Mardril, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 1174 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NET BACK PAY FROM MAY 16, 1949, TO MARCH 31, 1954
Claimant Amount Claimant Amount
Dewey Accord ----------- $4,616.97 Marvin Knuckles--------- $4, 285.46
John L. Barnes----------- 1,284.81 Robert L. Martin________ 8,282. 80
John Bartlett ------------ 454. 08 Lewis Merritt ------------ 4, 618.47
L. G. Bartlett ------------ 188.70 Earl Morrow____________ 2,928.67
Harold Boren ------------ 3,847.15 Marvin Nichols__________ None
Loyd H. Carter__________ 3, 596.42 Herman Owens ---------- 2,691.75
Homer Currier ----------- 3,585.91 James Payne ------------- None
Garland Curtis ----------- 885.04 W. B. Rinke____________ 2,664.44
Jack Daniels------------- 3,951.36 Billy Skidgell ------------ 1, 771.65
Kenneth Davis----------- 921. 54 Troy Turner_____________ 1, 513.43
Leonard William Duke____ 2,388.80 Marvin Warren__________ 2, 207.08
Lum Fisher______________ 7,179.80 James Wade_____________ 553.02
Bill Friend______________ 1,200.27 Ira Wolfe_______________ 3,302,00
Filo Hill________________ 264. 40
Mardril , Inc. and Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington
Branch and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and
Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America
Marex, Inc. and Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch
and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and Off-Shore
Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America
Rexmar, Inc. and Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington
Branch and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and Off-
Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America
Submar, Inc. and Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington
Branch and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and
Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America
Submarex Corp. and Sailors Union of the Pacific , Wilmington
Branch and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and
Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America. Cases Nos. 21-CA-2562, 21-CA-
2563, 01-CA-2564, 21--CA-2565, and 21-CA-2566. December 24,
1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
119 NLRB No. 138.
MARDRIL, INC. 1175
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Off-Shore
Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine Workers
of America, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
'Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Mardril, Inc., Marex, Inc.,
Rexmar, Inc., Submar, Inc., and Submarex Corp., their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Off-Shore
Petroleum Workers Association and of Off-Shore Petroleum Workers
Local Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or with
the formation or administration of any other labor organization, or
contributing support to the above-named labor organizations or any
other labor organization.
(b) Recognizing Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and
,Off -Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, or any successors, as representatives of any of
their employees for the purpose of dealing with them concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
"employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
-extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish, the Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and the
Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, as representatives of any of their employees for
the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other condition
of employment.
(b) Post immediately in their respective offices in Santa Barbara,
California, and upon all barges and ships operated by them, copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix
A." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondents' representatives, be posted by Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty (60) con-
secutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondents to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
i This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words,
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order," the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon 4 separate charges and 4 separate amended charges duly filed by R. G.
Anderson for and on behalf of Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch,
herein called SUP, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued his consolidated com-
plaint,2 dated December 19, 1956, against Mardril, Inc., Marex, Inc., Rexmar, Inc.,
Submar, Inc., and Submarex Corp., herein cojointly called Respondents, alleging
that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act.
Copies of the charges, amended charges, order of consolidation, consolidated
complaint , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon each Respondent,
Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association , herein called the Association , and Off-
Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, herein called UMW, the last two named being labor organizations alleged
in the complaint to be existing in violation of the Act.
i This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing.
2 Acting pursuant to the authority of Section 102.33 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 6, as amended, the aforesaid Regional Director, under date of December 19,
1956, consolidated the above -numbered cases.
MARDRIL, INC. 1177
Specifically, the consolidated complaint , as amended at the hearing , alleged that
since on or about July 19, 1956, certain named supervisors of Respondents, by
certain stated acts and conduct , interfered with , restrained , and coerced the em-
ployees of Respondents in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act; since August 1956 Respondents , by certain stated acts and conduct , interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and thereafter dominated
and contributed support to it in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act; and in
violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of a local of the UMW and thereafter dominated and contributed
support to said local.
On January 11, 1957, Respondents duly filed a joint answer denying the com-
mission of the unfair labor practices alleged. On January 7, 1957, UMW duly
filed a letter , dated January 3 , stating that it did not receive the alleged employer-
assistance.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held on February 18, 19, and 25 , 1957, at
Santa Barbara, California , before the duly designated Trial Examiner . The General
Counsel and SUP were represented by counsel , the Respondents and UMW by
officials thereof. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to examine
and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue
orally at the conclusion of the taking of evidence , and to file briefs on or before
March 18, 1957.3 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from
UMW which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
Mardril, Inc., Marex , Inc., Rexmar , Inc., Submar , Inc., and Submarex Corp.,
California corporations , have their offices and places of business in Santa Barbara,
California , where each is engaged in off-shore drilling for geological information
in connection with petroleum exploration and each performs services amounting
to in excess of $ 100,000 annually for Richfield Oil Corporation , Standard Oil Com-
pany of California, Texas Company, and Tidewater Associated Oil Company, each
of which oil companies handles and ships merchandise valued in excess of $50,000
annually to points located outside the State of California . The sole stockholder of
each Respondent is William W. Rand who is the president of each and the person
who determines the principal policies, including the labor relation policies, of all
five Respondents.
Upon the above undisputed facts the Trial Examiner finds that, during all times
material , each Respondent was engaged in and now is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch, Off -Shore Petroleum Workers
Association, Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of each Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Formation and domination of, interference with, and support to the Association
and UMW; interference , restraint, and coercion
1. The pertinent facts
As far as appears from the record there were no organizational activities among
Respondents ' employees until about September 1955, when William Wiesner, a then
3 At the request of UMW, the time to file briefs was extended to March 25 . After the
close of the hearing, the parties entered into a written stipulation with respect to the
employment record of witness Michael Patarak. This stipulation was filed with the Trial
Examiner on March 12, and, pursuant to the understanding of the parties, as expressed
on the record during the hearing, said stipulation is received in evidence as General
Counsel 's Exhibit No. 11.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nonsupervisory crew member aboard Respondents ' barge Jessie Andrews 4 but now
master of the barge Western Explorer, induced his fellow crew members to accom-
pany him to the local headquarters of Inland Boatmans Union where they signed
cards seeking membership in that organization.
Upon the request of SUP, Inland Boatmans Union took no action with respect
to the aforesaid signed cards nor did it thereafter attempt to organize Respondents'
employees.
According to the undenied and credited testimony of Frank Burke , a former crew
member of the La Ciencia, Grant Allen, the captain of that ship , told him on several
occasions in December 1955, that if SUP, which has been attempting to organize
Respondents ' employees since about September 1955, succeeded in obtaining a
collective-bargaining contract covering Respondents ' employees , Richfield Oil Com-
pany would discontinue the operations Respondents were then performing for it;
and that on many occasions in September 1956, Allen asked him, in the presence
of other crew members , to sign a membership application card of UMW.
In August 1956,5 Michael Patarak,6 after discussing for a month or more the
formation of an independent union with his fellow crew members, sought the advice
of his personal attorney with respect to the procedure necessary to form such an
organization . This attorney referred Patarak to Attorney Haines who was more
familiar with labor law.
Patarak then , in August, conferred with Haines who advised him to have dele
gates appointed from each of Respondents ' vessels and have them meet with him on
a certain fixed date . On the appointed date, about a week after the initial Haines-
Patarak meeting referred to immediately above, some 12 or 14 men, being the newly
designated boat representatives ,7 met in Haines' office. There Patarak, who was the
employees ' spokesman , and the delegates authorized Haines to proceed with the
formation of an independent union. Shortly thereafter, Haines delivered to Patarak
a document entitled "Pre-execution Agreement," 8 with instructions to have it circu-
lated among the crews of Respondents ' boats for signature.
4 All barges or ships referred to herein are either owned or operated by one of
Respondents.
6 All dates hereinafter mentioned refer to 1956.
6 Patarak was master of the barge Western Explorer from January 12 to August 9 at
which time he was relieved of the duties of master ; from August 9 to September 6 he
remained on the said boat breaking in William Weisner in the duties and responsibilities
of a bargemaster ; and since September 6, has been the master of said vessel.
7 The representatives who were on duty at the time of this meeting were permitted by
the ship's captain or the barge 's master, as the case may be, to leave the boat and attend
the meeting . These representatives did not lose any pay while attending the meeting
despite the fact that they were absent from their posts for upwards of 4 hours. The
representative selected by the crew aboard the barge La Bosca was not permitted to attend
the meeting because James M. Miles , the master of the barge , decided he could not spare
the man selected . Thereupon Miles and the tool pusher selected another person to repre-
sent the barge and Miles allowed said person to attend the aforesaid organizational meet-
ing without docking him for the time spent ashore attending the meeting.
8 This document , to which was attached a proposed constitution , reads in part as
follows :
WE, The Undersigned , being employees engaged in off-shore exploration and drilling
for oil , gas and other hydrocarbon substances , do hereby agree to become members of
the Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association by the payment to said Association of
the amount of Ten Dollars ($10.00), initiation fee and Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) as
and for three months dues , said payment to be made on such terms and at such times
as the Association , by its Executive Committee , when organized may determine. This
agreement is made upon the following conditions :
First: That at least one hundred and seventy-five ( 175) members of said associa-
tion have been secured on or before the 1st day of October 1956.
Second : That the organization of said association shall have been effected and its
Constitution shall have been approved on or before the 1st day of November 1956.
Third: That the Constitution of said association shall be substantially similar to
that certain Constitution , copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A,"
and by reference thereto made a part hereof.
Fourth: On failure of any one of these conditions , or all of said conditions, or any
combination thereof , this agreement shall be null and void , and of no effect and the
signators hereto shall be released and fully discharged from all obligations herein,
undertaken.
MARDRIL, INC. 1179
Upon returning to his barge, the Western Explorer, Patarak contacted the various
delegates by means of Respondents ' ship-to-ship radio and informed them that he
was sending each delegate a copy of the agreement for circulation among the men.
The first to sign the Western Explorer copy of the agreement was its master,.
Lewellyn D. Patten. The agreement was then circulated among the Western
Explorer crew who were urged by Patarak and Patten to sign it.
Alfred F. Rouse testified without contradiction, and the Trial Examiner finds, that
on July 19 he had a conversation with Patten during which the following ensued:
Patten . . . gave me a ride to Port Hueneme as my car was out of order.
On the way he asked me if I belonged to a union and I told him I once had
and he said that the company had a few union men on board, but that the
company was going to organize its own company union. I asked him if the
company could do this and he said yes , as long as it wasn't a national union.
He said that then the men would have their own delegates to take up grievances.
He told me that the men that belonged to the various unions didn't last long
as they got laid off or quit or were fired for various reasons. He told me it
would be a good idea to join the company union.
William Wiesner, the person who in 1955 tried to have the Inland Boatmans Union
organize Respondents ' employees , testified credibly and without contradiction, that
about 'the first of August, Patarak stated to him that he "didn't approve of the
Sailors Union organizing the drillers and mess men" and that Patarak then suggested
"the formation of an independent union that the employees could control."
Former employee Billy McCoy testified without contradiction, and the Trial
Examiner finds, that about September 1, Michael Kay , the then captain of La Ciencia
said to him and to certain other crew members, "If he was Mr. Rand (Respondents'
president and sole stockholder ) he would wait about two weeks and give Fitzwater
the boot because the only reason" Fitzwater was transferred from the Rincon to
La Ciencia was "to break up the union organizing" on the Rincon; that Kay and
Grant Allen , also a La Ciencia captain, signed the preexecution agreement aboard
the La Ciencia in the presence of about 13 or 15 of its crew; and that Kay on several
occasions spoke disparagingly about SUP.
According to the credible and undenied testimony of Frank Burke, Patarak
boarded the Rincon sometime in August, and was introduced to the crew by its
master, Carl Carrillo, as being the master of the Western Explorer; that Patarak
exhibited a copy of the preexecution agreement' to the crew and urged them to
sign it ; and that Patarak said "the fellows off the other barges were all for it and
it would keep the SUP out."
Fred Redman, a former member of the Rincon and the Exploit, testified without
contradiction , and the Trial Examiner finds, that in August Zed Shinn , the then
master of the Rincon and thereafter the master of the La Ciencia and Respondents'
marine boss Nelmes 9 asked him and crew member Fitzwater what they thought about
the preexecution agreement and whether they intended to sign it ; that when they
indicated that they had not decided what action they would take , Shinn advised them
to sign the agreement.
During some of Patarak 's August 1956 talks with Respondents ' employees, quite
a few of them expressed the desire to be affiliated with a national labor organization.
When Patarak advised Haines of this sentiment ; the latter contacted the Teamsters
Union but , as Patarak testified, "there wasn 't anything that came of it ." Then, upon
the suggestion of Employee Jack Tinkle , UMW was called into the picture . Shortly
thereafter the Association 's delegates met in Haines ' office with three officials of
UMW. After some discussion , the delegates voted unanimously to affiliate with
UMW. Thereupon an organizing committee was selected with Patarak as its chair-
man. UMW membership application cards were immediately distributed among the
men on Respondents' boats. The credible evidence reveals that almost all of the
masters and captains signed UMW application cards in the presence of their crew
and urged their respective crews to also sign cards.
On or about September 8, UMW informed Respondents that it represented a
majority of their employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and demanded
recognition as such representative . Respondents declined to do so unless and until
UMW's representative status had been established by a secret ballot election.
Under date of September 19, Respondents and UMW entered into a written
agreement providing for such an election to be conducted under the supervision of
Hon. Frank J. Kearney , a Santa Barbara, California, municipal court judge. Under
date of October 1, Judge Kearney certified , in writing , that of the 193 eligible voters,
9 Admittedly a supervisor.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
132 voted; that 94 votes were cast for UMW; that 27 were against UMW; and that
10 ballots were challenged.
It would serve no useful purpose to set forth here at length the other undenied
testimony which clearly indicates that Respondents' captains and masters spearheaded
the move to bring the Association into being and then actively assisted in bringing
about its successor, Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America. For example, Kenneth La Rose, the master of the La
Bosca from July 5 until November 1956, credibly testified that he attended the meet-
ing in Haines' office at which the Association delegates decided to affiliate with UMW;
that 2 or 3 weeks after the meeing he signed a UMW membership application card
aboard his vessel in the presence of several of his crew; and that after signing the
card he told, to quote from La Rose's testimony, "several of the members of my crew
that the only way we could alleviate the mess was to join the Mine Workers." In
addition, Billy McCoy credibly testified further, and without contradiction, that about
September 5 he had a conversation in a bar in Long Beach, California, with Captain
Kay, and that the latter said, to quote from McCoy's testimony, "I know you haven't
signed one of these [UMW] pledge cards and if I was you I would get smart and I
would sign one because if it does go union and everything they are not going to
stand for people going against them being there. . . I know you are married and
got two kids and if you are smart you will get on the ball and sign a Mine Workers
pledge card."
2. Concluding findings
The right of employees, under Section 7 of the Act, "to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing . . . [and] to refrain from any or all of such activities" is effectively implemented
by Section 8 (a) and (2). These provisions forbid employers to "interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,"
and likewise prohibit employers from dominating, interfering with, or supporting
labor organizations of their employees. The employer's economic hold over his em-
ployees, which inheres in their relationship, is thereby neutralized in matters of organi-
ation and representation, which are peculiarly the concern of the employees. Inter,
dictions against employer intrusion in such matters are essential if employees are to
be free from the coercive influence of their employers, for employees are, as the
courts have so often found, not insensitive to the advantages in their employment
that they consider are likely to flow from their choice of a representative to coincide
with the wishes of their employer, nor the disadvantages which may attend their
choice of a representative opposed by their employer. And for the same reason,
employees cannot be expected to derive the full benefit from their protected right of
self-organization if they believe, from "circumstances which the employer created or
for which he was fairly responsible," 10 that their representative, however chosen, is
subject to the employer's compulsive will. Consequently, the Act prohibits all forms
of employer assistance to, or domination of his employees' labor organizations and
interference in their organizing campaigns which might operate to preclude an unin-
hibited exercise by employees of their collective-bargaining rights."
In open disregard of their duty of neutrality, Respondents' ship captains and barge-
masters foisted upon the employees two labor organizations which met with their
approval.
The evidence, as epitomized above, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
Association and its successor, UMW, are being used by Respondents as a substitute
for collective bargaining and, as such, are devices which repeatedly have been held
to be outlawed forms of labor organizations. 12
10 N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584, 588.
-See N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., supra; International Association of Machinists,
etc. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; N. L. R. B. v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Company, Inc.,
315 U. S. 685; N. L. R. B. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 319
Ti. S. 50: N. L. R. B. v. S. H. Kress and Company, 194 F. 2d 444 (C. A. 6) ; Harrison
Sheet Steel Company v. N. L. R. B., 194 F. 2d 407 (C. A. 7).
12 See N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 308 U. S. 241;
N. L. R. B. v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 128 F. 2d 39 (C. A. 3) ; Bethlehem Steel
Company v. N. L. R. B., 120 F. 2d 641 (App. D. C.) ; Westinghouse Electric & Manu-
facturing Company v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. 2d 657 (C. A. 2) ; Edward G. Budd Manufactur-
ing Company v. N. L. R. B., 138 F. 2d 86 (C. A. 3) ; and N. L. R. B. v. Rath Packing Com-
pany, 123 F. 2d 684 (C. A. 8).
MARDRIL, INC. 1181
Respondents and UMW, while not seriously questioning the acts and conduct of
the bargemasters and the ship captains as found above, defend their positions
on the ground that the masters and captains are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act.
Section 2 (11) of the Act defines the term "supervisor" as any individual having
authority: .
in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,.
discharge, 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 several authorities listed in Section 2 (11) are stated in the disjunctive,.
and accordingly the courts have held that possession of any one of the enumerated.
functions is sufficient to classify an individual as a supervisor.13 Furthermore,,
the legislative history of the Act discloses that when the bill was reported out of
the Senate Labor Committee it contained a definition of "supervisor" identical
with that ultimately enacted except that it did not contain the phrase "or responsibly
to direct them." As the committee report accompanying the bill stated, in this
definition "the committee has adopted the test which the Board itself has made
in numerous cases when it has permitted certain categories of supervisory em-
ployees to be included in the same bargaining unit with the rank and file." 14 During
the debate on the bill Senator Taft stated on the floor of the Senate, "The definition
[of supervisor] in the bill is that which has been used by the National Labor
Relations Board for the past four or five years." 15
However, the definition then used by the Board was expanded during the debate
on the bill to include the phrase "or responsibly to direct them." This phrase
was inserted on the floor of the Senate by the unanimous adoption of an amend-
ment proposed by Senator Flanders. In discussing his amendment, Senator Flanders
explained that the definition of "supervisor" in the committee bill seemed to cover
adequately everything except "the basic act of supervising." Elaborating, he
stated (93 Cong. Rec. 4677-4678):
In fact, under modern management methods, the supervisor might be de-
prived of authority for most of the functions enumerated and still have a large
responsibility for the exercise of personal judgment based on personal ex-
perience, training and ability. He is charged with responsible direction of
his department and the men under him. He determines under general orders
what job should be undertaken next and who shall do it. He gives instruc-
tions for its proper performance. If needed, he gives training in the per-
formance of unfamiliar tasks to the worker to whom they are assigned. Such
men are above the grade "straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men, and other minor
supervisory employees" as enumerated in the Report. The essential managerial
duties are best defined by the words, "direct responsibly" which I am suggesting
William W. Rand, president and sole stockholder of each respondent, credibly
testified that the duties and responsibilities of bargemasters and ship captains in
Respondents' employ include, inter alia, (1) maintaining their vessels in seaworthy
condition; (2) maintaining the general safety of their crews; (3) issuing all fire
and boat drill orders; (4) issuing all orders when the vessels are at sea; (5) signing
and approving timesheets of the crew; (6) maintaining the logs; (7) assigning men
to the various watches; and (8) deciding whether weather and sea conditions
are sufficiently safe to load or unload supplies or men. In addition, Rand credibly
testified that when the vessels are at sea there is no one aboard who has any
authority over the master or the captain; that the captains and masters direct the
work of the crew; and that great weight is attached to the master's or captain's
recommendation with respect to disciplining or firing a crew member.
It is thus clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Respondents' bargemasters
and ship captains exercise at least one, if not more, of the powers listed in the
18 N. L. It. B. v. Edward C. Budd Manufacturing Co., 169 F. 2d 571 (C. A. 6) ; Ohio
Power Co. v. N. L. It. B., 176 F. 2d 385 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. It. B. v. Syracuse Stamping
Company, 208 F. 2d 77 (C. A. 2) ; Red Star Express Lines of Auburn, Inc. v. N. L. It. B.,
196 F. 2d 78 (C. A. 2).
14 S. Rept. 105, 80th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4.
35 93 Cong. Rec. 4678.
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disjunctive in Section 2 (11). In any event , the record is clear that Respondents'
masters and captains have the authority to "responsibly direct" their respective
crews when the vessels are at sea. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds that
Respondents' bargemasters and ship captains are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act and that their acts and conduct are attributed to Respondents.16 There-
fore, upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner finds that Respondents
formed, dominated, and interfered with the administration of the Association
and its successor, UMW, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of
the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with Respondents' operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will'
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above, Respondents formed, dominated, and interfered with the
administration of the Association and UMW and contributed support to each.
The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that the present existence of the Asso-
ciation and UMW and Respondents' continued recognition thereof constitute a
continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed
them under the Act. Therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act
and to free the employees from the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondents withdraw all recognition
from the Association and UMW as representatives of any of their employees for
the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of employment and to completely
disestablish them as such representative.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondents are of
such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees here involved
their full rights guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that Respondents
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in their right to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the, case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sailors Union of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch, Off-Shore Petroleum
Workers Association, and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
2. By forming, dominating, and interfering with the administration of Off-Shore
Petroleum Workers Association and Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union,
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Respondents have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
19 See Colle Towing Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 899; The Wilson Transit Company, 80
NLRB 1476; Hutchinson & Co., 101 NLRB 90; General Foods Corporation, Birds Eye
Division, 110 NLRB 1088; A. & S. Transportation Co., 116 NLRB 1025.
MARDRIL, INC. 1183
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE HEREBY disestablish Off-Shore Petroleum Workers Association and Off-
Shore Petroleum Workers Local Union, District 50, United Mine Workers
of America , as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of
dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize them or any successors for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute support to it.
WE WILL NOT promise benefit or threaten reprisal in order to influence our
employees in their choice of bargaining representatives, or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Sailors Union
of the Pacific, Wilmington Branch, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
Union or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire, or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in
or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MARURIL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
MAREx, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
REXMAR, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
SUBMAR, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
SUBMAREx CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.