Pickands Mather & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 128 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

128 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
August 15, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On February 5, 1969, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision on Review,
Order, and Direction of New Runoff Election in the
above-entitled proceedings reversing the Regional
Director's Third Supplemental Decision insofar as
he overruled the Intervenor's objection No. 1. On
February 20, the Employer filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Board's Decision, asserting
that it was never notified by the Board that the
Intervenor's request for review of the Regional
Director's Third Supplemental Decision had been
granted, and advancing a number of substantive
grounds for its request for reconsideration of the
Board's decision to sustain objection No. 1. The
Intervenor filed a reply to the motion addressed to
the Employer's arguments on the merits.
The Board on March 28, by telegraphic order
granted the Employer's motion, with leave to the
parties to file supplemental briefs in support of their
positions.' Thereafter the Employer filed a timely
supplemental brief setting forth its arguments and
requesting that the matter be considered by the full
Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Employer's
arguments in its motion and its supplemental brief,'
and the Intervenor's reply to the motion, and hereby
affirms its Decision on Review, with the following
additional findings and conclusions:
In our Decision on Review, we found that the
Employer's denial of reasonable means of access by
the Intervenor to employees on board ship at times
when their ships were at major Great Lakes ports
rendered a fair election impossible, and that, in view
of the Employer's denials of the Intervenor's
requests therefor made first in 1966 and again in its
current organizational drive in June 1967, a new
In granting the motion , the Board took cognizance of its inadvertent
administrative error in failing to serve the Employer with a copy of its
telegraphic order granting the Intervenor ' s request for review of the
Regional Director ' s Third Supplemental Decision
'As we see no compelling reasons therefor , the Employer ' s request for
full Board disposition of issues under reconsideration is hereby denied See
Enterprise Industrial Piping Company, 118 NLRB 1.
request made during the period between the original
and the runoff elections would have been futile. We
therefore directed a new runoff election and
concluded that a current eligibility payroll period
should be used inasmuch as a long period of time
had elapsed since the June 25, 1967, eligibility
payroll date used for the first runoff election.
In its motion and its supplemental brief the
Employer disputes these findings and conclusions.
It contends that its policy of nonaccess is
completely reasonable and is not detrimental to
union organization: that the hazards present on the
docks and on the ships would require the Employer
and the companies controlling the docks to accept
additional responsibility for the safety of organizers;
that an organizer coming aboard ship to seek out
off-duty employees would inevitably cause
inconvenience and interference with men actually
working; that the most practical place for organizers
to solicit off-duty employees which the organizers
do use, is the dock gate; that the votes cast for both
the Petitioner and the Intervenor in the first election
which led to the runoff show that they were able to
reach the eligible voters without difficulty; and that
the unreasonableness of the Intervenor's request for
access, in reality seeking the Employer's active
assistance in its organizational efforts, is
underscored by the additional facts that during the
pendency of these proceedings another union
succeeded in organizing some of the Employer's
shipboard personnel without boarding passes and, to
the best of the Employer's knowledge and belief, all
other organizing of Great Lakes bulk fleets occurred
without the aid of boarding passes. The Intervenor,
in its reply to the Employer's motion, asserts that
efforts to solicit employees at the dock gates would
not be a satisfactory alternative to shipboard visits
because of numerous realistic problems, including
(1) the circumstance that sailors at that juncture
are in a hurry to keep a scheduled visit into town,
(2) the difficulty of identifying bargaining unit
employees, and (3) the unfeasibility of this location
for substantive discussion concerning a serious
subject matter. As to the Employer's concern for
safety and financial liability the Intervenor states
that the representatives for whom it sought boarding
passes are all former sailors having considerable
experience with shipping operations, that they are
insured against all hazards relating to their functions
when boarding ships, and that they currently engage
in shipboard visits in the course of servicing
numerous collective-bargaining agreements.
For the reasons expressed in our Decision on
Review, we find no merit in the above arguments of
the Employer. We are not persuaded it has shown
that detriment to its shipping operations would
result from elimination of its "no-access" rule
sufficient to outweigh the rights of its employees to
learn the advantages of self-organization. As
indicated in our Decision on Review, the Intervenor,
when it requested access for its organizers
178 NLRB No. 20
THE INTERSTATE STEAMSHIP CO. 129
specifically expressed 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 ." In the light of this offer , the Employer's
expressed fears of the consequences of permitting
access for organizational purposes seem
unwarranted.
The Employer contends further that, in. the
circumstances, a renewal 'by) the intervenor of its
request for access to shipboard employees would not
have been futile and , therefore ; its failure to make
such request during the critical period before the
runoff election renders untimely the objection based
on the Employer ' s no-access policy. It argues that
the Intervenor , at the time it made its request on
June 12 , 1967, had no interest , as far as the
Employer then knew , in the petition herein which
was filed on June 7, 1967, and that the Employer's
reply, dated June 20, 1967, the same date as the
hearing held herein when the Intervenor first made
its interest known, was not in the context of any
known special reason for varying its longstanding
policy. The Intervenor counters that the Employer
learned of its interest in the proceeding in time to
revise its reply to the request for access and that, in
any event , the Employer ' s reply merely reiterated its
previous policy pronouncement of August 14, 1966,
when it denied access to the Intervenor in the
context of an earlier preelection campaign.
We find no merit in these contentions of the
Employer and reaffirm our previous finding that a
renewal by the Intervenor of its request for access
would have been futile . We note that the
Intervenor ' s request itself specifically stated that it
was made for the purpose of enabling it "to
communicate directly with the crew members in
support of [its] organizational efforts", and that the
Employer in its reply stated that its policy "does not
.)ermit any solicitor aboard ships for personal
contact with the crew , regardless of his mission."
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Employer contends , finally, that as the
original eligibility date used for the election in 1967
was appropriate for the runoff conducted in 1968,
there is no basis for assuming that it is
inappropriate for a new runoff in 1969 , and that, if
the Board views a current eligibility date as
appropriate for a new runoff because of the lapse of
time and employee turnover from season to season,
then a current showing of interest should be
required . We find no merit in these contentions. It
appears that the Intervenor and the Employer
agreed , following normal Board practice where
runoff elections are required , to use the original
June 25, 1967, eligibility date for the runoff election
held on May 20, 1968. In any event, no request was
made for an exception to the normal practice by
reason of the lapse of time since the original election
or the seasonality of the Employer ' s shipping
operations . The Employer ' s argument that the June
25, 1967, eligibility date should be used for the new
runoff election merely because it was agreed to for
the first runoff is therefore not persuasive. We
reaffirm our conclusion that because of the long
period of time which has now passed since June 25,
1967, and the likelihood of substantial turnover in
unit personnel , a current eligibility payroll period
will provide a more representative vote for unit
employees . We also reject the alternative argument
that a 30 percent showing of interest should be
required among current unit employees. Our
practice is not to require a current showing where
an election has been set aside because of meritorious
objections.