Krist Gradis, et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 601 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

KRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 601
Krist Gradis , et al.' and Fisherman's Union, Local 33, Fishermen
and Allied Workers' Division , International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-W2
and 21-RC-4613. August 19, 1958
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing on these consolidated cases was held
before Karl W. Filter, hearing officer. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed'
Upon the entire record in these cases,3 the Board finds :
1. All Employers involved in these cases operate fishing vessels out
of San Pedro, California, harbor. They fish for tuna and/or sar-
'The petitions , as amended , designated as Employers Fisherman 's Association of San
Pedro, known also ,as Fishermen 's Co-operative Association and herein called the Co-op,
and various` individual boatowners as listed in Appendix A attached hereto. With the
exception of a few of these boatowners who are members of an organization known as
American Tuna Committee , herein called ATC, none of the Employers designated in the
petitions , as amended , entered an official appearance as a party to these proceedings.
As the Petitioner has, in substance , requested withdrawal of the petitions as to certain of
the Employers initially named therein , we shall dismiss the petitions as to such Employers,
and shall further dismiss the petitions as to all Employers with respect to whom the
Petitioner requested single-employer units but as to which it has not demonstrated an
adequate showing of interest ; the names of these Employers are listed in Appendix B
attached hereto.
2 We find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor , Seine and Line Fisherman's
Union of San Pedro, affiliated with Seafarer 's International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Seine and Line, that certain Employers did not receive due notice
of these proceedings , and that it was prejudiced by the failure to seek enforcement of
subpenas served on certain boatowners and members of the Petitioner , from whom Seine
and Line desired to elicit testimony concerning ( 1) the adequacy of notice with respect
to these proceedings ; ( 2) the circumstances surrounding negotiations with respect to the
Petitioner 's proposed union-shop amendment to its basic agreement ; and (3 ) the extent
to which members of the Petitioner worked on boats covered by Seine and Line contracts.
With respect to the adequacy of the notice and the subpenas directed to that issue, we find
that service on one of several owners of a vessel constitutes due notice to all owners of
that vessel : it is also clear, and there is no contention to the contrary , that the Co-op and
at least one owner of each vessel for whose employees we are directing separate elections
were served with the original order consolidating cases and notice of representation hear-
ing, and that ATC had actual notice of this proceeding . In view of our findings , infra,
concerning the appropriateness of multiemployer units of the members of the Co-op and
of ATC, notice to the Co-op and ATC constituted due notice to all members of such
associations . Accordingly , as all Employers among whose employees we are directing
elections received due notice of this proceeding , and as it is immaterial under the circum-
stances of this case whether the Employers as to whom we are dismissing the petitions
received due notice , the failure to seek enforcement of the subpenas as to ( 1), was not
prejudicial . Nor was the failure to seek enforcement of the remaining subpenas prejudicial
because, as to (2), we are , for reasons not involving such testimony , dismissing the
petitions as to all Employers from whom such testimony was sought and, as to (3), we
do not consider the factor of interchange to be material to our findings herein.
' Seine and Line's request for oral argument is denied , as the record , including the
briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
121 NLRB No. 69.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dines and mackerel in the Pacific Ocean, transport their catches into
California, and sell them to canneries located in Los Angeles. Each
cannery annually ships over $50,000 worth of products out of
California.
On the basis of our unit findings below, we find that the members
of the American Tuna Committee constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes, and that the combined outflow of the mem-
bers, as a group, exceeds $1,000,000. Similarly, we find that the
members of the Co-op-Seine and Line unit found appropriate con-
stitute a single employer and that the combined outflow of the mem-
bers, as a group, exceeds $2,000,000. Under these circumstances, we
find that the members of each of these two multiemployer units, as
a group, are engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the pol-
icies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.'
The Petitioner contends that the Board should also assert jurisdic-
tion, on the basis of their combined sales to the canneries, over several
other Employers, who are not members of either the Co-op or ATC,
and whose vessels we therefore find below constitute appropriate sep-
arate individual units. We find no merit in this contention. As
these Employers are not associated in bargaining, they do not consti-
tute a single employer for jurisdictional purposes.' We shall therefore
consider the impact of their operations upon commerce on an individ-
ual basis.
Some of these Employers, whose names and vessels are listed in
Appendix B, do less than $50,000 worth of business a year. As the
record fails to reflect that their operations satisfy any of the Board's
jurisdictional standards, we shall dismiss the petitions as to them.'
However, as John Vilicich, owner of the California, and Nick Tru-
tanich, owner of the Sunbeam, each has an annual outflow of more
than $100,000, we find that they are engaged in commerce, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over them
on an individual basis.
There remains for consideration the operations of Frank Iacono,
owner of the Dor Ann, and Sam Randazzo, owner of the Endeavor,'
each of m hose vessels constitutes a separate appropriate unit. The
former catches and sells $85,594, and the latter $94,422, worth of fish
annually. The Petitioner contends, in effect, that jurisdiction should
be asserted over them on the basis of direct outflow because they trans-
port fish from the high seas into California for sale. We agree that
4 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481; Fisherman's Marketing Associa-
tion of Washington, Inc., 114 NLRB 189.
5 See Machinery Movers and Erectors Division, 117 NLRB 1778, 1779.
6 Member Jenkins , in accord with his dissent in The Light Co., Inc., 121 NLRB 221,
and cases cited therein , would assert jurisdiction over any individual employer listed in
Appendix B whose operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
7 This vessel is sometimes called the "small" Endeavor, and is not to be confused with
the larger vessel by the same name owned by Sal Genovese ( see Appendix B, paragraph 5).
GRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 603
the Board's direct outflow standard is applicable to such operations.8
The record is not clear as to whether the Dor Ann and the Endeavor
regularly fish beyond the 3-mile territorial boundary of California,
but shows only that these are "local" boats which-fish for sardines,
anchovies, and mackerel in "local waters." As such, they usually re-
turn to port every 24 hours, although occasionally they remain out 2
or 3 days at a time. The record does not define "local waters" other
than to distinguish it from waters off the coast of Mexico and South
America. However, the Board is administratively advised that the
term "local waters" as used in the record applies to the high seas
beyond the 3-mile limit, as well as to territorial waters within the
limit, and that the type of fish which the record shows is caught by
these vessels is normally caught outside the 3-mile limit. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that these vessels regularly fish outside
the territorial waters of the United States,' and transport their catch
into California for sale. As they each catch and sell over $50,000
worth of fish a year, we find that Frank Iacono, owner of the Dor Ann
and Sam Randazzo, owner of the Endeavor, are engaged in commerce
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over their operations.10
2. Seine and Line, and Seine and Line Fisherman's Union of
Monterey, also affiliated with Seafarer's International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Monterey Seine and Line, in-
tervened on the basis of contracts covering some of the employees
involved herein. Seine and Line contends that the Petitioner is not a
qualified and competent labor organization within the meaning of the
Act, and that the petitions should be dismissed as contrary to public
policy, apparently on the ground that some of its officers are allegedly
communists. For the reasons set forth in Precision Scientific Com,
pany,ii we find no merit in this contention. As the Petitioner admits
employees to membership and deals with employers concerning wages,
hours, and conditions of work, we find that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The labor organiza-
tions involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers.
3. The Intervenors contend that elections on several boats are barred
by their basic agreements and yearly supplements thereto with the
owners of those boats. ATC also asserts its contract and tuna supple-
ment with Seine and Line as a bar to an election among its members.
8 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, cf. General Marine Corporation,
120 NLRB 1395.
e As this conclusion is based in part on administrative advice not a part of the record
herein, any party desiring to show the contrary may do so by promptly filing a sufficient
offer of proof . Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation ( WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Bill
Heath, Inc., 89 NLRB 67; J. S. Abercrombie Company, 83 NLRB 524, and Sec. 7 (d) of
the Administrative Procedure Act quoted in footnote 4 therein.
w Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
n 117 NLRB 476.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As all such contracts were either executed subsequent to the filing of
the original petition on June 5, 1956, or have now expired or passed
their automatic renewal dates, we find that there are no contracts
which bar elections at this time. We therefore find that questions
affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees 12
of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests a single mutliemployer unit of employees
working on all fishing vessels belonging to the Co-op, including 12
vessels also belonging to the ATC, regularly engaged in delivering fish
to canneries located in the Los Angeles harbor area. In the alterna-
tive, the Petitioner requests elections in any multiemployer units found
appropriate; however, the Petitioner does not wish to have an elec-
tion in any unit limited to boats already under contract with Local 33.
The Intervenor contends that the only appropriate multiemployer unit
is one limited to ATC, and that otherwise each boat in the Co-op con-
stitutes a separate appropriate unit. Except for the members 'of
ATC, who expresed a desire to bargain as a separate multiemployer
group, none of the boat owners took a position on the unit issue, or
expressed a clear intent to bargain on a basis different from past bar-
gaining. The Co-op has, however, indicated opposition to the asso-
ciationwide unit requested by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner also requests elections in several separate units of
individual boats whose owners are not members of the Co-op. There
is no dispute as to the appropriateness of the single employer units
requested. We shall therefore direct elections, in separate units,
among the employees on the California owned by John Vilicich, Dor
Ann owned by Frank Iacono, Endeavor owned by Sam Randazzo, and
Sunbeam owned by Nick Trutanich.
Scope of Multiemployer Unit
Background: Most masters and crews of the boats here involved are
members of 1 of 3 ethnic groups : those of Yugoslav, Italian, or
Japanese ancestry. It has been the practice for =a master to hire a
crew of his own ethnic origin. The Co-op was organized over 30
years ago for the primary purpose of acting as a marketing agency
for boatowners of Yugoslav ancestry. Although authority to bargain
collectively for its members is nowhere formally invested in the Co-op,
the Petitioner contends and Seine and Line denies that the Co-op has,
in fact, acted as collective-bargaining agent for its members in an
associationwide unit for many years.
' 12 We find no merit in the contention of ATC that the crews of the vessels involved herein
are not employees within the meaning of Section 2 ( 3) of the Act because the crews are
paid a certain share of the proceeds of the catch rather than wages. See J.,Howard
Smith, Inc ., 95 NLRB 21.
KRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 605
The-first fishermen 's union in the San Pedro area was organized in
1933. This Union, the predecessor of the Petitioner, Local 33, repre-
sented only Yugoslav crews of boats whose, owners belonged to the
Co-op. At the same time there were two other associations in the
area, the Japanese Fishermen's Association and the Italian Fisher-
men's Association, each made up of both boatowners and fishermen of
the national origin indicated in their names.
In 1938, the predecessor Union became affiliated with CIO, and the
Italian and Japanese fishermen withdrew from the associations to
which they and the boatowners had belonged, and organized two
locals of Seine and Line, AFL. After that, the Seine and Line locals
and the Union, now Local 33, bargained collectively with the Co-op
and the Italian, and Japanese Associations. All six organizations
collaborated in presenting demands to the canners.
In 1941, both the Japanese 'Boatowners Association and the Jap-
anese Local of Seine and Line were dissolved as the result of the
wartime internment of their members and the Italian Association
changed its name to Federated Boatowners Association. The re-
maining Seine and Line Local and Local 33 cooperated closely, with
joint membership meetings, combined voting, and joint strike action.
The 2 Unions negotiated working conditions with the Co-op and
Federated, and the 4 organizations bargained with the canners on
the price of fish.
In 1950, Local 33 became affiliated with ILWU. In the same year;
a Federal antitrust action was initiated alleging price fixing by illegal
combinations in restraint of trade.' Thereafter, the unions ceased
taking part in negotiating the price of fish with the canners; and the
Federated Boatowners Association disbanded and most of its mem-
bers joined the Co-op.
Recent Bargaining History
Basic agreements: The pattern of bargaining within recent years
involves, for each Union, a basic working agreement augmented by
yearly supplementary wage agreements. The current Local 33 basic
working agreement was negotiated by that Union with the Co-op
manager and a committee of Co-op boatowners in 1949. Separate
but identical copies of the agreement were signed by all Co-op boat-
owners whose crews were then represented by Local 33. It is the pol-
icy of Local 33 to get each boatowner's signature on a copy at the
time a majority of his crew is organized, although the signature of
some, whose crews were organized since 1949, have never been obtained.
Seine and Line has operated under a basic working agreement since
sometime before 1948. Although there is no evidence as to the nego-
tiation of this agreement, the original copy bore the signatures of
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Federated Boatowners Association of 21 or 22 boatowners. Addi-
tional boatowners have apparently signed identical copies as their
crews became organized by Seine and Line.
The basic agreements of both Unions cover only the employees of
the individual boatowners signatory thereto. Members of one .Union
may work on a boat whose crew is represented by the other Union.
Changes in majority status are infrequent and are caused chiefly
by a new master of a different national origin taking over.
Both basic agreements contain 60-day automatic renewal clauses
and have been renewed from year to year. Specific wages are deter-
mined by negotiations of yearly supplements specifying a price for
fish, normally that received by the boatowners from the canneries,
from which the wages are computed by the method specified in the
basic agreements. The basic agreements also contain checkoff clauses,
hiring clauses, a patrol system for checking delivery of fish to can-
ners,'3 hot-cargo and no-kick-back provisions, and holiday, sickness,
grievance procedure, and welfare clauses. While the two basic agree-
ments are similar in many respects, there are also substantial differ-
ences in some provisions.14
These two agreements remained in effect virtually unamended,15
except in a few respects by provisions of yearly supplements, until
1956.'6 In 1956, Seine and Line drew up a new 2-year renewable basic
agreement . The record shows that the new agreement was not nego-
tiated; that the boat-owners signed the new agreement individually
after being informed by the Union that it contained no new provisions
but merely codified the provisions of the 1948 basic agreement and
amendments thereto contained in the supplements. Although the
new agreement actually contained several substantial changes, no
changes resulted in actual working conditions.
In 1956 Local 33 also began negotiating for the addition of a union-
shop clause to its 1949 working agreement. In exchange, the Co-op
demanded changes to the Employers' advantage in the basis for com-
13 A port committee , composed of 1 representative from the Co-op and I from each
Union, negotiates the port rules and handles grievances arising under them. Each Union -
employs its own patrolmen , who check the unloading and delivery of fish to the canneries.
Funds for this purpose are provided in the yearly supplements , which differ slightly for
the two Unions in this respect.
14 The basic agreements of the two Unions differ in the amount of checkoff ; one has a
union shop while the other has not ; there is some difference in method of computing
wages and in the hiring procedure provisions ; provisions for changing size of a crew are
different , as are fees paid by an absent crew member ; there is a difference as to whether
a crew member must give notice to quit ; and there Is some difference in the grievance
procedure.
15 The Seine and Line working agreement was amended in 1951 but the record does not
reveal how the amendments were negotiated
16 In 1954 the Co-op and the two Unions entered into a welfare trust agreement under
which welfare funds provided for In the supplements were held in a joint account pending
negotiation of welfare plans. In December 1955 the Co-op negotiated such a plan and
executed a separate welfare trust agreement with Seine and Line. In 1956, the joint
fund was divided , and since then the Unions have maintained separate fund accounts.
Local 33 and the boatowners have never agreed on a welfare plan.
GRIST GRADIS , ET AL. " 607
puting wages. However, no agreement to amend the Local 33 work-'
ing agreement was reached.
In 1955, 14' boatowners 'known as the American Tuna Committee
terminated their agreement with Local 33, withdrew authority from
the Co-op to represent them in collective bargaining, and expressed
their intent to bargain jointly through their common 'attorney.17
Early in January 1956, they jointly negotiated and executed a single
multiemployer agreement with Seine and Line.
Wage supplements: Each of the 2 basic agreements has been supple-
mented every year by 2 1-year wage agreements, one for sardine and
mackerel fishing and the other for tuna fishing. Sardine wage nego-
tiations are conducted each year prior to the beginning of the season,
on October 1. Wage negotiations for tuna have been conducted each
year prior to January.
The record shows that the Co-op has, in fact, acted as bargaining
agent for its member boatowners in negotiating yearly sardine and
tuna supplements with the two Unions.18 Co-op negotiations have
been conducted chiefly by the Co-op manager, who acted sometimes
with, and sometimes without, specific authorization of the member-
ship. He has been assisted frequently by committees composed of
available boatowners, the president, and/or the assistant manager, of
the Co-op. Although the mar ager had no authority to execute a
binding agreement on behalf A the Co-op members, the members
invariably agreed to, complied with, and in most instances, signed the
supplements thus negotiated.
Tuna boatowners have bargained jointly through the Co-op, nego-
tiations being carried on with the two Unions separately. Prior to
1955, the crews of most tuna boats were represented by Local 33. Local
33 and the- Co-op followed the practice of waiting until negotiations
were completed in San Diego and4hen following the rate established
there. Seine and Line did not participate in the Local 33-Co-op tuna
negotiations , but -the few tuna boats it represented followed what-
ever agreement they reached.
In 1955 the price :of tuna dropped twice during the year. After the
second drop, Local 33 crews refused to ' fish` for the going price, and
tied up for the last 4 months of the year, while Seine and Line
crews accepted the price and continued fishing. - - '
From 1955 on the Co-op has negotiated yearly tuna supplements
with Local 33 and Seine and Line on a separate basis. ATC, but not
11 The record does not support the Petitioner 's contention that such actions were
untimely.
78 The testimony is in part conflicting with regard to the bargaining history. Our find-
ings are based on the testimony of officials of the Co-op and Local 33, who testified in
substantial agreement on this issue and whose testimony in many instances was supported
by documentary evidence . On the other hand, the testimony of John Calise, principal
negotiating officer of Seine and Line, was unsupported in those instances in which it
conflicts with our findings herein.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Co-op, negotiated for its members with Seine and Line for a sep-
arate tuna supplement in 1956.19
Sardine supplement negotiations were also conducted by the Co-op
with the 2 Unions separately in 1951, the year the Federated Asso-
ciation dissolved. Since 1952, however, Local 33 and Seine and Line
officials have consulted together prior to the beginning of each sardine
season on October 1, and reached agreement on proposals for the price
of fish, upon which wages were based, and they then jointly presented
their proposals to the Co-op. Negotiations were conducted by the
Co-op with the two Unions both in joint meetings, where, apparently,
general matters were discussed, and in separate meetings, where spe-
cific supplement provisions were worked out. Voting on the owners'
offer was conducted in separate membership meetings of the two
Unions. The Seine and Line vote was customarily taken first, and the
Local 33 vote was taken after information was received as to the out-
come. Neither Union has accepted a Co-op sardine price offer which
was rejected by the other; all sardine boats have sailed for the same
price at the same time. Yearly sardine supplements are identical for
all Seine and Line boats, and identical for all Local 33 boats. While
Seine and Line and Local 33 supplements are identical as to the price
of fish, they are often different as to other provisions.
In addition to the price of fish to be used as a basis for,computing
wages by the formula set forth in the working agreements, 'sardine
supplements also cover such subjects as the patrol fund, welfare fund,
and regulations regarding unloading and delivering fish. In addition,
the supplements contain provisions which in effect constitute further
material amendments to the basic agreements.
As indicated above, with respect to the American Tuna Committee,
relations between the two Unions became strained in late 1955, as the
result of a disagreement over the price of tuna. Co-op manager Case
testified the 3-way "bull sessions," where all problems of the fishing
industry had .been discussed by officials of the Co-op, Local 33, and
Seine and Line in a friendly atmosphere, came to an end. Before the
start of the 1956 sardine season, the petitions herein were filed. Seine
and Line and Local 33 officials held one preseasonmeeting, but Seine
and Line afterward refused, by letter, to bargain jointly with Local
33, although expressing willingness to meet informally for "exchange
of views." After that, Case, who was anxious that the 2 Unions con-
tinue to cooperate as they had in the past with respect to sardine ne-
gotiations, held 1 meeting with both Unions together. Further nego-
19 We find no merit in Seine and Line's contention that the Board should not rely on the
bargaining history for tuna because it is the subject of unfair trade practices proceedings
before the Federal Trade Commission . The record does not indicate that the FTC has
found current tuna practice to be illegal . In any event , evidence of practice by the
parties in fixing the price at which tuna is sold is not relevant to a determination of the
appropriate scope of the units and is therefore not relied on by the Board.
GRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 609
tiations, however, were carried on by the. Co-op with, the Unions sep-
arately. Upon completion of the negotiations, Local 33 learned from
Case; only, after its, members had voted to accept the terms offered,
that Seine and Line had also agreed to the same terms. Apparently,
therefore, there was no exchange of information at the time of voting
as there had been in past years. Crews of both Unions, however, sailed
at the same time for the same price.
On the basis of the record as a whole, we find that the members of
American Tuna Committee constitute a clearly appropriate multi-
employer unit. The parties involved in such a unit, the boatowner-
members and Seine and Line, agree to its appropriateness, and the
Petitioner includes such a unit in its alternative proposals. The bar-
gaining history shows that the boatowners in this group : gave timely
notice to terminate their contracts with Local 33; withdrew from the
Co-op all authority to bargain collectively for them; 20 organized their
own separate multiemployer group ; and delegated authority to bar-
gain to a single group representative. Their representative negoti-
ated a basic agreement and a tuna supplement, and they all signed a
single copy of each. These contracts have now been in effect for over
2 years, and appear to have stabilized labor relations for this group.
The parties have expressed clearly their desire to continue to bargain
on this basis 21 In these circumstances, we find that only a separate
multiemployer unit is appropriate; for, employees whose employers are
members of ATC 22 Accordingly, as there is no dispute as to the Em-
ployers appropriately included in this unit, and the Petitioner has
made an adequate interest showing therein, we shall direct an election
in a unit of Employer-members of ATC, whose names as of the time of
the hearing are as listed in Appendix C.
There remains the question of the appropriate unit for the other
members of the Co-op. Inasmuch as these Employers have expressed
no clear intent to bargain on an individual basis, we shall, in accord
with Board policy, look to the history of bargaining for an indication
of intent23 Participation for a substantial period of time in joint
bargaining and uniform adoption of the agreements resulting there-
from 24 constitutes an indication of intent to bargain jointly, and to
20 See 30th Century Press, 107 NLRB 292. Although ATC Employers retained their
memberships in the Co-op for purposes other than collective bargaining, this is not
determinative of the unit issue Jones & Anderson Logging Company, Inc, 114 NLRB
1203; Bearing Rim & Supply Co., 107 NLRB 101.
21 Motor Cargo , Inc., 108 NLRB 716. See also Puerto Rico Steamship Association.
116 NLRB 418.
' We find no merit in the Petitioner's request for a Globe election among the employees
in the ATC unit Accord, W. A. Swanson Logging Co , 111 NLRB 495; cf. Bull Insular
Line, Inc, et al, 107 NLRB 674.
a, Cody Distributing Company, 113 NLRB 863; York Transfer & Storage Co, 107
NLRB 139.
24 We find no merit in the contention of ATC that a unit finding cannot be based on
the bargaining history because Local 33 is an illegally assisted Union on the theory that
487926-59-vol 121-40
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
establish the appropriateness of a multiemployer unit 25 Such a unit
is appropriate under'these circumstances even where, as here, the asso-
ciation members have not specifically delegated to the association au-
thority to represent them in collective bargaining; or given the asso-
ciation the power to execute final and binding agreements on their
behalf; 21 or where some of the contracts have not been signed by all
members of the group.27 We therefore find, contrary to the conten-
tion of Seine and Line, that the members of the Co-op have engaged
in multiemployer bargaining.
There remains for consideration the question whether, as the Peti-
tioner contends, only a single associationwide multiemployer unit
is appropriate, or whether the bargaining history reveals the existence
of more than one multiemployer unit within the Co-op membership.
The Petitioner admits that the basic agreements and the tuna sup-
plements were negotiated with the two Unions separately, but con-
tends that the sardine supplements were negotiated over a- period
of years between the two Unions jointly and the Co-op, and that
these latter negotiations establish the appropriateness of an associa-
tionwide unit. It is in this respect that this case differs somewhat
from past Board cases where the basic agreement was jointly nego-
tiated on a unitwide basis, while the supplements thereto were nego-
tiated individually.' In the latter type case, the Board has stated
that the parties, by treating the substantial and significant matters
of collective bargaining in the basic contract on an associationwide
basis, indicated a clear intent to effect a consolidation of separate em-
ployer units. The fact that certain practices, which vary from em-
ployer to employer, or from trade to trade, were not explicitly cov-
ered by the basic contract, but were left to be treated on a narrower
basis, was considered by the Board to be insufficient to impair the
appropriateness of the multiemployer unit thus established.
In the instant case, the Co-op has acted as collective-bargaining
representative for all its members, but it is clear that both boatowners
and Unions have intended to establish and preserve the separate iden-
tity of the Local 33 and the Seine and Line groups within the Co-op.
the support-money provisions of Local 33 contracts are contrary to Section 8 (a) (2).
This is in effect an unfair labor practice contention The Board does not litigate such
contentions in a representation proceeding , and the cases in which charges based on this
contention are currently being litigated have not been determined by the Board. See
Grand Union Co., 118 NLRB 685. Pacific Maritime -Association, etc, 110 NLRB 1647,
relied on by ATC, is inapposite , as the Board had found that union to be illegally assisted
in an unfair labor practice proceeding.
es Charles H. Harper, et at., 117 NLRB 1031 ; United Productions of America, 111
NLRB 390; Jewish Bakery Association, 100 NLRB 1245 ; Cleveland Builders Supply Co.,
et al., 90 NLRB 923.
se Cleveland Builders Supply Co., et al., supra.
sz Capital District Beer Distributors Association , et al., 109 NLRB 176; Fish Industry
Committee , 98 NLRB 696.
29 See, for example, Jones t Anderson Logging Company , Inc., supra, at 1204; Pacific
Maritime Association, 100 NLRB 1259 , and cases cited in footnote 16, therein.
' KRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 611
Thus, the basis contracts and tuna supplements were negotiated sep-
arately, are not identical for the two groups, but are identical for
all Employers within each group. Also, the sardine supplements,
although negotiated simultaneously, were not identical for the two
groups, but were identical for all Employers within each group.
Under these circumstances, the negotiation of the sardine supple-
ments, only, on a joint basis, does not demonstrate an intent by the
parties to merge the two units which they so carefully preserved
with respect to the basic contracts and the tuna supplements; but
only that the sardine negotiations of the two groups were conducted
simultaneously for the convenience of the parties, each Union nego-
tiating with the group of Employers whose employees it represented.
The fact that the Unions consulted together prior to negotiations,
and presented a solid front to the boatowners does not constitute
a clear indication that there was any intent by either Union to de-
stroy its individual status as employee representative, or any intent
by either of the two Unions to act as a joint representative of all, or
any, of the employees. This conclusion is further supported by the
fact that the Unions eventually split during the 1956 sardine nego--
tiations as a result of their disagreement over tuna prices. 1
We therefore find that the Petitioner's alternative request for a
single, unit of all Co-op boats, other than ATC boats, is not supported
by the bargaining history. On the other hand, the bargaining history
does establish the appropriateness of a separate unit within the Co-op,
in addition to the ATC unit found appropriate above, limited to
Employers who participate in group bargaining through the Co-op
with Seine and Line, but excluding those who recognize Local 33 as
the bargaining representative of their employees.30 As the Petitioner
has expressed its willingness to represent any such multiemployer unit
found appropriate, and has demonstrated an adequate showing of
interest in the Co-op-Seine and Line unit, we shall direct an election
therein. However, none of the parties requests an election in a unit
of Co-op Employers who bargain with Local 33. We therefore find
it unnecessary to, and accordingly do not, express an opinion as to the
29 Accord, Shell Oil Company, 116 NLRB 203; Block Cut Manufacturing, Inc, 111
NLRB 265; Hygrade Food Products Corporation , 85 NLRB 841: Cf. Capital District
Beer Distributors Association, supra, where a single multiemployer unit was found appro-
priate, but the two unions were locals of the same international, and a single master
contract for all resulted from the negotiations ; and Denver Heating, Piping and Air
Conditioning Contractors, et al., 99 NLRB 251, where a single multiemployer unit was
found appropriate , but the employers and the two unions negotiated , and jointly and
severally signed, a single contract.
80 Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., 82 NLRB 1395;,61 NLRB 1508 Accord, W2rts
Distributing Co., et al., 82 NLRB 669; Cleveland Builders Supply Co., supra; Capital
District Beer Distributors Association , supra; Printing Industry of Seattle, Inc, 116
NLRB 1883. The fact that a few boats have switched from Local 33 to Seine and Line,
or vice versa , does not affect the appropriateness of this unit or preclude the inclusion of
such boats in the unit in which they presently participate in joint bargaining. See
Cody Distributing Company, supra.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriateness of such a, unit, but shall dismiss. the petitions as to
those Employers, whose, names are listed, with their boats, in
Appendix B. 11
The parties disagree as to whether the following vessels should
appropriately be included in the Co-op-Seine and Line unit :
Monterey Seine and Line contends that the employees on the boats
A. A. Ferrante owned by Joseph A. Ferrante, Endeavor owned by Sal
J. Genovese, Pacific Star owned by Sam Lonero, and St. Christopher
owned by Joe Giamona, which are included in the Petitioner's multi-
employer unit request, should be excluded from the Co-op-Seine and
Line unit because they are included in a different multiemployer unit.
In 1940, after a Board directed election, Monterey Seine and Line was
certified as the representative of a stipulated unit of all crew members'
working on vessels owned or operated by members of an association
called Monterey Sardine Industries, Inc 31 Monterey Seine and Line
still negotiates one uniform contract with a committee of boatowners
representing all employers in that unit. The current contracts consist
of a basic agreement executed in 1952 and automatically renewed from
year to year signed by all employers in that unit, and a sardine supple-
ment executed and signed in the same manner on August 1, 1956.
Some of these owners have also signed Seine and Line and/or Local 33
basic contracts and supplements. However, there is no evidence that
any of the above-named employers has withdrawn from or abandoned
the Monterey unit for which the Board certified .Monterey Seine and
Line as the exclusive representative. Under these circumstances, par-
ticularly the current participation by these employers in joint bar-
gaining as members of the certified Monterey unit, and the absence
of any clear expression of an intent to withdraw from that unit, we
find that they may not appropriately be included in the unit found
appropriate herein, and we shall dismiss the petitions as to them32
The Petitioner would include the Santa Lucia II, owned by Louis
Di Meglio, which has been under contract with both Local 33 and _
Seine and Line. As the uncontradicted testimony shows that at the
time of the hearing this boat had left this country and was fishing,in
Colombia, South America, and that its return was uncertain, we shall
exclude it from the units hereafter established, which are limited to
employees of boatowners who deliver their catch to canneries within
the Los Angeles port area, and dismiss the petitions as to this boat.
The Petitioner would include, and Seine and Line would exclude,
employees of the Windward. The record shows that the home port
of this vessel is Edmons, Washington. It has in the past been char-
81 26 NLRB 731 ; 27 NLRB 30.
12 Inasmuch as no elections are being directed on vessels in which Monterey Seine and
Line claims an interest , , we shall omit the name of that Union from the ballot in the
elections directed below
KRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 613
tered to Katsu Hamachi, a member of the Co-op. However, the
charter has been recalled, and the vessel returned to its owner in Wash-
ington. As it no longer fishes regularly in the San Pedro area, we
shall exclude it from the units and dismiss the petitions as to the
Windward.
The Petitioner would apparently include the Wave Crest, owned by
Amos Hashimoto, on the ground that Hashimoto bargains through
the Co-op with Seine and Line. However, there is no evidence that
this Employer has bargained 'through the Co-op or signed a contract
with Seine and Line' in recent years. 'We shall ' therefore' exclude"this
vessel from the Co-op-Seine and Line unit. As the Petitioner has
not made an interest showing, justifying a''separate election, we shall
dismiss the petition as to this vessel. '
Accordingly, we have listed in Appendix C the names and owners
of boats which were at the time of the hearing within the scope of the
Co-op-Seine and Line unit found appropriate herein.
Composition of Units
The Petitioner contends that the units should be composed of all
fishermen including deckhands, cooks, and engineers, but excluding
owners, charterers, masters or skippers, and fish skippers. There is
no dispute as to the composition of the units, except that Seine and
Line contends that only one master for each boat should be excluded
from the'units; and that engineers and- assistant engineers who re-
ceive a percentage of the owner's share of the catch or have a part
interest in the boat should be excluded from'the units.
Usually the master of the vessel is the owner, one of the owners, or
the charterer of the boat. Upon occasion, however, one of the owners
may sign on as a member of the crew, such as cook or engineer. Seine
and Line contends that owners and charterers who perform a crew-
man's duty should be included, except for owner-engineers, who
should be excluded. We find, however, that all owners, part owners,
and charterers, whether or not they also perform crewmen's duties,
are employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and
we shall exclude them from all units.34
Almost all boats have one master, who is also called the skipper or
captain; he is in complete charge of the vessel and the crew. We find,
89 Seine and Line contends that some individuals , designated by the petitioner as boat-
owners, are not the owners or are not the sole owners of the vessels concerned, and are
therefore not employers . Those in dispute are discussed in the footnotes to Appendix C.
On the basis of the evidence set forth therein, we find that the individuals designated in
Appendix C are employers within the definition of "employer " set forth in Section 2 (2)
of the Act , which includes "any person acting as an agent of an employer , directly or
indirectly."
' Accord, Everett Plywood c6 Door Corporation, 105 NLRB 957 ; Brookings Plywood
Corporation, 98 NLRB 794.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in agreement with the parties, that all such masters are supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, and shall exclude
them. However, we find, contrary to the Petitioner, that the evidence
fails to establish whether the so-called "fish skippers," possess super-
visory authority. This classification exists on boats for which the
person who is registered as owner or master with U. S. Customs dele-
gates some of the master's functions to another person, the former
being known as the "paper skipper," and the latter as the "fish skip-
per." As all "paper skippers" appear to be either employers or super-
visors, they are therefore excluded from the units. However, the
extent of authority delegated to "fish skippers" varies from boat to
boat, and the record does not show, on an individual basis, the extent
of such delegation. In the absence of such evidence, we shall not rule
on the supervisory status of "fish skippers," but shall permit them to
vote subject to challenge.
There are also some engineers and assistant engineers who are paid
from the master's instead of the crew's share of the proceeds of the
catch. The interests of these employees are clearly opposed to those
of the rest of the crew. They would favor minimizing the share ac-
cruing to the crew and maximizing the share accruing to the master
out of which they are paid, whereas the rest of the crew would con-
stantly seek to increase the crew's share and to reduce the master's
share. Under these circumstances we shall exclude from the units en-
gineers and assistant engineers who are paid from the master's share
of the catch .35
Accordingly, we find that the following units are appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
A. All fishermen employed by John Vilicich on the vessel Califor-
nia, including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and assistant engineers
not specifically excluded; but excluding owners, part owners, char-
terers, masters, engineers and assistant engineers who are part owners
or are paid out of the master's share of the catch, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
B. All fishermen employed by Nick Trutanich on the vessel Sun-
beam, including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and assistant engineers
not specifically excluded; but excluding owners, part owners, char-
terers, masters, engineers and assistant engineers who are part owners
or are paid out of the master's share of the catch, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
C. All fishermen employed by Frank Iacono on the vessel Dor Ann,
including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and assistant engineers not
ac See cases cited in footnote 34 supra. We shall include in the units all engineers and
assistant engineers who are neither part owners nor paid out of the master 's share.
KRIST GRADIS, ET AL. 615
specifically excluded; but excluding owners, part owners, charterers,
masters, engineers and assistant engineers who are part owners or'are
paid out of the master's share of the catch, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
D. All fishermen employed by Sam Randazzo on the vessel En-
deavor, including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and assistant engi-
neers not specifically excluded; but excluding owners, part owners,
charterers, masters, engineers and assistant engineers who are part
owners or are paid out of the master's share of the catch, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
E. All fishermen employed by the Employer-members of the Ameri-
can Tuna Committee 86 including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and
assistant engineers not specifically excluded; but excluding owners,
part owners, charterers, masters, engineers and assistant engineers
who are part owners or who are paid from the master's share of the
catch, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
F. All fishermen employed on net boats owned or operated by the
Employers 91 who participate in group bargaining through the Fisher-
men's Association of San Pedro with Seine and Line Fishermen's
Union of San Pedro, affiliated with Seafarers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, and who regularly engage in delivering
tuna, sardines, or mackerel to canneries located in the Los Angeles,
California, harbor area, including deckmen, cooks, and engineers and
assistant engineers not specifically excluded; but excluding owners,
part owners, charterers, masters, engineers and assistant engineers
who are part owners or are paid from the master's share of the catch,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. ATC and Seine and Line contend that no elections should be
held until after the Board has resolved the issues raised in unfair
labor practice charges filed in Cases Nos. 21-CA-2388 thru 21-CA-
2402, 21-CB-772, 21-CB-879, 21-CA-2626, and 21-CB-862, against
the Petitioner, Seine and Line, and many of the Employers, alleging
violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8 (b) (1)
and (2) of the Act. We find no merit in this contention. As already
stated, we are dismissing for other reasons the petitions as to, and
are therefore directing no elections among employees of, Employers
against whom Seine and Line has filed unwaived charges in Cases
Nos. 21-CA-2626 and 21-CB-862. The remaining cases, Nos. 21-CA-
2388 thru 21-CA-2402, 21-CB-772, and 21-CB-879, were filed against
Seine and Line and various Employers by the Petitioner who has
requested the Board to proceed to an election. Further, it appears
88 The names of Employer-members of ATC at the time of the hearing are listed in
paragraph 2 of Appendix C.
57 The names of Employers in the Co-op-Seine and Line Unit at the time of the hearing
are listed in paragraph 3 of Appendix C.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (2), involved in the latter
CA cases, is related, at least in part, to the unresolved question of
representation of the employees of the Employers involved. Under
these circumstances, we find that direction of immediate elections
at this time will effectuate the policies of the Act. The direction is,
however, without prejudice to, and any certification, resulting there-
from shall be specifically conditioned upon, any determination which
may be made concerning the status of the Intervenor here in pending
Cases Nos. 21-CA-2388 thru 21-CA-2402 38
[The Board dismissed the petitions with respect to the Employers
listed in Appendix B, attached hereto.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
38 Marston Corporation, 120 NLRB 76, and cases cited in footnote 9 therein
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYERS DESIGNATED IN PETITIONS , AS AMENDED
Joseph A. Ferrante, A. A. Ferrante
Orfeo Kostrencich, Adriatic
Krist Gradis, American Boy
Francisco Grillo, American Rose
Bill Homer, American Venture
Anton Misetich, Anthony M.
John Sestich, Arlene S.
Cosmo Santo, Bella Marie
Pete Cekalovich, Betsy Ross
John Vilicich, California
Phil Cracchiolo, Charlotte
John Doe Dugan, City of Long Beach
John Gargas, City of Los Angeles
Frank Amalfitano, City of Naples
Sal Manzella, City of Pacific Grove
Sam Mircovich, City of San Pedro
John Evich and John Kunich, Clermont
Steve Gargas, Columbia
Peter Bogdanovic, Comet
Tholief Austrum, Commander
Nich Mosich, Concord
Mike Trormina, Coquetta
Tony Barcott, Coral Sea
Mike Castelan, Corregidor
Red Gillette, Corregidor II
Paul Petrasich, Corsair
Andrew Kuljis, Courageous
John Zorotovich, Defense
Vince Budrovich, Delores M.
Frank Iacona, Dor-Ann
A. Maiorana, Dux
Sam Randazzo, Endeavor
Sal Genovese, Endeavor (large)
Anthony E. Lucido, E. S. Lucido
Santo Trama, Fisherman
Fishermen's Association of San Pedro,
d/b/a Fishermen's Cooperative Asso-
ciation
John Marovich, Fontana
Bernard Mattera, Fortress
Tom Nishida, Gaviota
John Stanovich and Starkist Foods, Inc.,
Golden West
Frank Coscetti, Gigi
Frank Marinkovich, Janis M.
Vito Pizzo, Jennie
S. Emandes, J. Ernandes
John Caserma, Jimmy Boy
John Burich and John Resich, Jo-Ann
Frank Guastella, Kitterie
Paul Biazevich, Liberator
Samuel Carr, Liberty Bell II
A. Bozanich, Little Flower
Sam Lucido, Little Rosie
Steve Marchins, Long Island
Donald Kusar, Lucretia K.
Vincenzo Pisano, Lucy Ann
Henry Johasen, Lynda
Tony Mihovilovich, Marauder
John Alioto, Maria
John Vilicich, Marsha Ann
Joe Lauro, Mercury
Jerry Thomas, Miss Universe
Matt Martin, Nancy Hanks
Mike Lonich, New Admiral
Nick Mardesich, New Home II
G. A. Spadaro, New Marettino
Isadore Califano, New San Antonio
Nich Marincovich, New Sea Rover
Andrew Xitco, North Queen
John Mardesich, Nyna Rose
Tom Scotti, Nyna Rose II
Luigi Sogliuzzo, Old Timer
Anthony Padovan, Olympic
John Jerkovich, Pacific Raider
Sam Lonero, Pacific Star
Katsumi Ryono, Patriotic
Ralph Galante, Pier (Ralphy Boy)
Joe Mardesich, Pioneer
Frank Foretich, Progress
Kaoru Suzuki , Redeemer
Andrew Spinosa, Robert M.
KRIST GRADIS, ET AL.
Pasquali Lauro , Ronnie F.
John Misetich, Ronnie M.
Jack Russo , Russo Bros.
John Guglielmo , St. Aniello II
Joe Califano , St. Augustine II
Tony Di Leva, St. Christina II
Joe Giamona, St. Christopher
Anthony Pisano , St. George
Anthony Pisano , St. George II
Pasquale Di Leva, St. Louis
Frank Iacono , Saint Rita
Anthony Di Leva , San Antonio IV
Independent Fish Co ., San Genero
Nick Radocich , San Pedro Boy
Antonio De Ambra , San Raffaele
L. Alversano , San Silverio
John Gradis, Santa Anna
Pietro _ Pugliese , Santa Lucia
Louis Di Meglio , Santa Lucia II
Antonio De Bernardo , Santa Maria
Peter Guarrasi , Santa Rita
John Sima, Santa Teresa
Roy Katnich , Sea Boy
Tom Mason , Sea King
Aniello Pilato , Sea Maid
John Resich , and Andrew Tipich, Sea
Pride
Peter Dragich , Sea Ranger
Luka Alafetich , Sea Rose
Vince Simich , Sea Rover
Andrew Rafkin , Sea Scout
Klem Lapov, Sea Spray
Elmer Duzich, Seven Seas
Antonio Mascola , S. G. Giuseppe
Matthew Bodul , Sharon B.
John Rados , Southland
Giuseppe Iacono , S. Restituta II
Matt Karmehch, Stanford
John Russo, Star of Monterey
Nich Trutanich, Star of San Pedro
Ben Fukuzaki , Stella Maris
Pasquale Artiano , S. Teresa
Lawrence Zuanich , Stranger
Nick Trutanich , Sunbeam
Carmen De Massa, Tacoma
Alfredo Valtino , Three Sisters
Santo Trama, Tommy Boy
Art Bruno , Two Nancies
Joe Dragich , U. S. Liberator
Matteo Lo Grandi , U. S. Republic
Nick Mosich , Vagabond
Martin Tomich, Valiant Lady
Diego Arancio, Vitina A.
John Scognamillo, Vittoria
Tony Vidovich, Vittoria
Joseph Ancich , Voyager
Amos Hashimoto, Wave Crest
Frank Manaka , Western Explorer
Norman Mezin, Western Fisher
John Zankich , Western Monarch
Nick Mezin, Western Pride
August Felando , Western Sky
Jerry Kaloper, Western Star
B. A. Walvick, Western Traveler
Katsu Hamachi , Windward
Anthony Burich , Zephyr
APPENDIX B
EMPLOYERS As To WHOM PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED
1. Petitions Withdrawn
Krist Gradis , American Boy
Francisco Grillo, American Rose
Nick Mosich , Concord
Mike Trormina, Coquetta
Mike Castelan , Corregidor
A. Maiorana, Dux
Bernard Mattera , Fortress
Vito Pizzo, Jennie
S. Ernandes, J. Ernandes
John Caserma , Jimmy Boy
Frank Guastella, Kitterie
A. Bozanich , Little Flower
Sam Lucido, Little Rosie
Henry Johasen, Lynda
Matt Martin, Nancy Hanks
Mike Lonich, New Admiral
Nick Mardesich, New Home II
G. A. Spadaro , New Marettino
Tom Scotti, Nyna Rose II
Luigi Sogliuzzo, Old Timer
John Jerkovich, Pacific Raider
Anthony Pisano , St. George
Pasquale Di Leva, St. Louis
John Gradis, Santa Anna
Pietro Pugliese, Santa Lucia
Tom Mason, Sea King
John Russo , Star of Monterey
Lawrence Zuanich , Stranger
617
Carmen De Massa, Tacoma
Art Bruno, Two Nancies
Matteo Lo Grande, U. S. Republic
Nick Mosich, Vagabond
Martin Tomich, Valiant Lady
Diego Arancio, Vitina A.
Tony Vidovich, Vittoria
Joseph Ancich, Voyager
Frank Manaka, Western Explorer
2. Insufficient Interest Showing
John Doe Dugan, City of Long
Beach
Frank Coscetti, Gigi
Joe Lauro, Mercury
Independent Fish Co., San Genero
John Guglielmo, St. Aniello II
Alfredo Valtino, Three Sisters
3. Jurisdiction
Red Gillette, Corregidor II
Santo Trama, Fisherman
Donald Kusar, Lucretia K.
John Alioto, Maria
Pasquale Lauro, Ronnie F.
4. Co-op-Local 33 Unit
Orfeo Kostrencich, Adriatic
Pete Cekalovich, Betsy Ross
Sam Mircovich, City of San Pedro
John Evich and John Kunich, Cler-
mont
618
k
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Peter Bogdanovic, Comet
Tholief Austrum, Commander
Tony Barcott, Coral Sea
Paul Petrasich, Corsair
Andrew Kuljis, Courageous
John Marovich, Fontana
Frank Marinkovich, Janis M.
John Burich and John Resich, Jo-
Ann
Samuel Carr, Liberty Bell11
Steve Marchins, Long Island
Tony Mihovilovich, Marauder
Jerry Thomas, Miss Universe
Andrew Xitco, North Queen
Anthony Padovan, Olympic
Joe Mardesich, Pioneer
Frank Foretich, Progress
Nick Radocich, San Pedro Boy
Roy Katnich, Sea Boy
John Resich and Andrew Tipich,
Sea Pride
Peter Dragich, Sea Ranger
Luka Alafetich, Sea Rose
Vince Simich, Sea Rover
Klem Lapov, Sea Spray
Elmer Duzich, Seven Seas
Matthew Bodul, Sharon B.
John Rados, Southland
Matt Karmelich, Stanford
Nich Trutanich, Star of San Pedro
Joe Dragich, U. S. Liberator
John Zankich, Western Monarch
Nick Mezin , Western Pride
August Felando, Western Sky
Jerry Kaloper, Western Star
B. A. Walvick, Western Traveler
Anthony Burich, Zephyr
5. Monterey Boats
Joseph A. Ferrante, A. A. Ferrante
Sal Genovese, Endeavor (large)
Sam Lonero, Pacific Star
Joe Giamona, St. Christopher
6. Dismissed for Other Reasons Set
Forth in Text
Louis Di Meglio, Santa Lucia 11
Amos Hashimoto, Wave Crest
Katsu Hamachi, Windward
APPENDIX C
EMPLOYERS AMONG WHOSE EMPLOYEES ELECTIONS ARE DIRECTED
1. Individual Units
John Vilicich, California
Nick Trutanich, Sunbeam
Frank Iacono, Dor Ann I
Sam Randazzo, Endeavor
2. American Tuna Committee Unit
John Gargas, City of Los Angeles
Steve Gargas, Columbia
John Zorotovich, Defense
Vince Budrovich, Delores M.
John Stanovich, Golden West
Paul Biazevich, Liberator
John Vilicich, Marsha Ann 2
Nick Marincovich, New Sea Rover
John Misetich, Ronnie M.3
Andrew Rafkin, Jr., Sea Scout 4
Norman Mezin, Western Fisher
3. Fishermen's Association of San Pedro
d/b/a Fishermen's Cooperative Asso-
ciation-Seine and Line Unit
Anton Misetich, Anthony M.
Cosmo Santo , Bella Marie
Ralph Gallante, Ralphy Boy
Frank Amalfitano , City of Naples
115
Sal Manzella , Two Brothers
Anthon E. Lucido, E. S. Lucido 6
Tom Nishida , Gaviota 7
Estate of Vincenzo Pisano, Lucy
Ann 8
Isadore Califano , New San Antonio
John Mardesich, Nyna Rose
Kaoru Suzuki , Redeemer
Angelo Logrand , Twin Brother
Jack Russo, Josie Lena
Joe Califano , St. Augustine 119
Tony Di Leva , St. Christina II or
St. Christina
Anthony Pisano , St. George II
Frank Iacono, Saint Rita
Anthony Di Leva, San Antonio
IV 10
1 lacono is also referred to as Frank Iacona.
8 John Vilicich is the administrator of the estate of his father, Andrew Vilicich, de-
ceased former owner of the Marsha Ann.
John Misetich appeared at the hearing through counsel as the owner or master of
the Ronnie M and a member of ATC.
4 Andrew Rafkin, Jr., is a member of ATC as the owner or master of the Sea Scout.
8 Although the Petitioner listed this boat as City of Naples. Its authorization cards
designated, and Amalfitano signed Seine and Line contracts for, the City of Naples II.
'The record shows that Lucido is the owner of the E. S. Lucido.
7 Nishida signed Seine and Line contracts for the Gaviota in 1954 and 1956.
8 Pisano died in 1956. At the time of the hearing, ownership of the Lucy Ann was the
subject of contested probate proceedings.
Y Although the Petitioner indicated the name of the owner of the St. Augustine 11 to be
John J. Califano, Joe Califano is a member of the Co-op and paid dues, and also signed
Seine and Line contracts , for this vessel.
18 Anthony Di Leva was a member of the Co-op and signed Seine and Line contracts for
this vessel in 1956.
NETTI WHOLESALE GROCERY 619
L. Alversano, San Silverio 11 Antonio Mascola, S. G. Guiseppe 12
Liberad De Bernardo , Santa Maria Guiseppe Iacono , S. Restituta 1I
Peter Guarrasi, Santa Rita Pasquale Artiano, S. Teresa
John Sima , Santa Teresa - Santo Trama , Tommy Boy
Aniello Pilato, Sea Maid John Scognamillo , Vittoria
" Alversano is also referred to in the record as "L. Auersano."
12 Mascola is registered with U. S. Customs as part owner of, and is a member of, the
Co-op for the S. G . Guiseppe.
Netti Wholesale Grocery of Watertown , Inc., Petitioner and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 263. Case No. 3-RM-153.
August 20,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The Union contends that it has presented no claim for recog-
nition to the Employer, and that the petition should be dismissed be-
cause no question of representation exists.
At the hearing, there was evidence indicating that, on three oc-
casions, the union business agent threatened the Employer with
"trouble" if it did not "go along" with the Union. The Employer's
president testified that in the course of one conversation, the business
agent told him that he had advised Camp Drum, a customer of the
Employer, not to accept beer deliveries from Netti. The Company
president also testified that the union business agent promised him
"a few breaks" if he cooperated.
Although the Union claimed that its calls and visits were merely
to inform the Employer of the Union's forthcoming organizational
drive, the Employer's version was corroborated by 'uncontradicted
evidence that, within an hour after the business agent's first call, the
Employer was called by a supplier, who said that "through union
channels" he had been advised not to send the Employer any beer.
'We reject the Union's contention that the Board should not, assert Jurisdiction in the
present case , as it is clear from the record that the Employer 's purchases from across
State lines are approximately $1,000 ,000 annually . The T . H. Rogers Lumber Company,
117 NLRB 1732.
121 NLRB No. 76.