National Bulk Carriers, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 12, 1961134 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1961) Copy Citation 1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] National Bulk Carriers , Inc. and Universe Tankships , Inc. and International Maritime Workers Union Global Seamen 's Union and International Maritime Workers Union National Bulk Carriers, Inc. and Universe Tankships , Inc. and Kenton G . Tibbetts. Cases Nos. 2-CA-7194, 2-CB-2907, and 2-UD-91. December 12, 1961 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER Pursuant to Section 102.105 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, and Section 101.42 of the Board's Statements of Procedure, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board filed on June 26, 1961, a petition praying for a declaratory order disposing of the jurisdictional issue in the aforementioned proceedings. There- after, on July 31, 1961, National Bulk Carriers, Inc. and Universe Tankships, Inc., filed responses to the petition urging that the Board not assert jurisdiction and that it dismiss the petition herein for lack of jurisdiction. By letter dated August 10, 1961, received on August 17, 1961, Global Seamen's Union also contended that the Board had no jurisdiction. On August 30, 1961, the International Maritime Workers Union filed a response and brief urging that the Board assert jurisdiction. The Board has duly considered the matter. It has decided that its declaratory order rules, like those for advisory opinions, are de- signed primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by the appli- cation of the Board's discretionary standards to the "commerce operations" of an employer. However, there are situations where, be- cause of the complex nature of the operation involved, or because of the inadequacy of the record, the procedures contemplated by the Board's rules for declaratory orders and advisory opinions are diffi- cult or impossible to apply. This is particularly true where the issue is the assertion of jurisdiction over foreign flag vessels which almost uniformly present involved legal and factual problems. Where, as here, there apparently are complicated factual and legal issues, it is desirable first to secure a complete record, based upon a full hearing. 134 NLRB No. 113. REYNOLDS METAL COMPANY, ETC. 1187 At that hearing all interested parties would have the opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to file briefs, to argue orally, and to participate to the extent necessary to present their positions. The Board is of the view that in this particu- lar case these procedures are necessary to enable it to make an in- formed judgment on the jurisdictional issue which has been raised. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for declaratory order herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. The Board's dismissal is not to be construed as a determination of the merits of the jurisdic- tional issue. Reynolds Metal Company and Caribbean Steamship Company, S.A. and International Maritime Workers Union . Cases Nos. 21-CA-7908, 2-RC-119278, and 2-RC-11320. December 12, 1961 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER Pursuant to Section 102.105 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, and Section 101.42 of the Board's Statements of Procedures, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board filed on June 21, 1961, a petition praying for a declaratory order disposing of the jurisdictional issue in the aforementioned proceeding. On August 30, 1961, the International Maritime Workers Union, hereinafter called IMWU, filed a response to the petition and a brief urging that the Board assert jurisdiction herein. Thereafter, on September 1, 1961, Reynolds Metal Company and Caribbean Steamship Company, S.A., hereinafter called Reynolds and Caribbean, respectively, filed responses to the petition urging that the Board not assert jurisdiction herein and that it dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On November 2, 1961, Reynolds and Caribbean filed briefs in support of their positions; while the IMWU filed a reply brief on November 27, 1961. The Board has duly considered the matter. It has decided that its declaratory order rules, like those for advisory opinions, are designed primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by the application of the Board's discretionary standards to the "commerce operations" of an employer. However, there are situations where, because of the complex nature of the operation involved, or because of the inade- quacy of the record, the procedures contemplated by the Board's rules for declaratory orders and advisory opinions are difficult or impossible to apply. This is particularly true where the issue is the assertion of jurisdiction over foreign flag vessels which almost uni- formly present involved legal and factual problems. Where, as here, 134 NLRB No. 112. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation