Pickands Mather & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 308 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Interlake Steamship Co., a Division of Pickands
Mather & Co. and Seafarers ' International Union
of North America , Great Lakes District,
AFL-CIO Petitioner and Great Lakes Seamen,
Local 5000 United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Intervenor. Case 8-RC-6789
February 5, 1969
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF NEW RUNOFF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director for Region 8 on
July 5, 1967, and amended by Supplemental
Decision and Order dated September 19, 1967, an
election was conducted beginning on October 17,
1967 among the employees in the following
described unit:
All unlicensed personnel employed aboard all
ships owned or operated by the Employer,
including employees who have licenses but who
are employed in jobs that do not require licenses,
but excluding all licensed personnel who are
working in licensed capacities, the shipkeeper,
chief cooks, students employed during their
summer vacation and professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The tally of ballots for the election showed that of
approximately 231 eligible voters, 232 cast ballots,
of which 62 were for the Petitioner, 62 for the
Intervenor, 100 against the participating labor
organizations, and 8 were challenged. No objections
were filed.
Following a Second Supplemental Decision and
Order issued by the Regional Director on December
14, 1967, in which the Regional Director sustained
three and overruled five of the challenges,' the five
ballots, challenges to which were overruled were
opened and counted; and on January 23, 1968 a
revised tally of ballots was issued, which indicated
that a runoff election was necessary with the
Petitioner eliminated from the ballot. Such runoff
election was conducted beginning May 20, 1968,
The tally of ballots issued on May 29, 1968, showed
that of approximately 185 eligible voters, 180 cast
ballots, of which 73 were cast for, and 100 against,
the Intervenor, and 7 were challenged, a number
insufficient to affect the results of the election. The
Intervenor filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the National Labor Relations Board, the Regional
By telegraphic Order dated January 1, 1968, the Board denied the
Employer ' s request for review of the Second Supplemental Decision and
Order.
Director conducted an investigation of the objections
and on July 16, 1968 issued and duly served on the
parties his Third Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Results of Election in which he
overruled the objections in their entirety. Thereafter,
the Intervenor filed a timely request for review of
the Regional Director's Third Supplemental
Decision insofar as he overruled its Objection No. 1.
By telegraphic Order dated August 12, 1968, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
In Objection No. 1, the Intervenor alleged that by
denying its organizers access to crew members while
aboard ship, the Employer placed these employees
beyond the reach of reasonable efforts to
communicate with them effectively and by such
conduct precluded a fair election.
The Regional Director, viewing the alleged
conduct as antedating the first election, concluded
that it could not serve as grounds for setting aside
the election.' The Intervenor asserts that it did not
file objections to this conduct as it affected the first
election "because it pursued through the challenged
ballot route a procedure for obtaining the only relief
it would have obtained by objections, namely,
another election." It contends also that a further
request for access to the ships for organizational
purposes would have been a meaningless gesture and
that as the Employer's conduct in denying access
continued during the critical period before the runoff
election, it is grounds for setting the election aside.
The Employer is engaged in the transportation of
bulk cargoes on the Great Lakes between Canada
and various States of the United States. At the time
of the elections, it had 15 vessels manned by unit
employees. During the shipping season, which
generally extends from March to December,
employees stationed on the vessels spend almost all
In the course of his investigation , the Regional Director also considered
the Intervenor's contention that the Employer's refusal to furnish the
names and addresses of its employees was objectionable conduct. The
Employer, in what it considered compliance with the requirement of
Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, prior to both the original and
the runoff elections , timely furnished a list of eligible employees , together
with the vessels upon which they were working , but did not include their
home addresses . The Regional Director, on October 9, 1967, had issued an
Order denying the Petitioner's "Motion to Stay Election" on the ground
that the Employer faded to furnish the home addresses In his Third
Supplemental Decision , the Regional Director explicated his reasons for
denying such motion, as well as for overruling the Intervenor ' s objection
based on the Employer's refusal to furnish the home addresses prior to the
runoff election. As to the latter, he concluded that the Employer, by
furnishing the names of eligible employees , and the addresses at which
these employees could be reached during the 1-month period before the
election , complied with the principle of the Excelsior case , and that its
failure to furnish the home addresses of its employees did not affect the
results of the election . The Intervenor did not seek review of this ruling
174 NLRB No. 55
THE INTERLAKE STEAMSHIP CO.
of their time aboard ship. This is where they receive
their mail and, except possibly when the ship is in
port, eat, sleep, and take their recreation. When a
vessel docks to load and unload, it generally remains
in port from 4 to 8 hours. One-third of the crew
must remain on duty during the loading and/or
unloading and the remainder is permitted to leave
the vessel if it wishes. Although the employees make
their permanent homes in the general vicinity of the
Great Lakes, their homes are scattered throughout
that huge geographical area. Thus, the likelihood of
an employee traveling to his home during the brief
period a vessel is in any particular port is extremely
remote.
The Intervenor, on June 12, 1967, several days
after the petition was filed and about 4 months
before the first election, wrote the Employer letter
requesting permission to go aboard its ships when
they put into any major Great Lakes port,
expressing willingness to arrange mutually
acceptable times and places for such shipboard visits
to insure that they will not interfere with the
efficiency or safety of the shipping operation. The
Intervenor also requested a list of the names and
addresses of the crew members "because of the
widely scattered geographic areas in which [they]
reside when not aboard ship." The Employer
responded by letter dated June 20, 1967, denying the
requests, stating: "Our policy, which has been
enforced and applied in a nondiscriminatory
manner, limits access to our ships to those directly
involved in the operation and maintenance of the
ships. This long-standing policy does not permit any
solicitor aboard ships for personal contact with the
crew, regardless of his mission." As to the request
for addresses, the Employer stated: "inasmuch as
your Union has already sent mail to our ships this
year, which has been delivered as addressed, we see
no necessity for providing you a list of names and
addresses."
In its request for review, the Intervenor asserts
that the Employer's letter reaffirmed a similar
statement of its policy communicated to it in writing
in April 1966, in the context of an earlier organizing
campaign when the chief engineer of one of the
Employer's ships "escorted" the Intervenor's staff
representative off the ship. As a result of the
exchange of correspondence and its prior experience,
the Intervenor asserts, no attempt was made to
board the Employer's ships.
As found by the Regional Director, prior to the
runoff election, the Intervenor made 12 mailings to
employees addressed to their vessels, and the
Employer sent employees two letters. The Employer
did no campaigning during the winter lay-up period.
The Regional Director made no findings, and no
allegations are made, as to what efforts the
Intervenor made, if any, to contact employees
personally during the periods of 4 to 8 hours when
they were permitted to go ashore at ports where
their vessels stop for loading and/or unloading
operations.
309
We find, in view of the Employer's denials of
access by the Intervenor to employees aboard ship
in 1966 and again in June 1967 in accord with its
"long-standing policy," that a new request for
access by the Intervenor during the critical period
before the runoff election would have been futile.'
We also find that because the employees, during the
critical period, spent virtually all of their time on
board the Employer's vessels, they were, as stated in
Babcock & Wilcox,4 placed "beyond the reach of
reasonable union efforts to communicate with them"
and the Employer was therefore required to honor
the Intervenor's request for reasonable means of
access to the employees aboard ship at times when
the vessels were at major Great Lakes ports. The
facts that the Intervenor was able to reach the
employees aboard the vessels by mail, that it might
have tried by "catch-as-catch-can" methods to
solicit some of them while they were on brief shore
leave, or that employees while on shore leave might
voluntarily have visited the Intervenor's meeting
halls, are not, in the circumstances of this case,
adequate alternative means of communication. Here,
the means of direct and personal solicitation were
severely limited and, in our opinion, an
organizational campaign could not be carried on
effectively without the seeking out of employees on
board their vessels and their solicitation to
membership by direct contact by experienced
organizers.' Nor has the Employer attempted to
show that substantial detriment to its shipping
operations would result from elimination of its
"no-access" rule to accommodate the rights of its
employees to learn the advantages of
self-organization.
In the circumstances, we conclude that the
Employer's denial of reasonable means of access by
the Intervenor to its crew members on board ship at
times when their ships were at major Great Lakes
ports rendered a fair election impossible.'
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and
direct the Regional Director to conduct a new
runoff election.'
3See Old Town Shoe Company, 91 NLRB 240, Tomlinson Fleet Corp,
149 NLRB 1114
'N.L R B v The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U S 105, 113
'See Joseph Bancroft and Sons Co , 140 NLRB 1288, 1291
'S & H Grossinger 's Inc, 156 NLRB 233, enfd 372 F 2d 26 (C A 2),
Joseph Bancroft and Sons Co , supra. Lake Superior Lumber Corporation,
70 NLRB 178, enfd 167 F 2d 147 (C A. 6), N L R B v United
Steelworkers of America, CIO /NuTone , Inc /, 357 U S 357, N L R B
v The Babcock & Wilcox Company, supra. Republic Aviation
Corporation v N L R B , 324 U S 793
'In view of th .; long passage of time since the June 25 , 1967, eligibility
payroll date used for the runoff election, the eligibility payroll period for
the new runoff election shall be that immediately preceding the date of
issuance of the notice of new runoff election
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
herein on May 20, 1968, be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of New Runoff Election ' omitted from
publication.]
"An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 8 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of New
Runoff Election by the Regional Director . The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time
to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236