Sabine Towing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

SABINE TOWING COMPANY, INC. 61
Sabine Towing Company, Inc. and Local 333, United Marine :
Division , National Maritime Union , AFL-CIO
Sabine Transportation Company, Inc . and Local 333, United
Marine Division , National Maritime Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 23-RC-1436 and 23-RC-1437. January 11, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Wilton Waldrop, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employers. It refused, however, to
stipulate that the Intervenor, Sabine Independent Tugboat Em-
ployees Association,' is also a labor organization as defined in the
Act. The record establishes that the Intervenor exists for the purpose
of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and conditions of
employment, and is therefore a labor organization as defined in the
Act.
The Petitioner also attempted to introduce evidence and made an
offer of proof to show that the Intervenor is a company-dominated
union. The hearing officer excluded such evidence. As the proffered
evidence relates to unfair labor practices which are not litigable in
a representation proceeding, we sustain the rulings of the hearing
officer.
3. The Employers and the Intervenor contend that their latest
contracts,' entered into on April 15, 1959, effective retroactively to
January 1, 1959, for a period of 5 years, bar these proceedings. The
Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that those contracts are
premature extensions of similar 5-year contracts effective as of Janu-
i Sabine Independent Tugboat Employees Association was permitted to intervene on
the basis of its current collective-bargaining contracts with the Employers covering the
employees involved herein
2 Throughout the pertinent bargaining history, the Employers and the Intervenor have
always negotiated and signed three separate contracts covering employees operating three
different classes of tugs to wit Class A, C, and D. For all intents and purposes, these
contracts constitute a single contract as their terms relevant to contract bar are identical,
and concededly have been executed separately only because of the different wage scales
and job conditions
126 NLRB No. 10.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ary 1, 1958, and hence do not constitute bars herein under the Board's
decisions in Pacific Coast and Deluxe Metal Furniture Company .3
Since 1947 the Intervenor has been the recognized collective-
bargaining representative of the Employers' employees pursuant to
successive contracts. In 1954 the Intervenor and the Employers ne-
gotiated and signed new contracts incorporating changes made in
earlier agreements. These contracts were effective as of January 1,
1954, for a 5-year term expiring on December 31, 1958. The 1954
contracts, as well as all of the subsequent contracts, provided for mid-
term "modification" or "termination" at the end of each year of the
contracts upon notice given by either party 60 days before the end
of any calendar year during the effective period of the contracts'
Pursuant to that provision, in November of 1954, negotiations were
entered into and culminated in a new contract being signed early in
1955, effective for 5 years from January 1, 1955. Similar procedures
were followed in 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959 and resulted in the execu-
tion of successive 5-year contracts, each effective as of January 1 of
their respective year.
The petitions herein were filed on August 6, 1959. As indicated
above, the Employers and the Intervenor contend that the 1959 con-
tracts preclude a present determination of representation. We find
no merit in this contention.
When the 1959 agreements were executed, there were in effect the
1958 agreements, which ran until December 31, 1962. Under Board
rules, such agreements are operative as bars for the first 2 years of their
term, namely until December 31, 1959. As the 1959 agreements were
executed during this 2-year period, they were premature extensions of
the 1958 agreements. For this reason, and as the petitions were filed
over 60 days but not more than 150 days before the expiration of the
first 2 years of the 1958 agreements, we find that the petitions were
timely filed .5
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within
the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
of the Employers constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All crew members on tugs owned and operated by Sabine Towing
Company, Inc., and Sabine Transportation Company, Inc., in and out
s Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990, and
Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995.
4 Article II, section 2 of all contracts from 1954 to 1959.
6 Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, supra, and Deluxe
Metal Furniture Company, supra. See also Gibbs Oil Company and Henry and Paul
,Gibbs d/b/a Boulder Transportation Company, 120 NLRB 1783, 1785-1786, distinguish-
ing Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121, upon which the Intervenor relies.
DETROIT WINDOW CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 139, ETC. 63
of Port Arthur, Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, including masters
and chief engineers,' but excluding all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 The record does not show that the masters and chief engineers actually possess
supervisory authority as defined in the Act.
Detroit Window Cleaners Union , Local 139 of the Building Serv-
ice Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO and Daelyte
Service Company. Case No. 7-CB-384. January 12, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 13, 1959, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent consistent with our
decision set forth below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not
refuse to bargain with Daelyte Service Company, the Charging Party
herein, in violation of Section 8(b) (3) and (1) (A) of the Act, by
insisting that Daelyte sign the agreement which the Respondent
negotiated with the Association.
For many years, the Respondent has bargained on a multiemployer
basis with the Association which has represented its member-
employers, including Daelyte. As a result of such negotiations, sepa-
rate successive contracts were executed by the Respondent and the
Association and its individual members. In November 1956, about 2
months before the expiration of the 1955 agreement, Daelyte resigned
from the Association. However, neither Daelyte nor the Association
notified the Respondent of the resignation until June 15, 1957.
In the meantime, pursuant to timely notice to reopen the 1955
agreement given by the Respondent in February 1957, the Association
and the Respondent instituted negotiations for a new contract. After
126 NLRB No. 8.