Great Lakes Dredge and Docks Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 197 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY 197
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company and United
Marine Division, ILA, AFL-CIO, Local 333. Case
29-CA-5 128
January 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS MURPHI
AND TRUESDALE
On January 23, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party.
United Marine Division. ILA, AFL-CIO, Local 333
(herein also called the Union, and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Re-
spondent ' filed a reply memorandum.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the com-
plaint, as amended, which alleged that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and () of the Act by refusing
to employ 12 individuals on certain of its vessels, des-
tined for Saudi Arabia, because of their membership
in the Union. The Administrative Law Judge found
that a joint venture called GLABVO, to which Re-
spondent was a party, was responsible for the com-
mission of any alleged unfair labor practices, that the
complaint was "fatally defective" in failing to name
GLABVO rather than Respondent, and that even if
GLABVO had been named its "contacts [in the
United States] are not sufficient to warrant assertion
of the Board's jurisdiction...." Contrary to the
Administrative Law Judge, we find, as alleged by the
General Counsel and the Charging Party. and for the
reasons set forth below, that GLD is answerable for
any unfair labor practices it may have committed as
a member of the joint venture, and that it was there-
fore properly named as Respondent herein.
The pertinent facts are as follows: On October 10,
1975, Respondent, an American corporation, and
two Dutch firms, Amsterdam Ballast Dredging
(herein called AB) and Dredging V02 (herein called
V02), entered into a "pre-bidding agreement" to bid
on certain dredging operations in Damman. Saudi
Herein also called GLD.
240 NLRB No. 17
Arabia. and, if selected, to establish a joint venture
called GLABVO. A subcontract to perform the
above-described work was subsequently awarded to
GLABVO.2 GLABVO was then formally established
by AB, V02, and Respondent on December 16.
1975, pursuant to a "joint venture agreement."
The joint venture agreement provides, inter alia,
that each of the joint venturers "shall respond [sic]
jointly and severally liable for all obligations under
the construction contract:" that they shall share in
the obligations and profits of the joint venture; and
that a separate bank account shall be established for
GLABVO moneys. Pursuant to the agreement. a
"management committee," composed of one member
and one alternate designated by each of the joint
venturers 4 "has the right to determine the policy of
and conduct the overall management and supervi-
sion of the Joint Venture and the Construction Con-
tract and performance of the project." Each commit-
tee member has one vote and all "important
decisions shall be taken unanimously." If the man-
agement committee cannot reach unanimity, "at any
party's request a decision shall be taken by a majori-
ty of votes, while each party shall have the right to
refer the respective matter to immediate arbitration,"
pending which the majority's decision "shall be bind-
ing." AB is designated as the "sponsor" of the joint
venture. In this capacity AB. subject to the direction
of the management committee, is "responsible for
the general conduct. supervision and administration
of the affairs of the Joint Venture" and is paid a fee
in the amount of "3/47 of the gross revenue under
the Construction contract."
Respondent is required by the joint venture agree-
ment to make available to the project two tugboats,
the Lynn and the Gaynor, and a launch, the Sunshine
State.5 Respondent at all times retains title to the ves-
sels, which remain in United States registry. The ves-
sels will return to the United States following com-
pletion of the 15-month to 18-month project.
The hiring policies for the joint venture are estab-
lished by the management committee. AB as sponsor
is responsible, pursuant to the joint venture agree-
ment, for "the selection and employment of such em-
ployees, experts, and . . . advisors, as ordered by the
' this subcontract is between GLABVO and another Dutch firm which.
as primary contractor, has a contract with the Government of Saludi Arabia
I he agreement provides that the share of each of the joint venturer',
profits shall equal the percentage of their obligations. While there is testl-
mo ns that the financial nterest of each Joint enturer is different, the con-
tract fails to set forth the specific percentages for each oint enturer
4Respondentl' representative on the management committee is ph;sicallx
situated n Respondent's principal office and place of business in (hicago.
Ilhnol,
The contract provides that all' equipment shall be furnished in first
class working condition and will be returned tio the respective ioiners in first
class Hworking condition normal wear and tear accepted Bareboat rentals
shall commence when equipment work conmmences
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management committee." The hiring of some of the
personnel to man the vessels in question was done in
Miami, Florida, by R. L. Enterkin, who had been
employed by Respondent for many years and is fa-
miliar with the operation of the vessels and the requi-
site operating skills. Enterkin did not set the hiring
policies but manned the vessels under policies pre-
scribed by the management committee. While per-
forming these services, Enterkin continued to draw
his base salary from Respondent and additionally re-
ceived overseas pay and a job completion bonus
from GLABVO, the amount of the latter exceeding
his base salary.
To be considered for employment by Enterkin, ap-
plicants were required to fill out one of Respondent's
standard employment forms. 6 Once at the jobsite,
employees work aboard the vessels 7 days a week, 12
hours a day, for 2 months, and then are off for I
month. They are paid by GLABVO's payroll office
in Saudi Arabian currency, with funds from the joint
venture's bank account. Apparently, there are no de-
ductions taken from their pay pursuant to any laws
of the United States.
Like Enterkin, two of Respondent's supervisory
personnel also perform services for GLABVO. These
individuals, however, are stationed in Saudi Arabia
for the duration of the project and during this period
are paid by GLABVO exclusively. One such individ-
ual is the GLABVO project manager who reports di-
rectly to the sponsor's representative on the manage-
ment committee. The other is a supervisor on the
GLABVO project.
As noted above, the Administrative Law Judge
found that the complaint was issued against the
wrong Respondent and that it was therefore fatally
defective. We disagree since we find Respondent re-
sponsible for its conduct both as a party to the joint
venture and as an agent acting on behalf of the joint
venture. A review of the law pertinent to the question
of Respondent's liability reveals that the rules gov-
erning partnerships are, for the most part, applied to
joint ventures 7 and the legal rights and obligations of
6 While many of the positions on the vessels were manned hb foreigners.
Americans occupied most of the skilled positions
7Black's Law Diclicnary (revised. 4th ed. ( 1968 ) defines jint ad\en-
ture" as "A commercial or maritime enterprise undertaken by several per-
sons jointly; a limited partnership. not limited in the statutory sense as to
the liability of the partners, but as to its scope and duration. An as,oci-
ation of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for
profit, for which purpose they combine their property. mone. effects. skill.
and knowledge. Black's states further that "[a] 'joint adventure.' hile
not identical with a partnership, is so similar in its nature and in the rela-
tions created thereby that the rights of the parties as between therlselves are
governed practically by the same rules that govern partnerships." citing
Goss v. Lanin. 170 Iowa 57, 152 N.W. 43, 45 (1915). For further discussion
see Nichols, Joint enur.,, 36 Va. I.. Rev. 425 1950); Joelson and (iriffin.
Mulri-NationulJoint Ventures und the 'S 4U l rl-/sir I.rs:. 15 V'.J .of Intl
L. 487 (1975). (hereinafter called AMll/i-\ rtinrrl Joint enturr,-').
joint venturers vis-a-vis their enterprise are construed
to be substantially equivalent to those of partners.
Addressing this matter, in Tavlor v. Brindlev the
court stated:
Each member acts individually and as agent for
other members within the general scope of the
enterprise. Being closely akin to a partnership,
the law of partnership and principal and agent
underlies the conduct of the venture, and gov-
erns the rights and liabilities of co-adventurers,
and of third parties as well.
In partnerships, members "are liable as principals
both in contract and tort for acts of a partner which
are authorized and those which bind them because
the act is within the agency power of the partner." 9
Likewise,
j]loint venturers, being governed by the law of
partnership, are each the agent, and by the same
token, the principal of each other.'
In matters strictly within the limits of the joint ven-
ture, each associate is an agent of the others as far as
third parties are concerned. Thus, as stated by the
c)curt in O.K. Boiler & Welding Co. v. Minnetonka
Lumber Co.,"
Each member of a joint enterprise represents a
dual status: that of principal for himself, and as
agent for the other members in the doing of
those acts within the general scope of the enter-
prise. t2
Further, in terms of the ordinary law of agency,
which the Board has a clear statutory mandate to
apply, a principal is naturally responsible for its
own acts. So too, a principal is liable to third parties
for acts of its authorized agents. 4 This does not,
however, relieve the agent of responsibility for its
Iown conduct. The Act specifically provides that an
employer's "agent" may be held personally account-
able for conduct violative of Section 8(a). Applying
the above, we find that Respondent is responsible as
a principal for any authorized acts committed by any
member of the joint venture and as an agent for any
164 F. 2d 235. 241 (I lth (ir 1947) See also In re Taub, 4 F.2d 993. 994
t2d (ir. 19241.
4 Restatement (Second) of Agenc., Sec. 14A (1957).
1i Poire v. Saunder. 143 P.2d 554, 556. 16 Wash 2d 561 (1943).
229 P. 1045. 1048. 103 Okla. 226. 229 (1924).
1 See also .4lnderon v. liebhr, 148 N.Y. Supp 133 136, 162 App Div.
728. 730, IS ('., App. D., st Dept.. NY. 19141
ii /,tirerntlion l lion.gshriortli, n's aind L arehor, .virr tt en' Union. I ( . rind
L,otl 6. n 'it tSuln eit LI rtnd Irine ( onipmlnl . 79 NI .RB 1487. 1507 (1948).
14 Resiatementl (Second) ,of Agency. Sec 140 (19501. See. generally. hun-
dirhird Itol ('Aonionr. 152 NLRB 1416 (19651.
5 Sec 2 of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "'lhe tern 'employer'
ilntludcas an person acling s an agent of an eriplh>yer. directlL or indirectl
"See ttirtli..ll i [ll ,hOre men 'n tlid Rt rehloll(en n's\ [Unirln. ( I 0,
iyrp, 7 N RB it 1507
GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY 199
acts committed by it on behalf of the joint venture.
Respondent's liability as a principal is straightfor-
ward. The hiring was done in furtherance of the joint
venture and pursuant to policies established by the
management committee. It was, therefore, an integral
aspect of the GLABVO operation. Respondent as a
joint venturer is answerable, as provided in the joint
venture agreement. for those acts. Furthermore. Re-
spondent was, in effect, the party performing the hir-
ing for GLABVO and is therefore liable as an agent
of the joint venture. Thus, Respondent, through En-
terkin, had full responsibility for the hiring of em-
ployees in the United States to staff the vessels con-
tributed to the project by Respondent."' At the time.
Enterkin was salaried not only by GLABVO. but
continued to receive his base salary from Respon-
dent. Enterkin used Respondent's standard employ-
ment forms to process applicants and followed hiring
policies prescribed by the management committee on
which Respondent shared an equal voice with the
other joint venturers. Thus Respondent. acting on
behalf of GLABVO. performed the hiring of employ-
ees in the United States to staff the vessels in ques-
tion.'7
Accordingly. we find that when Respondent en-
gaged in the alleged unlawful hiring practices author-
ized by GLABVO. it was acting as the agent, and b3
the same token, the principal of the other joint ven-
turers. In both capacities Respondent is liable for its
conduct. ts
The question remains whether the Board. in its dis-
cretion, should assert jurisdiction over this aspect of
Respondent's business. given the international nature
16 Enterkin was particularly qualified for Ihir assignment, given hi, fanill
iarity with the equipment which would he returned to Respondent upon Ihe
prolect's completion
See (herrrAee Ppeline ( olpanl 202 NRB 60. 561 1973), herein
the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judges finding hat "each sup-
ervisor and or agent of either corp.rairn - engaged in the joint en-
lurel. is in act an agent f the lolnt enture" A, Enterkin was oncurrentrl
working for Respondent and the loint venture. they are sepa.raitelN inid tlint-
li hable for his conductl Id at 566 56,7.
t Ihe Adminlstratlve Law Judge relied on ren Sh ihered 4 .l ,,r a
Kruge. Inc. 109 N.RB 209 ( 1954), in support of his finding that the (jGenerll
Counsel's failure tI name (i L BVO a Respondent herein renders the tlmtt-
plaint fatall] defeciive. In thai case the carpentry foreman. delegated eclu-
sise authorit to hire and discharge emplovees for the prolect and responsl
-
blllt for he employrrent pllcies alleged it) he unlawful, was emplosed
solel5 hb the joint venture which was named as a parts to the proceeding
Thus, the joint venture itself was before the Board. making it unnecessar
for the Board to pass upon the hahilit, of the jorint venturers fr the alleged
unlawful conduct even though the) would have been liable for said conduLl
b5 operation of the Joint enture arrangement. In contrast, GL) is the sole
part) to the Joint venture named as Respondent herein I hus. the Bard
must pass upon its liabiliht for actions taken on behalf of the Iint enittire
Further, the joint venture agreement herein specificalls proside, that the
joint venturers "shall respond lointl: and seseral I liable forr all obhlg.tions
under the construction agreement' hus. the Jloint venture agreement Itself
makes Respondent liable for the conduct herein alleged to be unlawful
Respondent. of course. is free to seek cntrlhutlion frnom the iother .oi[
ventures for ans lhahllit It ma Incur
of the GLABVO operation.' It is now settled that an
employer is not insulated from the sanctions of our
Act because of its close relationship with an agency
or instrumentality of a foreign government or foreign
state enterprise.- As recently stated by this Board in
State Bank of India, supra, "there is no basis for be-
lieving the Act was intended to exclude any employ-
ees in our country whose employer in this country is
an 'employer' engaged in 'commerce' within the
meaning of the Act" (229 NLRB at 841). Applying
this principle to the instant case, we find no basis for
declining to assert jurisdiction over Respondent.2"
The alleged discriminatees are employees in our
country.2 The conduct alleged to be unlawful ook
place in the United States and was committed bs
GLABVO's domestic agent, Respondent herein. The
existence of additional and substantial United States
contacts further militates toward asserting jurisdic-
tion herein. Thus, as discussed above, the individuals
hired by Enterkin. an acknowledged employee of Re-
spondent. are employed on vessels which were
loaned to the project by Respondent and will be re-
turned to Respondent upon the project's completion.
Significantly. crew members work exclusively on
these vessels which at all times retain United States
registry. and they rmain aboard the vessels for unin-
terrupted 2-month periods. Further. Respondent
shares equally with the other joint venturers the re-
sponsibility of determining GLABVO policy and
overall management and supervision of the joint en-
ture. It follows, therefore. that through its representa-
tive on the management committee, who is physically
situated at its corporate headquarters in Chicago.
Respondent exercises a substantial degree of control
" c Respondent aidnmil. a, the dnminilstraiie .,w lJudge fund. ht t
IleeCis Ihe Board' nnrelall urrsdJcti.on.al standa.rd based. in parl. o1 ser-
lces perfornmed n.. and f. .rlous eerprises loca.ted in fren cLii iI-
'ries and hu,. that it is in emploser engaged commer e wuthin Ihe
me.inirrg f the At
SA Pdl, ( rp. 23) NRB 1211 1977: ie BanotA of nda. 229
NI.RB 838 i 1977)
,\s indicated in her dlisentring pinionr iIr 'hc irl 4ltlbl,\ ti a Scer
.c ,rguvc and il ( tnlit.ilrr' .tettl¢er ( lhi. 236 RB 1317 t 197814 Member
NMurph? would find thlat the Boa.rd has authiorit t exercise uridlctltn
ovrer ;iciLtlies iof a foreign corponration engaged in commerce in the i nited
States regardless of the extenl f it, .acisllties elsewhere. See Silte RBin ,I
Indrat. u/lri (ontrar ts the malorit' in .Stw'lr l.egue l which excluded the
twO (lliadllan teams from the Boa.rd's assertion otf jurlsdlctlon oiver the
league. Member Murph .would hase asserted jurisdiction oer the league',
actltlltles with respect t) the o ('anadtanl luhbs antd their plaers t leat to
the extent that such actiitlles occurred in the , 'nited States Thus. s in th.at
case. Member Mlurph? finds here that the Act's fundamenil purposes as
well as the facts of this case require as-ertlon of lurlsdicmtln ver the em-
plo:er despite its cornnectirlns ith a foreign natiln.
'- hll ndislduals of ther nationahtlties alsu work n the three essels
owned h Respondent is nt material toi Ihe questlon f Ihe Board' dcre-
tinar ullrlrsdctlo n herein See Dan l1rogan and J R Pi,n ( -Psarinur.
d h a /.trranl aInd P,m,n. 55 N LRB 310. 315( 1944): ( P ( re allnd ( omf
1. 19l NI.RB 9 (197 1)
See reepiri lIrallri p i. .220 NI.RB 833 1975) (ompare lt, ( ui
in h s Sti*lelsid N:iaculonal e r tanriner uc Ittndura [[ nlrcd rll (intrpUlnir
372 I S II) 19 631 : en ( rtipiaua awei tdal,,,, 353 5s 138 1957)
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over the employment conditions of project employ-
ees. 24 Based on the foregoing, we find it will effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over
this aspect of Respondent's business. 2
Accordingly, we find Great Lakes Dredge is a
proper Respondent 26 and we shall remand this pro-
ceeding to the Administrative Law Judge for prepa-
ration and issuance of a Supplemental Decision on
the merits of the issues involving those individuals
whom Respondent allegedly failed and refused to
employ for the dredging project because of their
membership in the Union.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the case be, and it hereby
is, remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for
further action not inconsistent with our findings
herein, including the preparation and issuance of a
Supplemental Decision on tile merits of the allega-
tions of the complaint concerning the alleged failure
and refusal to employ Richard Walsh, Henry Beattie.
Andre Paal, Olav Angell, James Evans, Earnest Ors-
land, John San Climenti, Bob Tillotson, John Mur-
dock, Roy Eliassen, Warrent Willmot, and George
Lake.
'4 See ( P (Clare and (orlpanim. ulrra
See also Multi-Natiuonal Jint , enure. suprl at 531 wherein he au-
thors. addressing the question of redress for violations of U nited State,
Anti-Trust laws by multinational joint venturers. state. "Of course. there is
no problem of enforcement respective to IU S. companies or foreign comnlpa-
nies in he United States because theN are subject ito he court's In persona
jurisdiction, and therefore its contempt power" citing l iailed Slic iX
United Mine Wi'rlkers f America, 33()0 tS 259. 293 294 (1
947
1.
Inasmuch as G.ABVO was not nnamed as a pari to he nstant pro-
ceeding we express no sew n whether the Board has authority. to ,ssert
jurisdiction over it.
DECISION
SIATMENNI OF tiFE CASE
PEtR E E DONNEL LY. Administrative Law Judge: The orig-
inal charge herein was filed on July 28, 1976, by United
Marine Division, ILA, AFL CIO. Local 333. herein called
the Charging Party or the Union. An Amended charge was
filed by the Charging Party on October 14, 1976, and a
complaint was issued on January 6, 1977, alleging that
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, herein called
Employer or Respondent, refused to employ 11 members
of the Union ' on certain of its vessels transferred to Saudi
Arabia, because of their membership in the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. An answer there-
to was timely filed by Respondent. Pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held before me in Brooklyn, New York, on
A 12th member was added to the complaint by amendment at (he hear-
ing.
July 13, and 14, 1977. Briefs have been duly filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent. which have been duly
considered.
FINDINGS OF FA(CT
I J:RISDI(1 ON
A. Emplo)er's Business
The transcript discloses that the Employer is a New Jer-
sey corporation engaged in dredging and marine construc-
tion with its principal office and place of business in Chica-
go. Illinois. with a yard office at Richmond Terrace, in the
borough of Richmond. New York. The complaint alleges
and the answer admits that during the past year the Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, performed services valued in excess of $50,000, of
which services were performed in and for various enterpris-
es located in States other than the State where it is located.
and which services were performed in and for various en-
terprises located in foreign countries. Based on these facts.
I conclude that the Employer meets the Board's nonretail
jurisdictional standards.
B. Joint Venture
On October 10, 1975, Respondent and two Dutch firms,
Amsterdam Ballast Dredging and Dredging V02, herein
referred to respectively as AB and V02, entered into a
prebidding agreement to perform certain dredging opera-
tions in Dammam, Saudi Arabia (Resp. Exh. 2). A subcon-
tract for the performance of the work was subsequently
awarded to the joint venture,2 and on December 16, 1975,
Respondent, AB, and V02 entered into a joint venture
agreement for the performance of the work.3 The joint ven-
ture agreement designates AB as the "sponsor" of the joint
venture responsible for the "general conduct, supervision
and administration of the affairs of the Joint Venture,"
subject to the management committee. The management
committee is responsible for the overall management and
supervision of the project.
Pursuant to its obligation under the joint venture agree-
ment, Respondent sent three vessels, two tugboats and a
launch. to Saudi Arabia. The tugboats were the Lynn and
the Gaynor, while the launch was the Sunshine State. It was
stipulated by the parties that the Lynn arrived in Saudi
Arabia about March 31, 1976, the Gavnor on July 20. 1976,
and the Sunshine State on April 15. 1976.
The contractual responsibility for actually hiring em-
ployees for GLABVO rests with AB, the sponsor, as or-
dered by the management committee. This function was
performed on behalf of GLABVO by R. L. Enterkin. En-
terkin was an employee of both GLABVO and Respon-
dent. He continued to receive his base salary from Respon-
2The prime contractor for the entire undertaking at Dammam is another
Dutch firm. Dredging International and NV |lollandsche Annemingsmu.
herein called NV. under contract with the Saudi Arabian Go,srernment. he
joint enture's project is bh was f the subcontract with NV.
the contract describes the joint venture (;I.ABVO. herein called either
joint enture or iI.ABVO.
GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY 201
dent but he also received overseas pay and a job comple-
tion bonus from GLABVO amounting to more than his
salary with Respondent. Enterkin undertook the manning
of the three vessels on behalf of GLABVO in Miami, Flor-
ida. Once employed, these employees were placed on the
GLABVO payroll and paid by GLABVO from GLABVO
bank accounts. GLABVO established and maintains a pay-
roll office operating in Saudi Arabia. Employees are paid
in Saudi Arabian currency, and no deduction are made
from their pay pursuant to any U.S. laws.
In addition to the Americans hired by Enterkin, other
non-Americans, comprising a majority of the total comple-
ment of the three vessels, were also hired. The manning of
the vessel was completed shortly before the vessels arrived
in Saudi Arabia.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent clearly meets the Board's jurisdictional
yardsticks for the assertion of jurisdiction; however, the
joint venture, GLABVO, exists as a separate entity. apart
from any of the companies which form it. In this case, it
was GLABVO who hired the employees to man the vessels
and, accordingly, it is GLABVO and not Respondent who
was responsible for the commission of any alleged unfair
labor practices in refusing to hire members of the Union.
In these circumstances, it is clear that the complaint has
issued against the wrong employer and, accordingly, it is
fatally defective and must be dismissed for that reason.
Grove Shepherd Wilson & Kruge, Inc., 109 NLRB 209, 214
(1954).
Further, even assuming that the joint venture had been
named as Respondent herein, it is my opinion that asser-
tion of jurisdiction should be declined.
In this case the prime contractor is a Dutch firm per-
forming work under contract with the Saudi Arabian Gov-
ernment. The joint venture is a subcontractor composed of
two Dutch firms and an American firm. The jobsite for the
project, estimated at about 15 to 18 months old, is Dam-
mam. Saudi Arabia. The employees of the joint venture are
mostly non-Americans and are paid from joint venture
bank accounts under joint venture pa?'roll procedures in
Saudi Arabia.
While it is true that some employees of GL.ABVO are
Americans, and were hired in the United States, where the
unfair labor practices are alleged to have taken place, it is
my opinion that these contracts are not sufficient to war-
rant assertion of the Board's jurisdiction over GLABVO. 4
This is not to say that business entities of foreign govern-
ments are exempted from the impact of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. See State Bank of India, 229
NLRB 838 (1977). However in Bank of India, the Indian
corporation was engaged in general banking activity in the
city of Chicago, with all the normal involvements of any
United States bank. These considerations are absent in the
instant case. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the com-
plaint herein be dismissed.'
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 6
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
4 Cases cited h the General (ounsel are napposite since the proper Re-
,pondent herein is GI.ABVO. not the mploer alone It is unnecessars.
and I dol not decride hether or not a,serion ofjurlsdlcilon ould he ippro-
priae f hait ere the case
In Lewu of this jurlsdictional disposition. It is unnecessar D to pass eiher
on the merits of the unfair labor practice or the contentions made bh Re-
spondent that he complainl is untimel under either Sec I(th) of the AtL or
the doctrine f laches
In the eent no exceptisons are filed as provided In Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulatlons of the Naltional I abir Relations Board. the findings.
conclulions, and recommended Order herein shall.; as prolided in Sec
10248 of the Rules and Regulatlon,, he adopted bh the Board and become
its findings. concl uslons. and Order. and all objectl. s hereto shall he
deemed .lied for all purpose,