Reynolds Metal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 624 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reynolds Metals Company and Ocean -Trailer Trans-
port Corp. and Seafarers International Union, At-
lantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters District and
International Organization of Masters , Mates & Pi-
lots, Associated Maritime Workers, Local 8, AFL-
CIO, Party to the Contract. Case 12-CA-6010
July 28, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 23, 1975, Administrative Law Judge John
G. Gregg issued the attached decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. The Respondent' and the Party to the Con-
tract filed answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der.
In December 1972, Respondent and the Seafarers
International Union (herein called Seafarers ) execu-
ted a collective-bargaining agreement 2 (herein the
1972 agreement) effective June 16, 1972, revising a
prior agreement . This agreement, inter alia, recog-
nized the Seafarers as the exclusive representative of
all unlicensed personnel employed on "American
flag Gantry-type Self-unloading vessels" 3 owned
and operated by Respondent. At the time the 1972
agreement was entered into, Respondent operated
and continues to operate only two deep-hold self-
unloading or gantry-type vessels, the SS Inger and
the SS Walter Rice. In addition to the gantry-type
vessels, Respondent on July 1, 1970, chartered a non-
gantry vessel,4 the MV Siboney. Respondent also op-
1 The term Respondent refers to Reynolds Metals Company and its whol-
ly owned subsidiary Ocean-Trailer Transport Corp.
2 This agreement extended the parties ' previous agreement to October 1,
1975.
3 Although the vessels to be covered by the 1972 agreement are described
twice in its introductory paragraph as "American Flag Gantry -type Self-
unloading Vessels," the Seafarers contends that the description , "American
flag Vessels," used in the contract 's recognition clause is the language which
controls the scope of the contract . We believe that the preponderance of the
evidence, presented in the upcoming paragraphs , clearly indicates that the
contract was to cover only "American Flag Gantry-type Self-unloading
Vessels."
4 The difference between a gantry and a nongantry vessel is that a gantry
vessel has a crane which is used in unloading the cargo whereas a nongantry
erated two tugs which admittedly were not covered
by the contract.
Eduardo Garcia, general manager of Respondent's
wholly owned subsidiary Ocean-Trailer Transport
Corp., suggested in December 1972 that the Respon-
dent use the Siboney to provide turn-around shipping
service between Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sometime in January 1973, Garcia asked the Seafar-
ers what kind of "area contract" would be applicable
to the Siboney. Later that month the Seafarers gave
Garcia its standard form agreement I for unlicensed
personnel.
When the Respondent decided that it would at-
tempt the Miami-San Juan operation with the Sibo-
ney, Garcia was told to set up the operation and to
hire unlicensed seamen for the vessel . The Respon-
dent , apparently not pleased with the Seafarers stan-
dard agreement, notified the International Organiza-
tion of Masters , Mates & Pilots , Associated Maritime
Workers, Local 8 , AFL-CIO (herein called MMP)
and requested that the MMP supply unlicensed sea-
men for the Siboney. Thereafter, Garcia signed a col-
lective-bargaining agreement on February 20, 1973,
with MMP , recognizing MMP as the bargaining
agent for the seamen aboard the Siboney.
After learning that the crew for the Siboney had
been obtained from another union , the Seafarers sent
Respondent a telegram on February 28, 1973, in
which it contended that the parties ' 1972 agreement
covered the Siboney and that by contract the Re-
spondent was required to obtain its crew from the
Seafarers hiring halls. The day the Siboney was to
make its maiden voyage , the Seafarers picketed the
area around the ship , stopping its loading.
To stop the picketing , the Respondent on March
12, 1973, commenced injunction proceedings in the
District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
contending that the picketing should be enjoined and
that, pursuant to the existing contract with the Sea-
farers , the parties should be ordered to arbitrate the
Siboney issue .6 However, the Seafarers argued that
the contract did not cover the Siboney and therefore
the contract's arbitration clause was inapplicable.
Further , counsel for the Seafarers told the court that
vessel has no such unloading device.
S Unlike the parties' 1972 agreement , the Seafarers standard agreement
only described the ships to be covered as American flag vessels. Although
the 1972 agreement contained basically the same clauses as the standard
agreement, the first paragraph in the parties ' existing agreement , character-
ized by the Administrative Law Judge as a "preamble ," begins: "This Agree-
ment covering American Flag Gantry-type Self-unloading Vessels ...:. It
also contains the duration provisions.
6 Note that in the injunction proceeding (Reynolds Metals Company v.
Seafarers International Union, 73-412-CIV-WM ) the Respondent did not
contend that the contract covered the Siboney, but only that the parties
should arbitrate the issue . The court, apparently accepting the Seafarers
argument that the contract did not apply , neither enjoined the picketing nor
ordered the parties to arbitrate.
219 NLRB No. 128
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
the Siboney was not the same type of vessel as those
covered in the 1972 agreement and that, inasmuch as
the vessels were different, "the wages, terms and con-
ditions, etcetera, in each kind of vessel would be en-
tirely different," requiring a different collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
In contrast to the position taken at the injunction
proceeding, the Seafarers on March 12, 1974, filed
unfair labor practice charges alleging that the Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (2),' and (5)
by giving unlawful assistance to the MMP, and by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Seafarers,
pursuant to the parties' 1972 agreement, as the repre-
sentative of the Siboney unlicensed personnel.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the prepon-
derance of the evidence indicates that the parties did
not intend their 1972 collective-bargaining agree-
ment to cover nongantry-type vessels such as the Si-
boney. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that by its terms the 1972 agreement limits its cover-
age to "American flag Gantry-type Self-unloading
Vessels," and thus has no application to the nongan-
try Siboney. Also the Seafarers apparently did not
consider the Siboney as accreted to the existing unit,
inasmuch as the Seafarers failed to raise the accre-
tion issue at the time the Respondent requested in-
formation as to what type of area contract might be
applicable in the contemplated use of the Siboney.
Moreover, the Seafarers took the position in the in-
junction proceeding that the parties' existing agree-
ment did not cover the Siboney and that the Seafarers
would not apply the same contract to the Siboney.
Accordingly, we find that the Siboney was not an
accretion to the existing unit represented by the Sea-
farers and that the Respondent therefore did not vio-
late the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Seafarers as the representative of the Sibo-
ney crew. Therefore, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as jts Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby .is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
7 The Charging Party agreed in the parties ' stipulations dated December
18, 1974, (Joint Exh . 2) to withdraw the 8(a)(2) charge . The parties further
stipulated that an 8 (a)(2) violation would be found only if the Board found
an 8(a)(5 ) violation.
DECISION
625
JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding was held before me at Coral Gables, Florida, on
December 17 and 18, 1974. The complaint which was is-
sued on May 22, 1974, pursuant to a charge duly filed on
March 12, 1974, alleges that Respondents violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and after due
consideration of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Reynolds Metals Company is a Delaware corporation
with its principal office and place of business located at
Richmond, Virginia, and at all times material herein, has
been engaged in various States of the United States in a
fully integrated enterprise in aluminum, from the mining of
the ore to the manufacture and sale of the finished product.
During the calendar year 1973, Reynolds manufactured,
sold, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to customers across state lines.
Ocean-Trailer Transport Corporation, a Delaware cor-
poration and a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds, has
its principal office and place of business located at Miami,
Florida, and , at all times material herein, is and has been
engaged in the business of owning and operating an Amer-
ican flag vessel, the MV Siboney, which transports goods
and commodities in interstate commerce. During the cal-
endar year 1973, Ocean-Trailer derived a gross revenue
from such operations in excess of $50,000.
Reynolds and Ocean-Trailer are now, and have been at
all times material herein, individually and collectively, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion Z(6) and (7) of the Act.
Seafarers International Union, Charging Party herein, is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots,
Party to the Contract herein, is now, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, essentially that on or about De-
cember 12, 1972, Reynolds and the Seafarers International
Union executed a collective-bargaining agreement (herein
the 1972 agreement) revising an agreement effective Octo-
ber 1, 1970; that the 1972 agreement, inter alla, recognized
the-Seafarers International Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all unlicensed personnel employed on Ameri-
can flag vessels owned and operated by Reynolds, for the
purposes of collective bargaining in• respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of work, and other conditions of employ-
ment; that all unlicensed personnel employed by Respon-
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent on American flag vessels owned and operated by Re-
spondent, excluding guards , professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The complaint further alleges that the Seafarers Interna-
tional Union, since on or about a date prior to October 1,
1970, and at all times material herein , has been , and is, the
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of
the employees in the unit described above, and by virtue of
Section 9(a) of the Act has been and is now the exclusive
representative of all employees in said unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment;
that on or about August 18, 1972 , Ocean-Trailer assumed
the charter of the MV Siboney, and on or about March 9,
1973, until sometime in 1974 , the Siboney has been trans-
porting cargo in containers between Miami , Florida, and
San Juan , Puerto Rico , and that the employees of the Sibo-
ney constitute an accretion to the fleet-wide unit, as de-
scribed in the 1972 agreement , supra.
The complaint further alleges , essentially , that the Sea-
farers International Union has requested , and is request-
ing, Respondent to bargain with it as the sole and exclusive
representative of the unlicensed employee personnel of the
Siboney as part of the unit set forth above , since on or
about a date prior to February 20, 1973 , when it submitted
a form of contract covering unlicensed Maritime personnel
to Ocean-Trailer's General Manager Garcia; and on or
about February 29 , 1973, when the Seafarers International
Union sent a telegram to Respondent demanding, inter
alia, compliance with respect to the employees of the MV
Siboney; and that since on or about February 12, 1973, and
continuing to date, Respondent has rendered, and is ren-
dering, unlawful aid , assistance , and support to the MMP,
and has refused and continues to refuse to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Seafarers International Union
as the collective -bargaining representative of its employees
in the unit set forth above , by the acts of Travers , master of
the Siboney, on or about February 12, 1973 , notifying the
MMP that the MV Siboney was about to become opera-
tional and requesting the MMP to supply unlicensed sea-
men, and thereafter allowing MMP to supply personnel to
operate the vessel ; by acts of Garcia , general manager of
Ocean-Trailer , on or about February 15, 1973, reviewing a
draft contract proposal by the MMP specifically tailored
for the MV Siboney before the MMP actually represented a
majority of the unlicensed personnel of the MV Siboney
and before on or about February 19, 1973 , when the MMP
purportedly claimed to Respondent that it represented a
majority of said employees of the MV Siboney; and by
Garcia , on or about February 20, 1973 , executing a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with MMP whereby MMP was
recognized as the bargaining agent of the employees
aboard the MV Siboney, and which agreement sets forth
the wages , hours, and working conditions of said employ-
ees.
The complaint alleges that , by the acts described above
and by each of said acts, Respondent did render, and is
rendering , unlawful assistance and support to a labor orga-
nization , and thereby did engage in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Sections 8(a)(2) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act; and did
refuse , and is refusing, to bargain collectively with the Sea-
farers International Union as the bargaining representative
of its employees, and thereby did engage in, and is engag-
ing in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act;
and did interfere with , restrain , and coerce , and is interfer-
ing with , restraining , and coercing, its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
A. Factual Background and Stipulations
A hearing on the issues herein was conducted by Admin-
istrative Law Judge Samuel Ross , on June 25 and 26, 1974,
in Coral Gables , Florida , and was then adjourned sine die
to allow counsel for General Counsel to seek enforcement
in Federal court of subpenas not complied with by Reyn-
olds, Ocean-Trailer, and MMP . Following an order of the
United States District Court , entered on October 24, 1974,
enforcing the subpenas , the hearing was resumed before
me in Coral Gables , Florida , on December 17, 1974, and
closed on December 18, 1974 . During this hearing, all of
the parties entered into an informal settlement agreement
of the 8(a)(2) allegations of the complaint herein and also
entered into a set of factual and other stipulations with
respect to the remaining 8(a)(5) allegations of the com-
plaint . No testimony was taken in the proceedings , and the
remaining issue is to be determined on the basis of the
stipulations , admissions , and the record as a whole.
The parties hereto , having stipulated, inter alia, and it
being uncontrovcrted on the record , I hereby find that
there is common control of the labor relations of all em-
ployees of Reynolds Metals and Ocean -Trailer by Reyn-
olds, and Reynolds and Ocean -Trailer are a single employ-
er under Board law.
At all times material hereto , Reynolds has operated and
continues to operate two deep-hold self-unloading cargo,
gantry-type vessels , the SS Inger and SS Walter Rice,
American flag vessels operating between Corpus Christi,
Texas, and Longview , Washington, Hawaii and Galveston,
Texas, under the Seafarers International Union contract
covering the unlicensed seamen aboard the vessels.
Between December 1973 and March 1974, the two ves-
sels have been periodically time-chartered to unrelated cor-
porations and have operated between Burnside , Mississip-
pi, and Tampa, Florida ; Hampton Roads , Virginia, and
Salem , Massachusetts ; Panama City, Florida , and the State
of Washington; Houston, Texas , and Chile , South Ameri-
ca, and Mobile , Alabama . Prior to December 1973, the
Inger and Rice regularly, with infrequent exceptions, plied
between Texas and the State of Washington.
At all times material hereto until April 7 , 1974, Reynolds
and Ocean-Trailer operated the MV Siboney, an American
flag vessel , between the ports of Miami, Florida , and San
Juan , Puerto Rico, every week . The Siboney is a nongantry-
type motor vessel and is the world's largest ocean-going
aluminum ship especially designed for the transportation
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
of trailers and dry or refrigerated containers; and it will
also transport automobiles , trucks , heavy construction ma-
chinery , and general outsized cargo . After April 6, 1974,
and until September 11, 1974, the Siboney was time-char-
tered to another unrelated corporation and to the Military
Sealift Command, and MMP continued to supply and rep-
resent the unlicensed seamen of the Siboney during such
period. The Siboney has not been operated since September
11, 1974, and has at present no persons in its employ.
The Siboney is 306 feet long and carries a variety of car-
go, principally containers. It has no vessel-mounted cranes
and no hatches, and loads through a stern opening with
drive-on, drive-off loading. A round trip between Miami
and San Juan took 7 days.
The Inger and Rice are each 626 feet long, and are un-
loaded and loaded via vessel-mounted cranes reaching into
hatches to pick up the dry bulk cargo; then the cargo is
discharged to a hopper mounted between gantry legs; and
the hopper discharges the cargo to a conveyor which leads
into a shore hopper. The Inger and Rice are the only gantry
vessels in the world capable of unloading dry bulk cargo.
The runs for the Inger and Rice took 17 days one way. The
Inger and Rice regularly transport aluminum from Texas to
Washington, and sugar on the return trip from Hawaii to
Texas.
There were no transfers to employees among the Inger,
Rice, and Siboney. There have been transfers of employees
between the Inger and Rice. The maritime industry is a
hiring hall industry. The Inger and Rice employees came
from Seafarers International Union hiring halls and Sibo-
ney employees came from MMP hiring halls, all pursuant
to their respective collective-bargaining agreements.
The cargoes of the Siboney, Inger, and Rice were loaded
and unloaded by nonseamen (on-shore personnel). The
crews of the three vessels maintain the equipment on
board , including the gantries and doors.
Garcia had the power to hire and fire office employees in
Miami, except for management-level employees, who were
to be hired in consultation with Donald B. Wood. Garcia
delegated hiring of seamen to the Siboney's master. Ocean-
Trailer's office was in Miami; the Marine Division Office
was, and is, in Corpus Christi, Texas, the site of Wood's
office. Cargo for the Siboney was solicited from the Miami
office by Ocean-Trailer's Miami employees.
Donald B . Wood was in direct control of the Inger and
Rice, and had ultimate control of Garcia, but Garcia was
in charge of daily operations in Miami, and Wood was not
involved in the daily operations.
It is also stipulated , and I find, that the Seafarers Inter-
national Union and Reynolds Metals Company Marine
Division have had collective -bargaining agreements-since
1962.
The record reveals that the Respondents, Reynolds and
Ocean-Trailer , assert, and the other parties have no facts to
controvert the following four paragraphs which I find as
facts:
During that period of time, Reynolds and/or its subsid-
iaries operated the following American flag vessels:
The MT El Buey Grande, a 3,500 horsepower, 126-foot,
ocean-going tug operating between Guiana and Trinidad,
was time-chartered to Reynolds in September 1962. After
627
two voyages, it was bareboat chartered to Reynolds on Oc-
tober 5, 1962. It so remained until March 18, 1965. On
September 3, 1965, it was chartered to Caribbean Steam-
ship Company, S.A., a subsidiary of Reynolds. On March
1, 1968, the vessel was sold but the bareboat charter to
Caribbean continued, On or about January 18, 1972, it was
sold to Tidewater Balboa, Inc., an unrelated corporation.
MT El Toro Grande, another such tug of the same size
and operating the same run, was also bareboat chartered to
a subsidiary of Reynolds from March 1, 1965, until on or
about January 18, 1972, when it was also sold to Tidewater
Balboa, Inc.
Neither of the foregoing vessels was operated under a
bargaining agreement with the Seafarers International
Union, or any other labor organization, and neither was a
gantry-type vessel.
The Seafarers International Union asserts, the other par-
ties have no facts to controvert, and I find, that:
The Seafarers International Union represents unlicensed
seamen employed solely on deep seagoing tankers and
freightships. It does not represent unlicensed seamen em-
ployed on tugs. Even if it knew of their existence, no de-
mand would have been made for recognition inasmuch as
it does not represent unlicensed seamen employed on tugs.
Such unlicensed seamen employed on tugs are tradi-
tionally represented by the Inland Boatmen's Union, an
autonomous affiliate of the Seafarers International Union
and a wholly different labor organization.
The Seafarers International Union represents unlicensed
seamen employed on supertankers which are larger than
the Inger and Rice, and on vessels which are the same size
or smaller than the Siboney. There are various owners and
operators in the maritime industry in contractual relations
with the Seafarers International Union which maintain
fleet-wide units consisting of smaller and larger vessels.
The Seafarers International Union maintains hiring
halls, inter alia, in Seattle, Washington; San Francisco and
Wilmington, California; Houston, Texas; New Orleans,
Louisiana; Mobile, Alabama; and Tampa and Jackson-
ville, Florida.
The Seafarers International Union has contractual rela-
tionships with various owners and operators who maintain
fleet-wide units which consist of vessels which have cranes
or gantries capable of self-loading and unloading as well as
other vessels which do not have such equipment or capabil-
ities . The Seafarers International Union also has contractu-
al relationships with other owners and operators who
maintain fleet-wide units and who own or operate only one
or the other type of vessel.
B. Facts Relating to the Execution of the Contract With
MMP
Around December 1972, Eduardo Garcia attempted to
interest Reynolds Metals in the concept of providing turna-
round shipping service between Miami and San Juan,
Puerto Rico. Some time in January 1973, Garcia made in-
quiries of the Seafarers International Union as to what
kind of "area contract" the Seafarers International Union
felt would be applicable to a vessel with the Siboney's pecu-
liarities in the contemplated run. (The vessel was then laid
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
up in Morgan City, Louisiana , for repairs and outfitting for
sea.) On or about some time before mid-January 1973,
Garcia was given by a Seafarers International Union repre-
sentative a standard form of Seafarers International Union
agreement for unlicensed personnel containing tentative
cost figures, including wage and fringe benefit rates . This is
Seafarers International Union's standard freightship agree-
ment for the Maritime industry covering unlicensed per-
sonnel . Around the same time that Garcia received from
the Seafarers International Union the foregoing agreement,
he also received a companion contract from District 2,
MEBA (for licensed personnel). Garcia worked up all cost
figures, including costs based on these contracts , and sub-
mitted same to Reynolds Marine Division,
Around mid-January, Reynolds decided it would at-
tempt the Miami-San Juan operation with the Siboney.
Garcia was to set up the operation and did so. He proceed-
ed to get tariffs , office space , prepare budgets , set up ad-
ministrative tables of organization , etc. Subject to the ap-
proval of Reynolds Marine Division as to the cost thereof
being within industry standards , he was authorized to ne-
gotiate collective -bargaining agreements.
Prior to this time , the record reveals that on December
12, 1972, Respondent and the Seafarers International
Union executed a collective-bargaining agreement , effec-
tive June 16, 1972, revising an earlier agreement which be-
came effective October 1 , 1970. The preamble of that
agreement provides in part as follows:
This Agreement covering American Flag Gantry-
Type Self-Unloading Vessels is entered into by and
between the Seafarers International Union of North
America, Atlantic and Gulf District affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations , hereinafter referred to as the
Union, and the undersigned company , and any of its
subsidiary companies , which may be formed to oper-
ate American Flag Gantry-Type Self-Unloading Ves-
sels in effect until October 1st, 1975, and shall contin-
ue from year to year thereafter unless either party
hereto shall give written notice to the other of its de-
sire to amend or terminate same, which notice shall be
given at least 60 days prior to the expiration date....
The contract provides for the recognition of the Seafar-
ers International Union , as follows:
Section 1 . Recognition . The Company recognizes
the Union as the exclusive representatives of the unli-
censed personnel (hereinafter sometimes called the
Unlicensed Personnel) employed on American Flag
Vessels owned and operated by the Company for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay wages , hours of work and other conditions of em-
ployment.
The crew for the Siboney was obtained by the master, on
or about February 12, 1973, notifying the MMP that the
vessel was about to become operational and requesting
MMP to supply unlicensed seamen which it did. On or
about February 15, Garcia reviewed a draft contract pro-
posal by the MMP specifically tailored for the Siboney, and
on or about February 20, executed a collective-bargaining
agreement with MMP recognizing it as the representative
of the employees aboard the Siboney.
The Seafarers International Union, in addition to its
contract proposal submitted to Respondent in January
1973, sent the following telegraphic demand for recogni-
tion to Respondent on February 28, 1973, after it had
learned that the crew for the Siboney had not been ob-
tained from the Seafarers International Union hiring hall:
REYNOLDS METALS CO MARINE DIV BOX 2311
CORPUS CHRISTI TEX
RE MV SIVONEY [SIC] AS YOU KNOW THIS UNION AND YOUR CO
HAVE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT . PURSUANT TO ARTICLE ONE, SECTION ONE OF
SUCH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT , THIS UNION IS
THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
ALL UNLICENSED PERSONNEL EMPLOYED ABOARD ALL VESSELS
OWNED AND-OR OPERATED BY YOU OR YOUR SUBSIDIARIES.
AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN OUR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT ARE PROVISIONS FOR THE EMPLOY.
MENT OF ALL UNLICENSED SEAMEN FROM OUR HIRING HALLS
WE HAVE ASCERTAINED THAT THE VESSEL MV SIVONEY [SIC] IS
OWNED AND-OR OPERATED BY YOUR SUBSIDIARY OCEAN
TRAILER TRANSPORT CORP AND NOT WITHSTANDING THE
ABOVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND ITS PROVI-
SION, YOU AND/OR YOUR SUBSIDIARY HAS FAILED AND RE-
FUSED TO EMPLOY UNLICENSED SEAMAN FROM OUR HIRING
HALL AS CONTRACTUALLY PROVIDED AND HAS FAILED AND
REFUSE TO APPLY THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAIN-
ING AGREEMENT TO THIS VESSEL
THE FORGOING CONSTITUTES A MOST SERIOUS AND MOST
SUBSTANTIAL BREACH OF OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT . UNLESS THIS BREECH [SIC] IS REMEDIED FORTH-
WITH AND THE TERMS OF OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT APPLIED TO SUCH VESSEL WE SHALL HAVE NO
CHOICE BUT TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS AS MAY
BE WARRANTED OR NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
YOUR IMMEDIATE REPLY OF COMPLIANCE IS REQUESTED
AND WE RESERVE UNTO OURSELVES APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR
DAMAGES SUSTAINED FRATERNALLY
FRANK DROZAK VICE PRESIDENT
C. Analysis, Findings, and Conclusions
For the reasons explicated hereinafter , I am convinced
and I find that the Respondents did not violate Sections
8(a)(l), (2), and (5) as charged in the complaint.
In Moore-McCormack Lines , Inc., 139 NLRB 796 (1962),
the Board stated in pertinent part that:
As a general proposition we agree with the
Petitioner's contention that units of seagoing person-
nel should be fleetwide in scope.... Such units also
conform to the pattern presently prevailing in the mar-
itime industry . Moreover, there are obvious advan-
tages in such a single unit : the elimination of inter-
union rivalry with respect to similar employees of the
same employer and consequent dimution of conflicts
which may bring on work stoppages and the facilita-
tion of transfers of personnel between ships of the
same employer and of ships between different ship-
owners. But these reasons for finding a fleetwide unit
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
appropriate may be overborne in a particular case by spe-
cial circumstances which indicate the injustice or the un-
suitability of applying the general rule. [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
In my view, the record herein amply supports a finding
that the present case contains the underlying elements of
special circumstances which indicate the unsuitability of
applying the general rule of Moore-McCormack.
Central to the resolution of this case is the issue of
whether the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (2)
of the Act by failing to accrete the Siboney to the existing
fleet-wide unit covered by the 1972 agreement between
Reynolds and Seafarers International Union. It is clear
from the record and I find that the 1972 agreement by its
terms, limits its coverage to "American Flag gantry-type
self-unloading vessels ." The United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida found that this 1972
agreement does not cover the Siboney, a finding also inde-
pendently arrived at by the internal disputes referee in his
determination, part of the record herein.
Since accretion is not dictated by the existence of the
1972 agreement, is it automatically compelled by applica-
tion of Moore-McCormack? In my view it is not, for the
record herein amply supports a finding of the special cir-
cumstances adverted to by the Board in Moore-McCor-
mack.
In finding such special circumstances herein, I have giv-
en consideration to the following which I find as facts on
this record and which in my view establish a pattern of
bargaining on other than a fleet-wide basis.
1. That Reynolds Metals, under its marine division, op-
erates two gantry-type vessels , the SS Inger and the SS
Walter Rice, the employees of whom are covered under a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Seafarers Interna-
tional Union, which agreement excludes nongantry type
vessels.
2. In addition, Reynolds and/or its subsidiaries operat-
ed two other vessels , the MT El Buey Grande and the MT
El Toro Grande, which are not gantry-type vessels and are
not operated under a collective-bargaining agreement with
any labor organization , including the Seafarers Interna-
tional Union , which has made no claim that the vessels
accrete to a fleet-wide unit.
3. The Siboney, a nongantry type vessel is operated by
Ocean-Trailer Company, a subsidiary of Reynolds Metals.
4. The history of the vessel SS Siboney establishes with-
out contradiction that this vessel was from July 1, 1970,
bareboat chartered to Reynolds or its subsidiaries, to wit,
St. George Corp., Pyramid Container Transport Corp.,
and, finally, Ocean-Trailer.
5. At various times during the history of this vessel, both
the licensed and unlicensed personnel were represented by
various labor organizations including the Seafarers Inter-
national Union and the MMP. At no time did the Seafarers
Union make a demand that this vessel , whatever name it
was called , when it was under charter to Reynolds or its
629
subsidiaries, other than Ocean-Trailer, should be accreted
to a fleet-wide unit, and this is so even though the 1972
agreement covering the SS Inger and the SS Rice is the last
of many collective-bargaining agreements with the Seafar-
ers International Union.
6. The vessels Inger and Rice are distinctly different not
only because they are gantry-type vessels rather than non-
gantry, as is the SS Siboney, but also in other respects,
including the requirement for personnel with different
skills.
7. There has never been any interchange or transfer of
personnel among the Inger, Rice, and the Siboney, although
there is interchange and transfer of personnel between In-
ger and Rice. Inger and Rice personnel come from Seafar-
ers International Union hiring halls while the Siboney em-
ployees came from MMP hiring halls.
For many years the Seafarers International Union has
limited its collective-bargaining unit with Reynolds to gan-
try-type vessels. There has been no bargaining with respect
to nongantry-type vessels owned or operated by Reynolds
or its subsidiaries. This equally applies to the Siboney from
the time this vessel was bareboat chartered by Reynolds.
The employees of this vessel have been represented
throughout its history by both the Seafarers International
Union and the MMP in different collective bargaining
units. In sum total there is lacking a fleet-wide bargaining-
unit history among all of Reynold' s vessels . Only with re-
spect to the gantry-type vessels has there been fleet-wide
bargaining.
It is clear that Reynolds does not bargain with Seafarers
International Union on a fleet-wide basis. It is also clear
that assuming arguendo the nonlicensed personnel were ac-
creted to the Seafarers International Union unit and Reyn-
olds is required to bargain over these employees there
would result an exacerbation of industrial conflict contrary
to the doctrine of Moore-McCormack and, for that matter,
the very purposes of the Act.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the unlicensed
seamen employees of the MV Siboney are not an accretion
to a fleet-wide unit herein, and that the Respondents have
not violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act as al-
leged in the complaint and I shall recommend dismissal of
the complaint in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents herein are individually and collec-
tively an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Seafarers International Union, Atlantic, Gulf,
Lakes & Inland Waters District, and the International Or-
ganization Of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Associated Mari-
time Workers, Local 8, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5)
of the Act.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act as
amended , I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings , deemed waived for all purposes