Hampton Roads Maritime Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 263 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

HAMPTON ROADS MARITIME ASSN.
Hampton Roads Maritime Association , Atlantic &
Gulf Stevedoring Associates , Atlantic & Gulf
Stevedores , Inc., Hampton Roads Stevedoring
Corporation , Old Dominion Stevedoring
Corporation , Southern Stevedoring Corporation,
Tidewater Stevedoring Corporation , Marine
Stevedoring Corporation , Nacirema Operating
Company, Inc. and International Longshoremen's
Association , AFL-CIO, Local No. 1624,
Petitioner . Case 5-RC-6612
August 28, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Leonard R.
Miller Briefs were filed by the Hampton Roads
Maritime Association, five of the
Employer-Members of the Association and
International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 1624
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 Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed The rulings are
hereby affirmed
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Hampton Roads Maritime Association, herein
referred to as HRMA, is an incorporated
association admitting to membership persons, firms,
associations, and corporations interested in the
promotion of the maritime commerce of the ports of
Hampton Roads and vicinity It has some 400
members, consisting of a wide variety of persons
and businesses, including the Employer-Members
named in the caption of this proceeding. Within the
corporate structure of HRMA are various
organizations which deal with the Petitioner
regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions
of those individuals employed at the port facilities.
Most important of' these are the Negotiating
Committees which have dealt with the Petitioner
regarding the employment of the various types of
employees at the ports These committees are
selected by those members of the HRMA who
employ a particular kind of labor and the contracts
are signed by the Employer-Members of the
negotiating committee, officials of the Petitioner,
The "Stevedore Employers" have also requested oral argument The
record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues
and the positions of the parties We, therefore , deny the request
263
the "employing interests" who utilize the particular
classification of labor which is the subject matter of
the contract involved and, with one exception, an
official of the HRMA.' There are also organizations
within the HRMA which handle vacations, welfare
and pension benefits for those employed at the port
facilities, and the HRMA has, in its own
publications, stated that it provides. "Representation
of employer interests in waterfront labor
negotiations." Neither HRMA nor the individual
employer-members contest the Board's jurisdiction
in this case. The record discloses that each of the
employer-members here involved is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. We find it
will effectuate the policies of' the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2 The petitioning labor organization claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees
of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks an election to determine
whether the timekeepers employed by the Employers
named in the caption wish to be included in an
existing multiemployer portwide unit of checkers
and weighers with whom the Employers have a
collective-bargaining agreement. The HRMA
contends that it is not authorized to bargain and has
not bargained, for employment conditions of any of
the employees employed at the port's maritime
facilities. The Employer-Members of HRMA
contend that these employees are confidential
employees and should not be included in a unit of
checkers and weighers and that, if any unit is
appropriate, it would consist of a unit of
timekeepers of each individual Employer-Member.
As has been pointed out above, there is, within
the structure of the HRMA, a negotiating
committee which has negotiated
collective-bargaining agreements with the Petitioner
for various classes of employees, including a
contract covering the checkers and weighers. The
HRMA and all of the Employer-Members set forth
in the caption, are signatories to the checkers and
weighers contract. There thus exists a portwide
multiemployer bargaining unit agreed to by the
parties in which additional employees may be
included if their duties justify their inclusion in the
unit.
We think the question of the inclusion of the
timekeepers in a unit of checkers and weighers is
controlled by the Board's decision in Steamship
Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc ' In that case
the Board found that the duties of the timekeepers
were integrated with those of the checkers to such a
degree that the two classifications of employees had
a community of interest justifying their inclusion in
'The only contract in evidence not signed by an official of the HRMA is
the contract involving terminal checkers
'155 NLRB 232
178 NLRB No. 44
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the same unit The record herein shows the same
relationship between the duties of the timekeepers
and those of the checkers and weighers in the
performance of their work at the maritime facilities
of the Ports of Hampton Roads and thus warrants
the conclusion that the timekeepers should be
included in the existing unit of checkers and
weighers
As stated above, the Employer-Members contend
that the timekeepers should be excluded from a
multiemployer unit on the grounds that they are
confidential employees. The evidence in the record
shows that to the extent that the timekeepers may
be said to have access to information of their
employers, the information pertains to the
performance of their duties as timekeepers and has
nothing to do with the labor policies of the
Employer-Members. Nor is there any evidence that
the timekeepers otherwise participate in the
formulation, determination, or effectuation of the
Employer-Members' general labor policies. We
therefore perceive no reason for excluding
timekeepers from a multiemployer unit as
confidential employees.'
'Pacific Far East Line , Inc , 174 NLRB No 172, Gulf States Telephone
Co, 118 NLRB 1039, 1042
'The inclusion of certain individual employees is in question Sylvester
Brown , an employee of Southern Stevedoring Corporation has the
authority to hire and fire, assign overtime , set vacation schedules , instruct
new employees and attends supervisory meetings We find him to be a
supervisor and exclude him from the unit Southern Stevedoring
Corporation also contends that Victor Cherry is a manager trainee and
should likewise be excluded from the unit Cherry' s present duties are the
same as those of other timekeepers and there is no formal program for his
advancement to managerial duties We shall therefore include him in the
unit, Heckett Engineering Company , 117 NLRB 1395, 1398 Old
Dominion Stevedoring Corporation would exclude George Clark as a
casual employee Clark is 60 years old and retired He works on an
average of 3 days a week and is never off from work more than a week at
a time He performs the same work as other timekeepers , receive a
Christmas bonus and participates in the profit sharing, medical and life
insurance plans of the Employer as do the other timekeepers He is paid
on a daily basis rather than on the guaranteed weekly salary enjoyed by
the other timekeepers He does not receive a paid vacation On these facts,
we find that his employment is regular and not intermittent and sporadic
and that he thus has a community of interest with the other timekeepers
which requires his inclusion in the unit Quality Markets Inc , 160 NLRB
44, 51
Accordingly, we find that the timekeepers
constitute an appropriate voting group, and we shall
direct an election among them for the purpose of
determining whether they wish to be represented as
part of the existing unit of checkers and weighers'
If a majority of the employees in such voting group
vote for Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be included in the existing
checkers and weighers unit of employees. If a
majority of the employees in such group vote
against representation by Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to remain
outside such existing unit. In either event, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of the results of the election to such
effect.
5. Having found that an election should be
directed among the employees sought by the
Petitioner, we shall direct an election in the
following described voting group-
All timekeepers employed by the members of
Hampton Roads Maritime Association," in the
Ports of Hampton Roads and vicinity, Virginia,
excluding all other employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication ]
`The individual employer-members of the Association currently
employing timekeepers are Atlantic and Gulf Stevedoring Associates,
Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores , Inc Hampton Roads Stevedoring
Corporation, Old Dominion Stevedoring Corporation, Southern
Stevedoring Corporation, Tidewater Stevedoring Corporation, Marine
Stevedoring Corporation , Nacirema Operating Company, Inc
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 5 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extradordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed