statement was not
disclosed in the record, nor were their categories of supervisor or employee dis-
closed. Asked whether he "openly" stated that he would close down if the Union
came in, Taylor replied,
Whether it is open or not, I spoke very openly and freely to these people
that I spoke to. I will say this, I didn't gather people around in a meeting
and preach to them like that. It was one or two people together. Now, gen-
erally on these jobs or in the dining room we have a cup of coffee and
sometimes there is just one or two of us there and there may be some other
people around. I didn't notice it or pay attention to it. It wasn't a secret
or confidential meeting. But the conversation generally wasn't an open
meeting.
Asked whether those present were just supervisors, or whether employees were
present also, Mr. Taylor replied,
I associate this statement with the people to whom I talked. Now,
certainly in talking to these people on some occasions, one or two of the
occasions there was an employee or two around. Who they were, I couldn't
remember. There certainly was not over one or two because there are never
more than that around at the time. The way the jobs work, we have only,
unless it is at mealtime, there is only one or two or three people in the dining
room, galleys, where you generally talk to these people. . . The galley and
dining room of these places are open, and when you talk to one or two
people in a bull session, as we call it, and sometimes it is alone and sometimes
another couple of guys come in and get into it, and sometimes we are
alone. . There is nothing formal about it. You go out there and you have
a cup of coffee and maybe you stand up in the galley and talk to the cook or
steward and maybe you sit down in the dining room and have a chat with
them, and maybe there are a couple of people more that will come in, but f
only identify the people with whom I am personally acquainted. There are a
lot of other people around on this ship, roughnecks and all of that, and a lot
of other employees whom I don't know personally.
And I was not, frankly not hesitant about expressing myself to the people I
knew, but I didn't make a point to go out of my way to talk to people I didn't
know, even if they were in my employ.
Asked "In other words, Mr. Taylor. . your description is it was sort of a general
bull session?" Taylor replied, "That is right." Asked, "And people would come
and go," Taylor replied, "That is right." Asked, "In other words, you don't know
exactly the number of people you did mention that to?" Taylor replied,
I could not possibly state that. The remarks were directed directly to a few..
Certainly, there were a few others that heard it, but certainly not very many
of them. I would hate to have to tell you how many. It would be impossible
for me to honestly do it. I was open in my remarks and I did make it,
I will say that.
Under questioning by Respondent's counsel, Taylor testified further that "I said
a great deal more than that" to the persons he was talking to-referring to the
statement about closing down; that he could not name any nonsupervisory employee
who heard the statement. Asked, "Well, can you swear that any non-supervisory
employee did hear it?" Taylor replied, "I wouldn't want to swear one way or the
other, either that they did or didn't." Asked, "You can't say that they didn't?"
Taylor replied,
I presume that some of them heard part of the conversation, but how much
of it, I don't know. I would hate to say one way or the other on that.
Asked, "So you actually don't know whether any of them did or did not; is that
correct? You don't know whether they did or whether they didn't, of your own
personal knowledge?" Taylor replied,
No, I wouldn't want to swear that they did or that they didn't. .. .
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Conclusions
By preparing the revocation forms, distributing them to the employees on the
jobs, permitting the use of its office for the signing of the forms , participating in
their execution by witnessing them , and inviting the employees to forward signed
revocation forms to its office ( in its letter of July 12), Respondent , in Louisiana and
on the Continental Shelf nearest to Louisiana and Texas , interfered with , restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Juvenile
Manufacturing Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 1513; Howard-Cooper Corporation, 117
NLRB 287; The Jefferson Company, Inc. 110 NLRB 757, 771; Rugcrofters of Puerto
Rico, Inc., 112 NLRB 724, 741; United Biscuit Company of America, 101 NLRB
1552, 1561-1569; Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 102 NLRB 211, 221, 225; Phillips &
Buttorff Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 1091, 1092, footnote 2; American Bot-
tling Company, 99 NLRB 345, 348-350; Royal Palm Ice Company, 92 NLRB 1295,
1296; Long-Lewis Hardware Company, 90 NLRB 1403, 1408-9, 1413-15; Missouri
Bag Company, 91 NLRB 385, 392-398; Joslin Dry Goods Company 118 NLRB
555; West Point Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 448, 459-61, 482.
As to Taylor's threat to close down his business if the Union organized his em-
ployees, the question is whether this statement was made to employees or was
directed to supervisors only. Taylor testified that "The purpose of my going out
on the job was to thank the fellows for having signed the revocation slips." Having
gone out for the purpose of speaking to those who had signed revocations, many,
if not most of whom, must necessarily have been employees as distinguished from
supervisors, Taylor must necessarily have spoken to employees on this trip-those
he went out to speak to concerning the revocation slips. His hostility towards the
Union had been announced to each employee in his communication of July 4. On
July 12 he had written each employee to let the revocations keep coming in, and
had referred to "a bunch of union dictators." His message that he would close
down if the Union organized his employees must have been directed to employees,
-as had been his previous written messages , for they were the ones he was principally
trying to get to withdraw from the Union, and not just the supervisors. In the
galleys and mess halls, where employees were coming and going, he spoke freely
and openly to those within range of his voice-in "bull-sessions ." He admitted that
while he was talking on some of the jobs, "there was an employee or two around."
He admitted that his statement concerning closing down was heard by "a few others"
than those he made the statement directly to. On the record considered as a whole
I believe, and hold, that this statement was intended to be heard by Respondent's
employees, was made to Respondent's employees, and was heard by Respondent's
employees. On the record as a whole I hold that by Taylor's making this open
threat to employees of loss of employment if the Union got in , Respondent, on the
Continental Shelf nearest to Louisiana, or within the State of Louisiana, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with Respondent 's operations , have a close , intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and upon the Con-
tinental Shelf and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce,
and trade, traffic, and commerce upon the Continental Shelf, and the free flow
,thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Respondent having violated the Act, as amended, and as extended to the Con-
tinental Shelf, I recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The geographical scope of Respondent's unlawful practices is wide, covering
some 20 to 25 locations, a few inland or in the bayous, but mostly in the Gulf
of Mexico, over an area some 600 miles in length from near Corpus Christi, Texas,
Jo the Venice area near the mouth of the Mississippi River. The record in this
case indicates that Respondent's principal avenue of communicating with its em-
ployees is by mail, by mailing a communication directly to each employee on the job.
It is evident from the above that posting notices at Respondent's office alone
-would not adequately effectuate the policies of the Act, as extended to the Con-
- tinental Shelf. -to order adequately to publicize to employees that Respondent will
PAINT, VARNISH & LACQUER MAKERS UNION 1425
cease from its unlawful practices found herein, I believe that it should be required
to mail a communication to that effect directly to each of its present employees
on his job.33
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com-
mission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the
past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is co-
extensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices,
and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and
burdens and obstructs trade, traffic, and commerce upon the Continental Shelf,
and thus effectuate the policies of the Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infring-
ing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Marine Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and within the meaning of the Act as extended to the Outer Continental
Shelf in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
2. Seafarers' International Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf District,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By preparing revocations, distributing them to employees, permitting the use
of its office for signing the forms, participating in their execution by witnessing
them, and inviting employees to forward signed revocations to its office, and by
threatening employees with loss of employment by threatening to close down its
business if the Union organized its employees, Respondent in Louisiana, and on the
Continental Shelf nearest to Louisiana and Texas, has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
°' Cf. Alexander-Stafford Corporation, 118 NLRB 79, and the cases cited therein in
footnote 8.
Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Makers Union , Local 1232 , AFL-CIO,
and Steel, Paperhouse , Chemical Drivers & Helpers Local 578,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America 1 and Andrew Brown Com-
pany. Case No. 21-CB-830. June 13, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 22, 1957, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
'The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deemed the Teamsters' certlfl-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of the Respondent
Teamsters is hereby amended.
120 NLRB No. 89.
483142-59-vol. 120-91