Great Lakes Towing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 695 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
Great Lakes Towing Company and Daniel Claussen,
Raymond Gardner , William Hergenrother , Martin
Connaughton, John Basetich, Individuals
Licensed Tugmen's and Pilot 's Protective Association
of America, ILA, AFL-CIO (Great Lakes Towing
Company) and John Basetich , Individual. Cases
13-CA-7419 and 13-CB-2027
December 5, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On July 12, 1967, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. He also found that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in other unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and the Respondent Union' filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs. The Respondent Company filed
a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent , Great Lakes Towing
Company , its officers , agents, successors, and as-
signs, and the Respondent, Licensed Tugmen's and
Pilot 's Protective Association of America, ILA,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order.
' The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied
as, in our opinion, the record, including the exceptions and briefs,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
695
Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner : Upon charges filed on
April 13 and July 5, 1966 , by the individuals listed in the
caption , the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13
(Chicago , Illinois), issued a consolidated complaint, dated
August 18, 1966 , against Great Lakes Towing Company,
herein called the Company or Respondent Company, and
against Licensed Tugmen 's and Pilot's Protective As-
sociation of America, ILA, AFL-CIO, herein called
LTPPA or Respondent Association or Union . The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and that Respondent As-
sociation violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner Louis Libbin at Chicago , Illinois, on March 7
to 9, 1967, inclusive . All parties appeared and were given
full opportunities to participate in the hearing, to in-
troduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record , and to file briefs.
On May 15, 1967, the General Counsel and Respondent
Company filed briefs , which I have fully considered. No
briefs have been received from Respondent Union and
the Charging Parties.
Respondent Company's motion to dismiss the com-
plaint , made at the close of the General Counsel's case
and upon which I reserved ruling, is hereby denied in part
and granted in part , in accordance with the findings
hereinafter made . For the reasons hereinafter indicated,
I find that with respect to the maintenance and enforce-
ment of an unlawful union-security clause in their con-
tract, Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3 ) of the Act and Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case ,' and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying
under oath, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Great Lakes Towing Company, a New Jersey corpora-
tion, maintains an office and place of business in Chicago,
Illinois, where it is engaged in water transportation of
ships and bulk commodities. During the calendar year of
1966, Respondent derived in excess of $50,000 from
transportation of ships and bulk commodities from
Chicago, Illinois, to points outside the State of Illinois;
during the same period, Respondent derived in excess of
$50,000 from the transportation of ships and bulk com-
modities to Chicago, Illinois, from points outside the
State of Illinois.
Upon the above undisputed facts, I find, as Respond-
ents admit, that Respondent Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
1 On March 15, 1967, I received from counsel for the General Counsel
a motion to correct transcript in certain specific respects. No objections
thereto having been received, said motion is hereby granted. Said motion
has been placed in the official exhibit folder as G. C. Exh. 9, and the cor-
rections herein granted have been made. Additional inadvertent and obvi-
ous errors in the transcript are noted and corrected.
168 NLRB No. 87
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges that Respondent Licensed Tug-
men's and Pilot's Protective Association of America,
ILA, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called LTPPA or the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act. Both Respondents concede that
LTPPA is a union but deny that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, contending that its mem-
bership is comprised exclusively of supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts Giving Rise to This Proceeding2
Respondent Great Lakes Towing Company maintains
and operates 46 tugboats, serving 20 ports throughout the
Great Lakes region. Its largest operation is in the port of
Chicago, Illinois, frequently referred to in the record as
the South Chicago port, where it maintains and operates
about 11 tugboats. The Company operates throughout
the year with its busy season, known as the summer
schedule, occurring from April to December. During the
busy season, the Company employs, in addition to
linesmen and oilers, as many as 90 captains and 90 en-
gineers, with the largest number (about 21-24 of each
category) being stationed at and operating from the South
Chicago port.
The linesmen (also known as deckhands and oilers) are
represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the In-
land Boatmen's Union, affiliated with the SIU,
AFL-CIO, with whom the Company has had contractual
relations covering these employees for many years. The
captains and engineers are represented for collective-bar-
gaining purposes by Respondent Union, LTPPA, with
whom the Respondent has had contractual relations
covering these 2 categories for over 60 years. The mem-
bership of Respondent Union is comprised of an equal
number of captains and engineers.
The current collective-bargaining agreement, which
has been in effect since April 1, 1963, between Respond-
ents Company and the Union contains the following
provision:
ARTICLE 2.
Under the following terms and conditions, the
Company agrees to employ on its tugs, and the said
Association agrees to furnish satisfactory, competent
and experienced men from its organization and the
question of the competency and experience of the
men so furnished shall be determined by the Com-
pany, or its representatives; provided, that in the
event the Association is unable or fails, for any
reason, to furnish satisfactory, competent and ex-
perienced men, the Company, or its representatives
shall have the right to employ other men, and such
other men so employed shall, if agreeable to the As-
sociation, during a period of fifteen (15) days after
their employment join the said Association unless
the Association furnishes men within the period of
2 Unless otherwise indicated , the findings in this section are not in
dispute.
3 The Chicago Marine Pilots Association had previously requested
recognition of the Company as bargaining representative of its captains
fifteen (15) days, satisfactory to the Company as
stated above.
In a document, dated March 28, 1966, the 20 captains
whose names are listed in the complaint and who were
employed on the tugs based at the Chicago port, advised
Respondent Company's vice president as follows:
Dear Mr. Mortimer,
Please be advised that the undersigned Captains,
effective 12:01 A.M. April 1, 1966, have resigned
their membership in Local 374-2 and 374-A LTP-
PA, affiliated with the ILA, AFL-CIO.
This in no way effects our continued loyalty to the
company and the undersigned Captains, will con-
tinue to work as Captains for the Company on and
after April 1,1966.3
A document bearing the same data and signed by 19 of
these captains was submitted to Union President Cull-
nan, advising as follows:
Dear Mr. Cullnan:
We the undersigned , hereby resign , effective 12:01
A.M. April 1, 1966, our membership in Local 374-2
and 374-A LTPPA, affiliated with the ILA,
AFL-CIO.
By letter dated April 2, 1966, and signed by President
Cullnan, the Union advised each of the 20 captains
named in the complaint as follows:
Your resignation from this organization has been
received and accepted.
The Union is sending a copy of this letter and of
your resignation to The Great Lakes Towing Com-
pany. The Union will continue to observe its obliga-
tions under the contract with the company.
You have notified the Union previously that you
do not wish to have the Union act as your Agent in
any dealings with the company. In view of your
notice and resignation, your position is clear.
Also, by letter of the same date, the Union advised
Respondent Company as follows:
Enclosed is a copy of letters of resignation from the
Union of the following men:
[names omitted]
Also enclosed is a copy of the Union's letter accept-
ing the resignations of the above men.
We wish to invite your attention to the fact that Arti-
cle 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between your company and our Association
obligates you to employ as Captains on your tugs,
only those members of the Association furnished by
the Association. In making plans for the manning of
tugs for the coming season, be advised that the
employed on tugs based at the Chicago port, and had filed a representation
petition for this group with the Board's Regional Office. The Company
had refused to recognize this organization and the Regional Office had
dismissed the petition on the ground that the captains are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. 697
above-mentioned men cannot be among those
furnished by the Association.
You should also be aware that the solemn oath which
is recited by all members of the Association upon
their initiation contains a pledge that members of the
Association shall not work with non-members.4 Our
members consider this portion of the oath as being
the force for unity upon which the strength and in-
tegrity of the Association is founded, and con-
sequently take the clear obligation of the oath quite
seriously.
We believe that if you should employ any of the
above-mentioned men who have, in furtherance of
their individual interest, abandoned their allegiance
to the Association and engaged in a program which
tends to undermine the strength and integrity of the
Association, our members working under the Collec-
tive Bargaining Agreement, may feel obligated to
refuse to continue their employment with the com-
pany.
On Sunday, April 3, 1966, Captain Raymond Gardner,
who had been employed by the Company for about 8
years as a tug captain from the South Chicago port, and
who was included in the group which had resigned from
the Union, reported for work about 7 a.m. After observ-
ing several union officials arrive at the Company's office,
Gardner and several other captains, who had also arrived
about that time, asked to speak with Port Manager Wylie.
Wylie refused to talk to the captains as a group but agreed
to talk only to Gardner, as Gardner was reporting for
work. After the other captains left the office, Wylie paged
over the loud speaker Union Trustee Scott, an engineer
of longstanding with the Company. Shortly thereafter,
Scott and Union Business Agent Williams appeared in
the office. When Gardner protested Williams' presence,
the latter left, leaving Scott, Wylie, and Gardner in the of-
fice.
Wylie then asked Gardner if it was true that Gardner
no longer belonged to the Licensed Tugmen's Associa-
tion. Gardner replied, "Yes, as of April 1st, the expira-
tion of our contract, that was right." Wylie then asked Art
Scott, "Art, is it true that you as an individual will not
work with this man if he no longer belongs to the
Licensed Tugmen's Association," Scott replied, "Yes,
that's correct." Wylie then asked Scott, "Are you speak-
ing for the other engineers, too?" Scott replied in the affir-
mative, that he was speaking for the other men. Wylie
then turned to Gardner and said to him, "Well, in that
case you are no longer acceptable to the company." After
considerable persistence by Gardner to get Wylie to ex-
plain what he meant by "no longer acceptable to the com-
pany," Wylie finally admitted that it meant "you are
fired." Gardner thereupon left the office, told the other
captains who were waiting there what had taken place,
This oath is as follows
I promise that I will not serve as Master, Pilot or Engineer on any tug
boat or boats classed as tugs by the Association with anyone not a
member in good standing , providing a competent man who is a
member can be had.
The findings as to the conversation in Wylie's office are based on the
credited testimony of Gardner. Wylie was not called as a witness and the
Company made no showing or claim that he was unavailable. Scott, testi-
fying as a witness for Respondent Union for which he is an admitted
agent, disagreed with Gardner's version in only one respect. Scott
and later that day he and several other captains began
picketing in protest.5
By letter dated April 4, 1966, and signed by Company
Vice President Mortimer , each of the 20 captains named
in the complaint was advised as follows:
This will acknowledge your notice of March 28,
1966, advising that you and 19 other tug captains
have resigned membership in the Licensed Tugmen's
and Pilots' Protective Association , affiliated with the
I.L.A., A.F. L.-C.I.O. Meanwhile , that Union has
advised us that your resignation has been accepted.
Further, the Union has warned us that its members
who work under the collective bargaining agreement
with this Company , which is lake-wide , may refuse
to work if you continue in our employ . We have al-
ready met with one such refusal . On Sunday, April
3, 1966, the group of 20 tug captains , of which you
are a part , instituted and is continuing a picket line at
our Ewing Avenue premises in an apparent attempt
to stop our operation , and is currently using other'
harassing tactics against our employees.
Under the circumstances , we regret to advise that
your employment with us is hereby terminated.
The charges which led to the issuance of the instant
complaint were filed by some of the discharged captains.
B. The Issues and Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends, as alleged in the com-
plaint, that the Company and the Union have violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act, respectively, by maintaining in effect and en-
forcing an unlawful union-security clause in its contract.
The Respondents counter by contending that Respondent
Union is not a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act, asserting that the captains and engineers, which
comprise its sole membership, are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. The General Counsel concedes that
the captains are, but contends that the engineers are not,
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and argues
that Respondent Union therefore is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act. The General Counsel
further contends that Respondent Union caused Respond-
ent Company to discharge the 20 captains because they
were no longer members of the Union and that such con-
duct constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by the
Union and of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by the Company
because of the impact on the Section 7 rights of the en-
gineers. The Respondents contend that their conduct did
not constitute a violation of the Act even if engineers
were to be found to be employees rather than supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
It thus appears that the threshhold issue to be decided
is whether the engineers employed by the Company are
or are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. For,
as the General Counsel concedes, a finding that the en-
gineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act will
require a dismissal of the entire complaint.
testified on direct examination that he told Wylie he (Scott) was speaking
only for himself when he stated he would not work with Gardner because
he was no longer a member of the Union. However, on cross -examination,
he testified at one point that he "might" have replied that he was speaking
for the other engineers but could not recall saying so . Scott displayed an
inconsistent and vague memory with respect to this incident, and did not
impress me as a reliable witness. In view of all the foregoing, the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying under oath, and the failure to
call Wylie to corroborate Scott's version , I do not credit Scott's testimony
to the extent that it conflicts with that of Gardner, as set forth in the text.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Employment Status of Engineers
1. The facts6
a. The tug and its crew
The vessels operated by Respondent Company are
classified as tugs and are all similar in structure and
operation. A tug is estimated at 98-1/2 to 99 gross tons,
is approximately 80 feet in length with a beam (width) of
20 feet, and draws 10 to 11 feet of water. All tugs are
powered by diesel engines which generate about 1200
horsepower. All tugs are pilothouse controlled. That
means that all maneuvering of the tug, including its start-
ing, stopping , speed , and direction , is controlled in every
case in the pilothouse by the captain. During the summer
schedule (April to December), about 90-95 percent of the
Company's operations involve the towing of foreign and
domestic vessels and the remainder of the operations is
the towing of barges. During the winter schedule
(December to April), the towing of barges constitutes the
greater proportion of the Company's reduced operations.
The crew of a company tug is comprised, basically, of
the captain , an engineer , a linesman or deckhand, and a
fireman or oiler.7 When barges are towed, there is also a
scowman who is stationed on the barge. During the
summer schedule at the South Chicago port, the crewmen
on these tugs work a 6-day week on one of the three 8-
hour shifts. The particular duties of the personnel are es-
sentially the same each day and on each shift, except that
minor maintenance and housekeeping work on a tug is
limited to the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. day shift. There is no sig-
nificant dispute concerning the functions and duties of the
crewmen.
b. The captain
The captain, an admitted supervisor within the meaning
of the Act, starts, stops, and maneuvers the tug from the
pilothouse. He also keeps the crew payroll and time re-
ports, which reflect the number of hours at the dock, on
a run , and under tow, and also the personnel (including
the engineer) on the payroll for that day. The captain
directs and assigns his crew to the jobs and is held respon-
sible for the safety of the crew and the tug by the Com-
pany, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Communications
Commission. Captains have effectively recommended the
hiring of crewmen, have refused to accept personnel on
their tug, and have caused the transfer of crewmen.
c. The linesman or deckhand
The linesman or deckhand is stationed on the deck and
handles the lines, "taking the line from the steamboat,
making it fast to the tug and tying the tug up and letting it
go when leaving the dock, and regular house work ...
keeping the tug clean." He works under the supervision
of the captain. On the infrequent occasion when the en-
There is no significant dispute concerning these findings
On the rare occasion when a trip extends outside the port, the tug
might be manned by two complete crews, each crew being on duty during
and responsible for a particular shift or watch
K This individual was classified by the Company as a fireman when the
tugs were steam propelled Since the conversion of the tugs to diesel
propulsion by 1960, this individual has been regarded as an oiler although
his classification as fireman remained unchanged.
9 The dope cup is a grease cup which is turned down so as to lubricate
gineer in the engineroom has a job which is too difficult
for two men, the linesman will go down to the engineroom
to help when asked but only "when our duties are done on
deck."
d. The oiler or fireman6
The oiler performs the dual function of assisting the
linesman or deckhand on deck and assisting the engineer
in the enginehouse. He is required to perform his duties
on deck before doing any work in the engineroom. On
deck, he helps the linesman shift and splice lines and is
told by the linesman what to do. He always remains on
deck while the tug is engaged in a tow. He works under
the supervision of the captain, and only when the captain
has no further need for his services on deck is he per-
mitted to go to the engineroom. The duties which he per-
forms in the engineroom routinely include the changing of
sea strainers, turning certain valves, checking and turning
the dope cup,9 sweeping, wiping the machinery, and
cleaning the engineroom itself. He will also assist the en-
gineer when the latter is engaged in making machinery
repairs and engine overhauls, as hereinafter indicated in
more detail.
e. The engineer10
The engineer is the only member of the crew who is ac-
tually stationed in the engineroom of the tug when it is
away from the dock. The United States Coast Guard
does not require that the engineers employed by the Com-
pany have a Coast Guard license. However, the Com-
pany itself requires such a license as a condition of em-
ployment.
The duties of the engineer, essentially, are to start and
stop the engine upon the captain's signal and to maintain
the engine and other machinery in safe operating condi-
tion. No assistance is required in starting and stopping the
engine. He must however be proficient in mechanical
skills because, according to the testimony of Hallahan,
the Company's vice president in charge of operations, the
engineer "is in charge of the machinery on the tug and he
is responsible for keeping it operational so the tug can
operate."
In addition, the engineer also performs, in the words of
Engineer Scott, a witness for Respondent Union, "a regu-
lar routine" of tasks such as checking fuel ii and lobe oils,
observing temperature and pressure gauges , checking the
seacocks to be sure they are open, and checking the elec-
trical board for voltage and amperage. No assistance is
required in performing these routine tasks which take
about 1/2 hour but which are repeated periodically when
the tug is in operation. The engineer also maintains cer-
tain mechanical equipment not located in the engineroom
such as light bulbs, searchlights, and steering gear.
As previously noted, the oiler assists the engineer by
performing certain routine duties in the engineroom when
he is no longer needed on deck. These include the chang-
the stern tube. He fills the cup up every day and turns it down every so of-
ten.
11 The scowman is stationed on the barge or scow and is under the
direction of the captain. He informs the captain of the seaworthiness of
the scow, ties and unties the scow, and signals the captain as to oncoming
traffic when they are rounding bends.
11 The fuel check is made by dropping a sounding line into the tank and
reporting the amount of fuel to the captain
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
ing of sea strainers, turning certain valves, sweeping, wip-
ing, and cleaning. The oiler knows that these are func-
tions which are to be performed by one in his position,
and the engineer does not have to tell the oiler how to per-
form these routine tasks because, as company witness
Hallahan testified, "the oiler is supposed to be a profi-
cient man" in his position. Indeed, the engineer himself
will on occasion perform these same tasks. 12
The only records maintained by the engineer consist of
a log which sets forth the number of engine hours run and
any malfunctions. These reports are turned over to Main-
tenance Superintendent Paytosh, an admitted supervisor
within the meaning of the Act.
It is the responsibility of the engineer to report any
mechanical malfunctions to the captain, if away from
port, and to Superintendent Paytosh when at dockside.
Emergency breakdowns which occur while the tug is
under way are repaired on the tug, if possible, so as to
enable the tug to get back to the dock. The oiler, if not
needed on deck, will assist the engineer in his efforts to
effect the necessary repairs. And on the occasions when
additional help is needed, the engineer will ask the cap-
tain's permission for the deckhand's assistance also.
The assistance which the engineer wants from the oiler
and deckhand may be in the nature of asking them to hold
a light or a part in a certain direction or area where the en-
gineer is working, asking them to help him lift heavy
items, or asking them to hand him a tool or a part. Thus,
union witness Dwyer, a linesman , gave as an example an
emergency situation when the steering gear was gone and
the engineer told him to get the relieving tackle which is
stored in the "fo'c'sle." While Dwyer went to get the re-
lieving tackle, the engineer, the oiler, and even the captain
were engaged in removing the grating because it takes at
least two men to lift it. When Dwyer returned, they all
participated in attaching the relieving tackle to the tiller.
Union witness Jadrich, an oiler, gave as another example
an occasion when it became necessary to change the
steering gear to pumps which weigh about 150 pounds
and are stored in the engineroom. On that occasion, En-
gineer Scott with the assistance of the oiler (Jadrich) and
linesman (Dwyer) lifted and held the pumps about 4 feet
off the floor while Scott used a wrench to bolt them to the
steering gear.
Major repairs and engine overhauls are performed at
the dock. It is the responsibility of Maintenance Superin-
tendent Paytosh to assign specific crews to overhaul
specific tugs, to make the necessary parts available, to
schedule the maintenance work, to receive and inspect
the engine log kept by the engineer, to inspect the
completed overhaul, and to instruct the engineer in these
overhauls.
All major overhauls are performed by the engineer in
conjunction with the oiler and linesman or deckhand and
are under Paytosh's direct supervision. Paytosh admitted
that no major overhaul has been performed without his
direct supervision. He also testified that he might instruct
the engineer on how to remove a certain part and that the
linesman and oiler would be there and hear the conversa-
tion. Union witness Dwyer, a linesman or deckhand, ex-
plained Paytosh's part in an overhaul when he testified
that "he [Paytosh] comes over there and tells us just ex-
actly what to do," or "Mr. Paytosh will talk to [Engineer]
12 Union witnesses Scott and Jadrich, engineer and oiler, respectively,
so admitted. Indeed, Jadrich testified that Scott helps him in this manner.
13 On one occasion at the dock in 1965, when an oiler was injured in the
699
Scott first" and Scott will "come to us and then tell us
what we are going to do."
Engineer Scott, a union witness , testified that the oiler
and linesman assist him with the labor involved in a major
engine overhaul. Scott admitted that "I don't have to ex-
actly go into details about what they should do." As an
example of the kind of assistance or direction involved,
Scott testified that he might ask them to "help lift
something," to hand him a tool, or to go to the shop to
pick up a part. He admitted that they might also ask him
to hand them a tool, or that the linesman might ask the
oiler for assistance.
Paytosh is on call and available for consultation by the
engineer 24 hours day and night. Scott admitted that
"there are certain technical problems that I will go to
Paytosh for advice."
With respect to other types of maintenance work per-
formed at the dock, Paytosh Is the one who decides and
informs the crews when to paint and oversees most
repairs. He admitted that there have been occasions when
he has told an engineer to clean up an engineroom,
without telling him to get the oiler or linesman to do it. He
also admitted that he has in fact observed engineers ac-
tually clean, scrub, mop, and paint an engineroom. En-
gineer Scott himself admitted that he has painted and
scrubbed the floor while the tug lay at the dock to catch
up with maintenance. Fuel and lube oil is supplied while
the tug is at the dock. The engineer may tell the oiler to
hook up the fuel hose and to put on some lube oil or the
engineer may perform both tasks himself.
There is no evidence of an engineer ever having made
any recommendations for, or himself taken, any discipli-
nary actions against any crewman in connection with his
work performance. On the other hand, the record dis-
closes two separate occasions when the captain, who had
assigned crewmen to work with the engineer, had to order
them to cooperate with the engineer, and in neither case
did the engineer take or recommend any disciplinary ac-
tion. On still another occasion when Engineer Scott came
running out of a smoke-filled engineroom and ordered
fireman Rodgers to leave the dock and go to the en-
gineroom to help him fix the engine, the captain refused
to allow Rodgers to leave because he felt Rodgers was
needed on deck. Rodgers obeyed the captain's orders.
The only evidence concerning any disciplinary action ap-
pears in the testimony of company witness Hallahan that
in 1960, he received a report about the action of an en-
gineer discharging an oiler in Duluth, Minnesota, for re-
porting for work intoxicated. He further testified that an
independent investigation disclosed that the discharge
was warranted and that the engineer's action was there-
fore sustained.
Engineers maintain no personnel records. All crew
time records and accident reports, even when the ac-
cident occurs in the engineroom,13 are the responsibility
of the captain.
2. Concluding findings
Section 2(11) of the Act provides as follows:
The term "supervisor" means any individual hav-
ing authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge,
engineroom and taken to the hospital , the Company's assistant port
manager instructed the captain of the tug to make out a report on the inju-
ry
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their
grievances, or effectively to recommend such action,
if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of
such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
The record is completely barren of any evidence that
an engineer ever hired, transferred, suspended, laid off,
recalled, promoted, assigned, rewarded, or disciplined
other employees, or adjusted their grievances, or effec-
tively recommended such action. In addition, the record
shows that no captain, the admitted master of the vessel,
or engineer ever received any instructions from the Com-
pany relating to the engineer's alleged authority with
respect to other personnel. While the statute merely
requires the individual to possess the right to exercise
such authority, the total absence of its exercise, particu-
larly where, as previously noted, the record discloses
situations where disciplinary action could have been
taken, may negative its existence.14 In every case in
which the Board has found supervisory status of marine
engineers, there was at least some exercise, albeit in-
frequent, of authority enumerated in the Act.15 Upon
consideration of the entire record as a whole, I find that
the engineers in question do not possess the right to exer-
cise authority in any of the above-enumerated respects.
As to the existence of authority to discharge or effec-
tively to recommend such action, the only evidence is of
a report received by the Company that an engineer at
another port discharged an oiler because he was intox-
icated when he reported for work, as previously found.
The exercise of authority to discharge for drunkenness is
clearly of a routine nature and does not require the use of
independent judgment.16 Nor was the authority effective-
ly exercised in this case, as the Company admitted that
the engineer's action was upheld only after an independ-
ent investigation by the Company disclosed sufficient
evidence to warrant it. I find that the engineers do not
possess the authority to discharge or to effectively recom-
mend such action. 17
There remains for consideration the authority "respon-
sibly to direct" other employees. The facts previously
detailed definitely disclose that such directions as are at
times given by the engineer to the oiler, and on occasion
to the linesman, are clearly of a routine nature and do not
require the use of independent judgment. The oiler per-
forms maintenance work requiring no responsible
direction by any person. Indeed, the very nature of the
tasks performed precludes the exercise of independent
judgment. Thus, the Board has held that "[i]n the
absence of evidence that these engineers possess authori-
ty to direct other than routine work, or that their discipli-
nary recommendations, if any, are effective, we find that
See Capital Transit Company, 114 NLRB 617, 619, where the
Board stated that "where the issue is the actual existence of a supervisory
power, the absence of any exercise of authority may negative its ex-
istence" (emphasis in Board's Decision).
15 See, e.g., Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 151 NLRB 676, 678;
Midwest Towing Co, Inc., 151 NLRB 658, 659.
16 See, e.g., Southern Industries Company, 92 NLRB 998, 999-1000.
17 Ibid.
11 Graham Transportation Company, 124 NLRB 960, 962, where the
company contended that the three engineers assigned to that ship were su-
pervisors as they all had authority to recommend, discipline, and direct
the work of one wiper (the essential equivalent of the oiler in the instant
case).
19 Thus, union witness Jadrich, an oiler, testified that when he is work-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the three engineers assigned to the Sylvia are not super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act."'S
Moreover, the type of direction given by the engineer is
no different in kind from that which the deckhand gives to
the oiler while the latter is serving on deck.19 A holding
that the engineer is a supervisor because of the type of
direction he sometimes gives to the oiler would require a
finding that the linesman is also a supervisor for the same
reason. I find that the engineers have not exercised, and
do not possess, the authority responsibly to direct em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.20
In the days of steam propulsion, control of the move-
ment and operation of the vessel was maintained in the
enginehouse where the boilers were also located. On such
vessels, the engineer was endowed with considerable
responsibility in the operation of the vessel, which of
necessity was accompanied by a commensurate degree of
control over the unlicensed personnel.21 This situation is
no longer true in the case of diesel-powered tugs.
Pilothouse control by the captain, which exists in the in-
stant case, has diluted the former responsibilities of the
engineer.22 The fact that the engineer in the instant case
possesses a United States Coast Guard license because
of a company requirement does not, of itself, render him
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Thus, the
Board has stated in Graham Transportation Co., 124
NLRB 961 at 962:
We also find no merit in BME's final contention
that some of the engineers involved herein are super-
visors because they are licensed by the United States
Coast Guard. In determining the supervisory status
of marine engineers, whether or not they are
licensed, we have always utilized the same tests
which are applicable in other industries. Thus, where
it has been clearly established that marine engineers
have the authority expressed in Section 2(11), we
have found them to be supervisors, but where they
possessed no such authority, we have found them to
be nonsupervisors. To be sure, the Board has
customarily treated licensed marine engineers as su-
pervisors, but in those cases, it was clear from the
size of the ship and crew that there were other en-
gineroom personnel for the engineers to supervise.
The fact that a marine engineer possesses a Coast
Guard license does not alone support a f nding of su-
pervisory status. [Emphasis added.]
The present record discloses that the engineer on the
Company's tugboat, which is relatively small and manned
by a small crew, in reality serves as a proficient and ex-
pert mechanic and maintenance man, and not as a ship's
officer. He is indeed responsible for the tug's machinery,
but " [r] esponsibility for the maintenance of physical pro-
perty does not, of itself, establish the existence of super-
ing on deck, the linesman tells him to help and tells him when to shift the
lines.
21 Some conclusionary evidence appearing in the record cannot
derogate from the effect of the proven fact in this respect. United States
Gypsum Company, 124 N LRB 416, 419. Nor, for the same reasons, does
it avail Respondents to rely on their agreement, which in article I defines
engineers to be "supervisors" within the meaning of the Act but which
nowhere defines the duties and authority of engineers, and in the Com-
pany's agreement with the Inland Boatmen's Union, which states in arti-
cle III that the covered crewmen will "be under the direction and control
of captain and engineer on board tugs. "
21 See, e.g., Globe Steamship Company, 85 NLRB 475
22 See, e.g., District 2, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Associa-
tion, et al, G. C. Exh. 7.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
visory authority."23 The engineer's relationship to the
oiler and/or to the linesman in regard to the tasks assigned
to them is similar to that of a skilled mechanic-helper rela-
tionship rather than that of a supervisor-employee rela-
tionship. While decisions generally turn on their own
facts, it nevertheless appears that the following Board
decision so closely parallels the situation in the instant
case that it may well be regarded as dispositive of the in-
stant supervisory issue. Thus, in Material Service Divi-
sion, General Dynamics Corp., 144 NLRB 908, the
Board, in holding engineers not to be supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, stated at 911:
The Employer and [union] maintain, in support of
their contentions that the engineers are supervisors,
that these individuals possess and exercise super-
visory authority over oilers and deckhands when
their vessels are afloat, and over landbased shore
repair crews when the tow boats are in drydock for
repair. With respect to the authority of the engineers
over the oilers ... the record fails to disclose that the
engineers possess or exercise the indicia of super-
visory authority enumerated in Section 2(11) of the
Act. Thus, it appears that recommendations which
engineers might make to the Employer concerning
the employment, retention, or transfer of oilers are
not effective recommendations, but are independ-
ently investigated either by the captain, the port en-
gineer, or the manager . . . before action is taken.
With respect to the direction and assignment of du-
ties to the oilers, the relationship of the engineers to
the oilers in regard to these functions is more akin to
a skilled mechanic-helper relationship than that of a
supervisor-employee one.
With respect to the engineers' authority over
deckhands, there is testimony that engineers have
some authority over these individuals in cases of
emergency such as a collision or fire aboard ship, but
there is no evidence that any such emergency has
arisen in the past 10 years or that the authority exer-
cised 10 years ago was supervisory in the statutory
sense.
With regard to the authority of the engineers over
the shore repair crews, the record shows that the port
engineer determines when the Employer's vessels
should be laid up in drydock for inspection, repairs,
or provisioning. When engineroom repairs are neces-
sary, the shipyard repair crews work with the en-
gineers in performing the overhaul.... Because the
engineers are responsible for the maintenance of the
engine,oom machinery, they work in conjunction
with the repairmen and direct them in the repair of
the machinery. So far as appears, however, this
direction is much like that of an experienced
23 Graham case supra at 962. See also N L.R.B. v Brown & Sharpe
Manufacturing Company, 169 F.2d 331 (C.A. 3), stating at 334 that:
... [Ili is not of consequence that the Respondent's time-study men
have been found to possess authority to use their independent
judgment with respect to some aspects of their work; the decisive
question is whether they have been found to possess authority to use
their independent judgment with respect to the exercise by them of
some one or more of the specific authorities listed in § 2(11) of the
Act as amended.
14 Clearly inapposite is the principal case relied on in the Company's
brief, Mississsppi Valley Barge Line Company, 151 NLRB 676. For in
that case the Board found, as the Company points out in its brief, that the
engineer had the authority which he in fact exercised, albeit infrequently,
701
mechanic who directs the work of helpers in the per-
formance of theirjoint task. [Emphasis supplied. .J
The instant record presents an a fortiori case for such a
finding, as there is no evidence that engineers have ever
made any recommendations at all with respect to
crewmen.
I find that the Company's engineers involved in this
proceeding are employees within the meaning of Section
2(3) of the Act and not supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2( 11) of the Act.24
D. The Status of LTPPA
Section 2(5) of the Act provides as follows:
The term "labor organization" means any or-
ganization of any kind , or any agency or employee
representation committee or plan , in which em-
ployees participate and which exists for the purpose,
in whole or in part , of dealing with employers con-
cerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work.
Respondents concede , as the record demonstrates, that
Respondent Union , LTPPA, exists for the purpose, in
whole or in part , of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of
employment , or conditions of employment. They con-
tend , however , that no statutory employees participate in
the organization and that for that reason alone it does not
meet the statutory definition of a labor organization.
The undisputed evidence shows that the Company's
engineers comprise about one-half of the Union's mem-
bership , actively participate in its affairs, hold office, at-
tend meetings , and vote on union matters . I therefore find
that a substantial number or proportion of engineers par-
ticipates in Respondent Union in a substantial and
meaningful manner . As I have found that engineers are
employees within the meaning of the Act, it follows, as I
further find , that Respondent Union , LTPPA, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.25
E. Violations With Respect to Union Security
Article 2 of the current collective-bargaining agreement
between Respondents, as previously set forth, provides
for preferential hiring of members of Respondent Union
and requires nonmembers who are newly employed to
join Respondent Union within 15 days after their employ-
ment. As Respondent Union admitted at the hearing,
these provisions exceed the limits of union security per-
mitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and are
therefore violative of the Act insofar as they apply to
statutory employees. In accordance with a long line of
well-established precedents too numerous to cite '261 find
to discharge the oiler, to authorize overtime and penalty pay, to require an
oiler to undertake extra duties, to call an off-watch oiler back on duty, to
tell the captain what to write on the oiler's efficiency report at the end of
each tour of duty, to refuse the assignment of an oiler, and to request his
replacement at any time. In the instant case, the engineer possesses none
of such indicia of authorities, as previously found. Nor do I find in point
the case of Twin City Barge and Towing Company, 138 NLRB 222, not
mentioned by Respondent, where the Examiner concluded , upon the basis
of evidence in large part conclusionary, that the General Counsel had not
sustained his burden on that record.
25 International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots ofAmerica,
Inc., 144 NLRB 1172, 1177, enfd 351 F.2d 771, 777 (C.A.D.C ).
26 See, e g., Gottfried Baking Company, Inc., 103 NLRB 227,245.
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that by maintaining in effect these provisions of the con-
tract with respect to engineers, whom I have found to be
employees within the meaning of the Act, Respondent
Company discriminated in regard to their hire, tenure,
and terms and conditions of employment, thereby en-
couraging membership in Respondent Union, and
assisted and contributed support to Respondent Union,
all in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act,
and that Respondent Union caused and attempted to
cause Respondent Company to engage in such dis-
crimination against employees, thereby violating Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
F. Alleged Violations With Respect to Discharges
Upon consideration of the previously detailed facts
leading to the Company's discharge of the group of cap-
tains listed in the complaint, I find, in agreement with the
contentions of the General Counsel, (1) that Respondent
Company discharged the captains because they had
resigned their membership in Respondent Union and
because of the Union's threat that its members would not
work with the nonunion captains, and (2) that Respond-
ent Union did, by threat of strike, cause the Company to
discharge these captains for having resigned their mem-
bership in Respondent Union. However, I do not agree
with the further contention of the General Counsel that,
under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the
parties thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, respectively.
It is the General Counsel's stated position that the
discharge of the captains, admitted statutory supervisors,
for the reasons hereinabove found, tended to interfere
with, restrain, and coerce the engineers, herein found to
be statutory employees, in the exercise of their Section 7
rights because it tended to "cause the engineers or
prospective employees reasonably to fear that they too
would be subject to the same fate were they to withdraw
from the Union (which they may legally do without plac-
ing their jobs in jeopardy)." Stated differently, the
General Counsel argues at another point in his brief that
(1) "Respondent Union has exerted pressures con-
demned by the Act which threaten the job security of em-
ployees," (2) "Respondent Company has acquiesced to
these pressures," (3) such conduct by Respondents is
"reasonably calculated to coerce the employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act to
continue or abandon their allegiance to the Union," and
(4) therefore such conduct constitutes a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) on the part of the Company and a
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of the Union.
The cases in which the Board has found that disciplina-
ry action against a supervisor tends to interfere with the
employees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act generally fall into two categories. One category
involves disciplinary action against a supervisor for hav-
ing testified in a Board proceeding.27 The other category
involves disciplinary action against supervisors for failing
or refusing to assist the employer in his campaign to com-
bat the employees' self-organization efforts by conduct
constituting an unfair labor practice, generally in a con-
27 See, e g , Oil City Brass Works, 147 NLRB 627, Better Monkey Grip
Company, 115 NLRB 1170.
28 See, e.g., Transitron Electronic Corp., 129 NLRB 828; Talladega
Cotton Factory, Inc., 106 NLRB 295, Brookside Industries, Inc., 135
NLRB 16.
text of known employer hostility and opposition to the
employees' organizational efforts.28 The Board's finding
of a violation in the first category rests primarily on the
reasoning that such conduct infringes upon the freedom
of employees to vindicate their Section 7 rights in a Board
proceeding because it creates fear of a similar fate
befalling them for testifying in a Board proceeding,
because their Section 7 rights include the right to have su-
pervisors with knowledge of the facts testify in Board
proceedings without risking disciplinary action, and
because such conduct interferes with the Board's
processes and orderly administration of the Act.29 The
Board's finding of a violation in the second category rests
primarily on the reasoning that the conduct for which the
supervisor was disciplined was his refusal to commit an
unfair labor practice for the intended purpose of chilling
unionism, and that disciplinary action for that reason has
such a clear and direct impact on the employees' Section
7 rights that it is quite obvious that it would reasonably
tend to impinge on their exercise of those rights.
None of the above factors are present in the instant
case. The union-security clause in the existing contract is
lawful insofar as it applies to captains, as they admittedly
are statutory supervisors. Consequently, there was
nothing unlawful in the Union's conduct in pressing the
Company to comply with this clause in the case of the
captains or in the conduct of the Company in yielding this
pressure. There is no evidence in this case of any com-
pany opposition to unions or to its employees' exercise of
their statutory rights. On the contrary, the record affirma-
tively discloses a long history of amicable and contractual
relations with unions. Not only has the Respondent Com-
pany recognized and had contracts with the Respondent
Union for over 50 years, but it also has and has had con-
tractual relations with the Inland Boatmen's Union for its
remaining employees for the same period. There is clearly
no basis for inferring that Respondents in any way in-
tended by their conduct to chill union or nonunionn ac-
tivity by statutory employees or to impinge on the Section
7 rights of statutory employees. Nor is there any basis on
this record for concluding that Respondents' conduct pur-
suant to the union-security clause, which was validly in-
voked with respect to the captains, reasonably tended to
create fear among statutory employees that a similar fate
would befall them for exercising their Section 7 rights and
thereby interfered with, restrained, or coerced the en-
gineers or any other statutory employees in violation of
the Act. Any inhibitory effect on the Section 7 rights of
statutory employees which may result from Respondents'
conduct would be purely incidental.30
I find that Respondents' conduct with respect to the
discharge of the captains did not constitute an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of any section of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations
relating thereto.
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 its operations set
29 See , e g, Oil City Brass Works, supra; Better Monkey Grip, supra;
Grand-Central Chrysler, Inc., 155 NLRB 185, 188
ao Cf. Ursula Cervantes, et al., d/bla Panaderia Sucesion Alonso, 87
NLRB 877, 881-882.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
forth in section I , above, have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Engineers employed on tugboats operated by
Respondent Great Lakes Towing Company are em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act and
not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.
2. Respondent Licensed Tugmen 's and Pilot's Protec-
tive Association of America , ILA, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By maintaining in effect in their collective -bargain-
ing agreement union-security provisions which exceed
the limits permitted by the Act, insofar as they applied to
engineers , Respondent Company has engaged and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and Respondent Union
has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By discharging the captains listed in the complaint,
the Respondents have not committed any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices , I will recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
As previously noted, I have found, as alleged in the
complaint , that by maintaining in effect the unlawful
union-security provisions contained in article 2 of their
contract insofar as they applied to engineers , the Com-
pany and the Union have violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, respective-
ly. Both at the hearing and in his brief, the only remedy
requested by the General Counsel in this connection is an
order requiring Respondents "to cease and desist from
engaging in such activity and to cease giving effect to Ar-
ticle 2 of the collective bargaining agreement." He
specifically stated at the hearing that he is "not"
requesting that "the dues and fees collected under the
contract be. . . reimbursed." Nor is he making any
request that Respondents be ordered to cease giving ef-
fect to their entire contract and that Respondent Com-
pany be ordered to withdraw recognition from Respond-
ent Union until said Union is certified by the Board.
Although such a remedy is normally applied where Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) has been violated because of unlawful con-
tractual provisions, the Board held that this remedy is dis-
31 See, e g., Pacific Intermountain Express Company, 107 NLRB 837,
850; Hearst Publishing Company, Inc., 113 NLRB 384, 391; Kaiser
Steel Corporation, 125 NLRB 1039, 1042.
32 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
703
cretionary and need not be applied where it would not ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.31 In the circumstances of
this case, including the fact that the union -security provi-
sions are unlawful only with respect to engineers and are
not inseparable from or basic to the remaining provisions
of the contract between Respondents , I find that the poli-
cies of the Act will be effectuated by a remedy limited to
that requested by the General Counsel.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A. Respondent Great Lakes Towing Company,
Chicago , Illinois, its officers , agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining or giving effect to article 2 of its cur-
rent agreement with Licensed Tugmen 's and Pilot's Pro-
tective Association of America , ILA, AFL-CIO, insofar
as it applies to its engineers , or entering into or renewing
or maintaining in effect any agreement with any labor or-
ganization which requires the performance by employees
of union membership obligations as a condition of em-
ployment , except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as amended in 1959.
(b) Encouraging membership in the above -named or
any other labor organization by discriminating in regard
to employees ' hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment , except to the extent
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , as amended in
1959.
(c) Assisting or contributing support to the above-
named or any other labor organization of its employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended in 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its port in Chicago , Illinois, and all other
places where notices to engineers are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."32
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
Respondent 's representatives , shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, where notices to engineers are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in (a) above , and as soon as they are for-
warded by the Regional Director, copies of the attached
notices marked "Appendix B."
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of Ap-
pendix A for posting by Respondent Union as provided
below. Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the
said Regional Director , after being signed by Respondent
Company's representative , shall be forthwith returned to
the Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith '':;
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(1) and ( 2) of the Act by discharging the cap-
tains listed in the complaint.
B. Respondent Licensed Tugmen 's and Pilot 's Protec-
tive Association of America , ILA, AFL-CIO, its of-
ficers, representatives , and agents , shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining or giving effect to article 2 of its cur-
rent agreement with Great Lakes Towing Company, in-
sofar as it applies to the Company 's engineers , or from
entering into or renewing or maintaining in effect any
agreement with any employer which requires the per-
formance by employees of union membership obligations
as a condition of employment , except as authorized by
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act , as amended in 1959.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Great Lakes Tow-
ing Company, its officers, agents, successors , or assigns,
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees of Respondent Company in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended in 1959
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in
Chicago , Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."34 Copies of the said notice , on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 13, shall be
posted by Respondent Union immediately upon their
receipt, after being duly signed by an official representa-
tive of the Union , and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places where notices to its
members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Post at the same place and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in (a) above , and as soon as they are for-
warded by the Regional Director , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A."
(c) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of Ap-
pendix B for posting by Respondent Company as pro-
vided above herein. Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director , after being signed by Respond-
ent Union's representative , shall be forthwith returned
to the Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.35
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act by causing Respondent
Company to discharge the captains listed in the com-
plaint.
33 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
34 See fn. 32, supra.
35 See fn. 33, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain or, give effect to article 2 of
our current agreement with Licensed Tugmen's and
Pilot's Protective Association of America, ILA,
AFL-CIO, insofar as it applies to our engineers, and
WE WILL NOT enter into, renew , or maintain in effect
any agreement with a labor organization which
requires the performance by our employees of union
membership obligations as a condition of employ-
ment, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in the
above-named or any other labor organization by dis-
criminating in regard to our engineers ' and other em-
ployees' hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment , except to the ex-
tent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to the
above-named or any other labor organization of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent permitted by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our engineers and other employees are free to
become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the above -named or any other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
GREAT LAKES TOWING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building , 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
828-7570.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LICENSED TUGMEN'S AND
PILOT'S PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, ILA,
AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT maintain or give effect to article 2 of
our current agreement with Great Lakes Towing
Company insofar as it applies to the Company's en-
gineers, and WE WILL NOT enter into , renew, or
maintain in effect any agreement with any employer
which requires the performance by employees of
union membership obligations as a condition of em-
ployment , except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Great
Lakes Towing Company , its officers , agents, succes-
sors , or assigns , to discriminate against its engineers
or other employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
705
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees of the above-named
Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed iii
Section 7 of the Act , except to the extent permitted
by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated By
LICENSED TUGMEN'S AND
PILOT'S PROTECTIVE AS-
SOCIATION OF AMERICA,
ILA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South
Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
828-7570.