Puerto Rico Steamship Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 418 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Puerto Rico Steamship Association and Union de Trabajadores
de Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Ponce (UTM-Independent),
Petitioner
Puerto Rico Steamship Association and Union de Estibadores de
Mayaguez , Puerto Rico , ( Independent ), Petitioner . Cases Nos.
a4-RC-825 and d4-RC-909. August 0, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing in the above-entitled cases was
held before H. Stephen Gordon, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these "cases, the Board finds :
1.'The Employer `is engaged in commerce within the meaning of•-the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the reasons noted below.
The Petitioner in Case No. 24-RC-825, Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Ponce (UTM-Independent), hereinafter
referred to as 'UTM-Independent,- seeks a, unit of stevedores and re-
lated classifications limited to the Port of Ponce. Intervenor, Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, District Council of the Ports
of Puerto Rico (Independent), hereinafter referred to as the ILA,
agrees with the Petitioner. Intervenor, Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico, hereinafter referred to as
UTM- AFL-CIO ; Intervenor, Union de Empleados de Muelles de
Puerto Rico Local 1901, IBL-AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as
UDEM, and the Employer urge that the only appropriate unit for
bargaining purposes is.one that is islandwide in scope.
In Case No. 24-RC409 the Petitioner, Union de Estibadores, de
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, (Independent), hereinafter referred to as
UDM, Independent, seeks a unit of stevedores and related classifica-
tions limited to the Port of Mayaguez. Intervenor ILA agrees with
this position. Intervenor UTM-AFL-CIO, Intervenor UDEM, and
the Employer take the same position as above, namely, that the only
appropriate unit is one islandwide in scope.
Bargaining History
The question of the scope and composition-of units of stevedores
.on the Island of Puerto Rico has been before this Board many times
116 NLRB No. 54.
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION 419
during the Board's history. The last decision, rendered in Janu-
ary 1954,1 sets forth the history of bargaining for the waterfront
labor organizations on the Island. In that case, the petitioning ILA
urged as its primary position that only an ishtndwide unit, including
virtually every employer of waterfront labor of any kind, was ap-
propriate. The other petitioning unions contended that this pro-
posed unit was too broad, and requested narrower units limited to a
particular port or to an individual employer. We held that, in view
of the history of bargaining both on an islandwide and portwide
basis, either one would be appropriate. Therefore, self-determination
elections were directed involving the employees of employer-members
of the Puerto Rico Steamship Association, giving the employees
their choice of either the islandwide or the portwide unit. Elections
were held on January 26, 1954, in eight ports,2 which elections re-
sulted in the selection of an islandwide unit. The UTM, which the
Board had permitted to intervene 3 as a successor in interest to the
ILA, was selected as the bargaining representative and on May 24,
1954, the UTM, which in the meantime had affiliated with the AFL,4
was certified by the Board to represent the stevedores and related
classifications for the islandwide unit .5
On September 3, 1954, the UT-NI-AFL-CIO entered into it contract
with the Puerto Rico Steamship Association, which contract was to
expire September 30,1956, and on March 14, 1956, the parties extended
that contract to September 30, 1958.8
Islandwide versus Portwide Units
As indicated above, the Petitioners in both cases, and the Inter-
venor ILA, are now urging the Board to reexamine its unit findings
as declared in its latest decision, supra, and to establish portwide
units, which the Board had said prior thereto might be appropriate.
The main arguments of the Petitioners are summarized below.
1. Islandwide unit has deprived ports of local autonomy
Petitioners point out that under the islandwide unit system, San
Juan, with the largest union membership, overwhelms the smaller
ports in shaping union policy. San Juan employs some 5,000 Steve-
' Bull Insular Line, Inc., 107 NLRB 674.
2 San Juan , Punta Santiago, Puerto Real, Arroya, Jobos, Mayaguez, Guanica, and
Guayanilla.
a Bull Insular Line, supra, Case No. 24-RC-197, pp. 675-76.
4 $ecause of tl}AFL meyger with the CIO, the UTM is now designated as UTM-
AFL-CIO.
s Bull' Insular Line, Inc., 108 NLRB 900, 909.
6 In view of this premature extension , the parties expressly stated that they do not urge
the extended contract as a bar to this proceeding.
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dores, whereas Ponce has only 1,400 and Mayaguez 600.' Conse-
quently, the smaller ports of the Island have virtually no voice in
decisions affecting their own local interests. It is urged that local
conditions in which the local groups should make policy vary at
different ports. For example, the operation of the piers at Mayaguez
is under the Mayaguez Shipping Terminal, a separate corporation
not a member of the Puerto Rico Steamship Association, while those
at San Juan are leased by members of the Association. Flours of
work vary at different ports. At most of the ports, the stevedores
work in 3 shifts, but at Guanica the practice has been never to work
more than 2 shifts. Hiring is done at the individual ports. At
Ponce and Mayaguez , stevedores are hired from a rotating list,
whereas at San Juan the shapeup system is in use. Supervision is
on an individual port basis . Payroll and employment records are
kept locally at each port. There is no interchange of stevedores be-
tween ports.
2. Change in shipping conditions
Petitioners contend that a fundamental change has taken place
since the Board's decision in 1954, vitally affecting local conditions.
The record shows that since 1954 the method of loading sugar, the
main product of the Island, has undergone drastic change. For-
merly, sugar was loaded into the ships in bags or sacks. The present
method is to load the sugar in bulk directly into the hold, a procedure
which requires considerable mechanization. The effect of the mech-
anization has resulted in greater unemployment, with the closing
of 4 smaller ports, and 2 others may close in the near future . Because
of these changes , Petitioners assert that local autonomy is essential
in the solution of local problems, and that under the islandwide unit,
the local influence is lost.
3. Change in composition of the employer association
In 1954, the Association had some 12 members, while at the pres-
ent time it has only 4 members.' Petitioners therefore urge that it is
unrealistic to establish all islandwide unit because of an employer
association which does - riot represent the majority of the employers
on the Island, and that such a restricted , association should not be
permitted to set the bargaining pattern for the entire Island..
On the other hand, the Employer 'and the intervening certified
unions emphasize the fact that islandwide bargaining has been in
effect for many years and that it has worked to the best interests of
'The number of stevedores at the remaining poets of the Island are approximately as
follows Fajardo and Humacao combined have 200; Guanica , 160; Aguirre and Arroya
combined have 100 : and Guayanilla has 100.
B Bull Insular Line, Alcoa Steamship Company , Lykes Lines Agency, Waterman Dock
Company.
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION 421
both employers and workers. Virtually all major classifications in-
eluding stevedores, checkers, clerks, and certain maintenance em-
ployees are now under islandwide contracts. Working conditions,
such as wages and hours of work, are identical throughout the Island.
Labor relations policies are determined by a central body. The
welfare fund for the benefit of all employees is administered through
a central agency. Furthermore, important decisions affecting all
employees, such as landing, loading, and unloading policies, are de-
termined from a central point. These groups therefore urge the
Board to reaffirm the appropriateness of the islandwide unit.
We find no merit in the Petitioners' position. It is well established
in Board policy that controlling weight will be given to an established
pattern of bargaining in unit determinations, unless such bargaining
has been of very short duration and has not stabilized labor relations.
The islandwide pattern of bargaining has been practiced for many
years. Although theoretically such bargaining was limited to mem-
bers of the Association, in practice every employer of waterfront labor
throughout the Island adopted the contract of the Association and
the union representing the majority of the employees. In the last elec-
tion, the Board offered the employees their choice of either the island-
wide or the portwide unit, both of which were familiar to the em-
ployees. The employees chose the islandwide unit. The Board has
indicated that it will not facilitate an attempt to sever on the part of a
dissident minority, merely because the group is dissatisfied with the
bargain made by the representative holding the contract.'
Nor do we find that the changed conditions urged by the Petitioners
and the ILA warrant a reversal of our unit finding. The fact that San
Juan was the largest port with the greatest membership and could thus
command controlling influence was equally true at the time of the 1954
elections. The same is true as to differences in working conditions at
the various ports. Nor do we believe that recent mechanization in
loading operations constitutes such unusual circumstances as to war-
rant a change in the scope of the unit. There is nothing in the record
to indicate that mechanization is not being applied to all ports on the
Island. Finally, we do not regard the diminution of the membership
of the Association a sufficient basis for changing the scope of the
unit. The withdrawal of members from employer associations does
not, in and of itself, preclude a determination that a multiemployer
unit comprising the employees of the remaining members is
appropriate.10
In view of the foregoing circumstances, which still support the is-
landwide unit previously found appropriate by the Board, including
9 Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc., 97 NLRB 1488, 1491, 1492.
10 Foundry Manufacturers Negotiating Committee , 98 NLRB 1256, 1259.
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the substantial bargaining history predicated thereon," we find that
the portwide units requested by the Petitioners are too limited in scope
to be appropriate. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
"The Board has held that a bargaining history for somewhat more than a year 's dura-
tion is substantial and may be controlling as to the scope of the appropriate unit . Oeven.'-
Illinois Glass Company, 108 NLRB 947, 950.
Reeves Brothers , Incorporated , Bishopville Finishing Division.
successor to Fairforest Finishing Company , Bishopville Finish-
ing Division, Bishopville Company I and United Textile Work -
ers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-906. August • ,195(7
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 10, 1956, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
no violation with respect to certain allegations of the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made.
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed..
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in,
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recoin-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
1 The Employer' s name was inadvertently spelled "Reaves."
2 The Union excepted to the Trial Examiner 's finding that Everett Hall and Guy Smith
are not supervisors and, accordingly , that threats and interrogation attributed to theta are
not violative of the Act. In view of our finding that the Respondent had otherwise
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we deem it unnecessary to resolve this issue because
the finding of additional violation based on the conduct of Hall and Smith would be
cumulative in character.
116 NLRB No. 56.