New England Fish Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1957

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

NEW ENGLAND 'I$11 GOM,PANY 119
for the other employees 4 As the multiemployer bargaining history..
for the. various groups of other employees of the Employers varies
considerably both as to the number and identity of employers covered
with no fixed pattern, and the multiemployer unit sought here for
the office clerical employees is not even coextensive with any of these
established multiemployer units, we find that the multiemployer unit
sought is. inappropriate, and that the single=employer units sought by
Local 150 are appropriate in accord with the Board's well-established
doctrine that such units are presumptively appropriate.' We shall;
therefore, direct elections in the single-employer units heretofore
found appropriate, and we affirm our original order dismissing the
petition in Case No. 20-RC-3155 for a multiemployer unit.. .
[Text of Second Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Second Direction of Elections.
* Cf. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, 101 NLRB 101.
5 See Rainbo Bread Co., 92 NLRB 181.
In view of the recency of the multiemployer bargaining for office clerical employees in
the industry in other areas of California , such a history is clearly not controlling with
respect to the multiemployer unit sought here. See Sprague Electric Company, 98 NLRB
533.
New England Fish Company and Alaska Fishermen 's Union,
Local Industrial , Union No. 1821, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No.19-RC 1975. June 10, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Immel, Jr., hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free. from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved herein are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act and claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. The Employer, a Maine corporation, operates several salmon can-
neries in Alaska, and also employs employees upon various types of
1 Cordova District Fisheries Union, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to ia-
tervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest.
118 NLRB No. 16.
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
vessels . The only facility involved herein is the Employer's Orca
cannery located in Cordova, Alaska, including employees assigned to
vessels which are based at Cordova as well as certain classifications of
employees working in the Orca cannery.
The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer for
the 1956 season constitutes a bar to an election at this time, although it
admits that, by letter dated October 18, 1956, it informed the Employer
that'it desired to amend the contract for the 1957 season . The termina-
tion clause of the 1956 contract provides for automatic renewal of
the agreement absent written notice by either party given on or before
December 1, 1956, of a "desire to modify, change or terminate" the
agreement. The Intervenor claims that the 1956 contract is a valid
bar because the notice was to amend rather than to terminate and
did not, therefore, prevent automatic renewal of the agreement. We
reject this contention as being without merit as we find that the Inter-
venor's notice to amend the contract is equivalent to a notice -to modify
it as provided by the contract. Accordingly, as no new contract was
executed by the parties prior to the filing of the instant petition on
February 18,1957, we find that there is no contract bar to the present
proceeding.
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer with-
in the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to certain of the Employer's
employees at its Orca .cannery located in Cordova, Alaska, including
employees who work on various types of vessels which are based at
Cordova. The Employer takes no position. The Intervenor does not
affirmatively contend that this unit is inappropriate, but requests a
determination by the Board as to whether the unit is inappropriate
because it does not include employees of certain other employers in
the same industry in the Copper River and Prince William Sound
districts who are members of Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., herein
called A. S. I.
The Employer has bargained with the Intervenor concerning the
employees here sought for approximately 20 years and, until about
1950, contract negotiations for these employees were conducted for
the Employer by A. S. I. In 1950 or 1951, the Employer resigned
from A. S. I. insofar as pertains to the Copper River and Prince
William Sound districts, but retained its membership in A. S. I. for
purposes of its operations in other districts? Since that time, with
respect to the employees here sought, the Employer and the Intervenor
2 Employees working in the Orca cannery and employees working out of Cordova are
the only employees of the Employer located in the Copper River and Prince William Sound
districts.
NEW ENGLAND FISH COMPANY 121
annually stipulated to be bound by the terms negotiated between the
Intervenor and A. S. I. for the Copper River and Prince William
Sound districts, and have made these contracts effective by an exchange
of letters following the execution of new agreements between the In-
tervenor and A. S. I. In conformity with this practice, a written stip-
ulation was entered into by these parties in 1956 which resulted in the
Employer's adoption of the Intervenor's contract with A. S. I. for
the 1956 season, and, despite the Intervenor's letter of October 18,
1956, the parties have not met for new contract negotiations, pending
the negotiation of a contract for the 1957 season between the
Intervenor and A. S. I.
In the recent case of Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., Case No.
19-RC-1965 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and
Orders),' the instant Petitioner sought a unit including (a) the em-
ployees of the 4 employers in the Copper River and Prince William
Sound districts who are currently members of A. S. I., and (b) em-
ployees of 4 other employers, including the instant Employer, who
had formerly bargained through A. S. I. for their employees in the
above-named districts, but who had since resigned from A. S. I. for
these districts. When the instant Intervenor objected in that case
to the inclusion of employees of the latter 4 employers, including the
instant Employer, on the ground that they were no longer members
of A. S. I., the Petitioner amended its petition to seek only employees
of the 4 current employer-members of A. S. I. and, at the same time,
filed the petition in the case at bar for the employees of the Employer
alone. Following the hearing in Case No. 19-RC-1965, the Board, on
April 10, 1957, issued a Decision and Direction of Election, finding
that a unit limited to the employees of the four current members of
A. S. I. in the Copper River and Prince William Sound districts
was appropriate for bargaining purposes, and directing an election
in such a unit.
As stated above, the Employer, after resigning from A. S. I. for
purposes of the Copper River and Prince William Sound districts,
continued to apply to its Cordova employees the contracts negotiated
by A. S. I. with the Intervenor for employees of A. S. I. members in
those districts, and also continued to bargain as a member of A. S. I.,
with respect to its employees at facilities in other districts. What
weight would be given to such evidence under other circumstances
than those present in the case at bar we need not determine here.
Since the Board found in Case No. 19-RC-1965, which finding was
concurred in by the Intervenor, that a unit limited to employees of
current A. S. I. members in the Copper River and Prince William
Sound districts is appropriate, thereby impliedly finding that the
3 we take official notice of the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election in that case
and hereby incorporate the record therein into the record of the instant case.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's Orca and Cordova employees were no longer properly
part of such unit, and as no party affirmatively contends here that a
broader unit than the one sought is appropriate, we find that the unit
sought is appropriate for bargaining purposes, except in the respects
noted below.
The parties are in basic agreement as to the composition of the
unit. The Intervenor, however, requests that the Board determine
whether employees in the classifications of tender captain and pile-
driver foreman, whom Petitioner would include, should be excluded
from the unit as supervisors. The record shows that tender captains
possess authority effectively to recommend the hire and discharge of
employees and are responsible to the Employer for the overall op-
eration of their boats. It also shows that piledriver foremen possess
the authority to hire and discharge employees and to authorize over-
time work. In view of these facts, we find that tender captains and
piledriver foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
and we shall exclude them from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at Cordova, Alaska, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All tendermen (namely, engineers, assistant engineers, deckhands,
cooks, combination tendermen and radio operators, combination
mates and deckhands) and/or trapmen and/or gear scow men
(namely, firemen, engineers, cooks, deckhands, and combination gear
scow men and radio operators) and/or web and wire men (namely,
web foremen, expert cotton web men, wire men, and cable splicers)
and/or beachmen and/or piledriver men (namely, top loft men, head
boom men, engineers, cooks, firemen, deckhands, and combination gear
scow men and radio operators) and/or tallymen and/or members of
the culinary department (namely, cooks, bakers, dishwashers, waiters,
and bull cooks) ; men so employed shall also work on boats, lighters,
and vessels, in canneries, salteries, and/or in any other capacity on
the northbound and southbound trips, and at or about the cannery
or salting station to which they may be assigned, but. excluding
culinary workers engaged under the jurisdiction of the Cannery
Workers Union, guards, tender captains, piledriver foremen, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer's operations appear to be seasonal in nature'
Accordingly, the election directed herein shall be held during the
Employer's peak season on a date to be determined by the Regional
Director. .
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Cf. Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., supra.