Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

Seine and Line Fishermen 's Union of San Pedro , affiliated with
Seafarers ' International Union, AFL-CIO and Fishermen's
Union, Local 33, Fishermen and Allied Workers ' Division,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union and
William J . Horner ; Anton Misetich ; John Sestich ; Giovanni
Santo; Phil Crachiolo ; Nick Gargas ; Frank Amalfitano; Sal
Manzella; Steve Gargas; John Zorotovich ; Vincent Budrovich;
Sal Genovese ; Joseph A. Ferrante ; Bernard Mattera; Frank
Coscetti ; John Stanovich ; Joe Cardinale ; Paul Biazevich;
A. E. Lucido ; Antonio Pisano ; , John Vilicich ; Isadore Cali-
fano; Nick Marincovich ; John Mardesich ; Gaetano Scotti;
John Ryono ; Ralph Galante; Karou Suzuki ; Andrea Spinoza;
John Misetich ; Jack Russo; Salvatore Castaldi ; G. C. di
Meglio ; Pasquale Artiano; Frank Iacono; Anthony di Leva;
Antonio d'Ambra; Liberato Aversano ; Antonio , di Bernardo;
Peter Guarrasi ; John Sima ; Aniello Pilato ; ,Andrew Rafkin,
Jr.; Joe Califano ; A. di Leva; Dominic Rocky ; Anthony
Pisano; Louis di Meglio ; Ben Fukuzaki ; Lawrence Zuanich;
Carmen di Massa ; John Scognamillo ; Norman Mezin ; Yutaka
Yoshimoto ; John Vilicich ; Santo . Trama; W. H. Gillette;
Robert L. Williams ; Frank Iacono; Joe Randazzo; Mike
Trama ; Robert E. Lamprecht ; Guiseppe Russo; Don Kusar;
John Alioto; Joe T. Lauro ; W. C. Smith ; Pasquale Lauro;
John di Meglio ; Tony Mattera ; N. Wolf ; John J. Guglielmo;
John Vilicich ; Alfredo Valtino ; Tom Trama ; W. E. Duggan;
Don R. Marvin ; Joe Barber , Jr.; Frank Trama ; Tom Nishida;
and Amos Hashimoto , Parties to the Contract . Case No. 21-
CB-879. March 2, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
I III
On February 12, 1960, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled case, finding that the
Respondent Union 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 Intermediate
Report attached hereto.' Thereafter the Respondent Union and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs.
1 This case was heard together with Paul Biazevich, 21-CA-2388 , and related cases,
in which the Trial Examiner issued a separate Intermediate Report. See 136 NLRB 13.
136 NLRB No. 2. 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
excepted as modified below :
1. The complaint alleges, and the Respondent Union admits, that
it was a party to a union-security contract with the boatowners S named
in the complaint. The Trial Examiner found the contract, executed
in 1956, unlawful in various respects, as discussed below, and ordered
the Respondent Union, inter alia, to cease and desist from enforcing
the union-security provisions thereof with those boatowners whose
individual operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. The
General Counsel excepts to the refusal of the Trial Examiner to`-as-
sert jurisdiction over the operations of all the boatowners listed below.
We find merit in this exception.
In its Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections in Kist Gradis,
supra, the Board found, on the basis of the entire bargaining history,
including the 1956 contract here in issue, that approximately this same
group of boatowners participated in group bargaining through the
Fishermen's Cooperative Association, herein called the Co-op, with
the Respondent Union, and that these boatowners therefore consti-
tuted a single employer for jurisdictional purposes. The Board ac-
cordingly asserted jurisdiction on the basis of the combined outflow
of the boatowners as a group.
None of the boatowners appeared at the hearing herein, although
served with notice. The General Counsel stated on the record in this
case that jurisdiction over boats which individually failed to meet
the Board's jurisdictional standards would depend on whether, as
members of the Co-op, they constituted a single employer for juris-
dictional purposes, which was a primary issue in Krist Gradis, supra,
and would be, decided by the Board in that case; and that he had
refrained from offering such evidence in this case because an initial
determination by the Trial Examiner would not be helpful to the
The Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
(1) Delay in issuing the complaint and in proceeding with the hearing For the reasons
given in Paul Biazevxch, et al ., 136 NLRB 13 , footnote 2, we find no merit in this con-
tention ( 2) Failure of the Trial Examiner to confine his findings of violations to the
period from September 15, 1956, the beginning of the 10(b) period, to July 17 , 1957, the
date of issuance of the complaint . The record does not indicate, however , that the viola-
tions found ceased on the latter date. In any event, even if they did , the Board would
retain jurisdiction to issue a cease and desist order herein. See Consolidated Forwarding
Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 357 , footnote 2 (3) The fact that the Trial Examiner based
his findings , in part, on his observation of the witnesses inasmuch as no witnesses testified
in this case . Although this language was inapplicable , we find that this apparent in-
advertence was not prejudicial . Accordingly , the motion to dismiss the complaint on
these grounds is hereby denied.
3 We find that the boatowners and masters involved herein are employers within the
meaning of the Act. Krist Gradis, at al., 121 NLRB 601 , footnote 33.
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO 3
Board on jurisdiction. The Respondent Union made no- objection
at the hearing to the General Counsel's announced method of pro-
cedure, and made no contention at the hearing or since then that
the jurisdiction issue should have been relitigated in this proceeding,
or that the facts are otherwise than as presented in Krist Gradis.
The Trial Examiner made no reference to the positions of the par-
ties stated above. While he did refer to the Board's assertion of juris-
diction in Krist Gradis, he nevertheless recommended dismissal of the
complaint as to the contracts with all boatowners which individually
failed to meet the jurisdictional standards on the ground that "no-
where in this record is there evidence to support a finding that the con-
tracts in issue were arrived at through multiemployer bargaining."
The General Counsel contends in his exceptions that the Trial Ex-
aminer was obliged to take official notice of, and to follow, the Board's
jurisdictional determination in Kri8t Gradis. We agree. On the basis
of the Board's findings in the Krist Gradis case,' and for the reasons
given therein, we shall, as requested by the General Counsel,' assert
jurisdiction over the following individual boats, and boats whose own-
ers or masters were members of the Co-op-Seine and Line multi-
employer unit : 6
A. A. Ferrante
American Venture
'Anthony M.
Bella Marie
California
City of Naples
Dor Ann
E. S. Lucido
Endeavor (Small)
Endeavor (Large)
Gaviota
Gigi
Josie Lena (Russo Bros.)
Lucy Ann
Mercury
New San Antonio
Nyna Rose
Nyna Rose II
Patriotic
Ralphy Boy
Redeemer
S. G. Guiseppe
S. Teresa
Saint Rita
San Antonio IV
San Silverio
' See Psttaburgh. Plate Glass Company v. N L R.B, 313 U S. 146; N L R.B. v. Moss
Amber Mfg. Company, 264 F. 2d 107 ( CA. 9) ; M. L. Townsend, 81 NLRB 739 , enfd. 185
F. 2d 378 (C.A. 9) ; Fishermen's Cooperative Association , et at., 128 NLRB 62. See also
Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 123 NLRB 1146, 1156, where the Board stated,
"It is well established that the Board may take official notice of its own proceedings and
decisions , and rely thereon , including the use in an unfair labor practice case of evidence
adduced in a prior representation case, especially where, as here, the evidence was sub-
mitted on the identical Issue and the same parties were present and participated."
6 We shall not , as requested by the General Counsel, assert jurisdiction over the
S. Restituta II, owned by Salvatore Castaldi . This vessel was not in the multiemployer
unit found appropriate in Krist Grades , and there is no commerce data in the record on
Its operations
8 Although the names and/or ownership of some of the vessels listed below and in
Appendix A, attached hereto , may have changed since the hearing herein, the names are
listed as they appear in the record in this case
641795-63-vol. 136-2
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Santa Rita Sea Maid
Santa Maria Stella Maris
Santa Teresa Sunbeam
St. Aniello II Tommy Boy
St. Augustine II Twin Brother (Robert M.)
St. Christina Two Brothers (City of
St. Christopher Pacific Grove)
St. George II Vittoria
St. Lucia II Windward
2. Seine and Lille admittedly was a party to its 1956 contract with
the owners or masters of the above-named boats, which contract re-
quired, as a condition of employment, that all employees join and pay
dues, or pay support money the equivalent of dues, to Seine and Line
without allowing the statutory 30-day grace period; the payment of
unspecified nonperiodic assessments; involuntary checkoff of such
dues, support money, and assessments; and forfeiture of earnings by
those not discharged for failure to pay amounts due to Seine and Line.
We find, therefore, in substantial agreement with the Trial Examiner,
and for the reasons fully set forth in Paul Biazevich, supra,' that
Seine and Line thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the
Act."
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the Respondent, Seine and Line Fishermen's Union
of San Pedro, affiliated with Seafarers' International Union, AFL-
CIO, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Maintaining, performing, or enforcing the union-security and
checkoff provisions of its 1956 contract with any of the above-named
boats, their owners, masters, officers, agents, successors, or assigns, or
any other employer over whom the Board will assert jurisdiction.
(b) Attempting to cause such employers to discriminate against
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in\Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by a lawful agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
7 The union -security provisions of the contract involved herein are identical with those
of the contract involved in Paul Biazevich, supra, with which this case was heard
8 As the record contains no evidence as to the enforcement of the union -security provi-
sions found unlawful herein, we shall not adopt that portion of the Trial Examiner's
recommended order requiring reimbursement of moneys unlawfully exacted
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO 5
(a) Post at its offices, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." s Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted, immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by. it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by the employers listed
above for the same 60-day period. Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be forth-
with returned to the said Regional Director for such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,•what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for -the words "Pursuant to a ,Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN 'S UNION OF
SAN PEDRO , AFFILIATED WITH SEAFARERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL FISHERMEN IN THE SAN PEDRO HARBOR
AREA
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the* National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT-maintain, perform, or enforce the union-security
and checkoff provisions of our 1956 contract with the following
vessels or any other employer over whom the Board will assert
jurisdiction :
A. A. Ferrante
American Venture
Anthony M.
Bella Marie
California
City of Naples
Dor• Ann
E. S. Lucido
Endeavor (Small)
Endeavor (Large)
- Gaviota
Gigi
•Josie Lena ( Russo Bros.)
Lucy Ann ,
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ' BOARD
Mercury
New San Antonio
Nyna Rose
Nyna Rose II
Patriotic
Ralphy Boy
Redeemer
S. G. Guiseppe
S. Teresa
Saint Rita
San Antonio IV
San Silverio
Santa Rita
Santa Maria
Santa Teresa
St. Aniello II
St. Augustine II
St. Christina
St. Christopher
St. George II
St. Lucia II
Sea Maid
Stella Maris
Sunbeam
Tommy Boy
Twin Brother (Robert M.)
Two Brothers (City of
Pacific Grove)
Vittoria
Windward
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause such employers to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN 'S UNION OF
SAN PEDRO , AFFILIATED WITH SEA-
FARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL--
CIO,
Respondent.
Dated---------------- .By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office (Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los An-
geles 14, California; telephone number RIchmond 9-4711 Ext. 1031)
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Fishermen 's Union , Local 33, Fishermen and Allied Work-
ers' Division , International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union , herein
called Local 33, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
his complaint against Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro , affiliated
with Seafarers' International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, al-
leging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1) (A ) and (2 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO 7
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that
the Respondent since on or about September 15, 1956, has been party to and has
maintained in effect a collective -bargaining agreement with a number of named
employers containing provisions violative of the Act.
'Respondent's answer admits the existence of collective-bargaining agreements
running between it and the named employers but denies the commission of unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on this complaint, coupled with others which have
been the subject•of separate reports, opened on August 5, 1957, and continued on
various dates and at several places thereafter until its close on January 5, 1959. The
General Counsel, Local 33, and the Respondent were represented by counsel. Briefs
from the General Counsel and from counsel for the Respondent have been received
and considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The Respondent on and since September 15, 1956, has been party to collective-
bargaining agreements with each of the following employers who are managing
owners of, masters of, or partners in the fishing vessels as listed. During the 12-month
period from October 1, 1955, to September 30, 1956, the employers sold and de-
livered fish to one or more of the canneries later described in this section in the
amounts shown.
Group A
Employers Vessel Amount of
deliveries
William J Homer_______ ----------- MV American Venture ------------------------- $156,006 10
Anton Miseticb --------------------- MV Anthony M------------------------ ------- 396,066 57
John Sestich _________________ ------ MV Arlene 5-------------------------- -------- 125,800 40
Giovanni Santo --------- ----------- MV Bella Marie__ ____________________________ _ 23,791 86
Phil Crachiolo_______ _ ------------- MV Charlotte ______________ ____ _ 22,079 23
Nick Gargas ----- -- ---------------- MV City of Los Angeles ________________________ 158,017 61
Frank Amalfitano --------- -------- MV City of Naples_ _____ ---------------------- 69,884 31
Sal Manzella __________ ------------- MV City of Pacific Grove__ ___________________ _ 29,512 50
Steve Gargas_ _______________________ MV Columbia ---------------------------------- 128, 287 98
John Zorotovich ------------- ------- MV Defense -- ------------------------------- - 143,958 28
Vincent Budrovich ____________ ----- MV Delores M----- ----- --------- ------------- 156,250 86
Sal Genovese ------------------------ MV Endeavor ( Large) ------------------------- 137, 454 51
Joseph A Ferrante __________________ MV A A Ferrante ------- _ _____ _. -- 82, 147 56
Bernard Mattera-------------------- MV Fortress------------------------ ---------- 23, 298 37
Frank Coscetti ______________________ MV Gigi ---- ----------------------------------- 65,084 29
John Stanovich ______________________ MV Golden West_______________________________ 52,599 58
Joe Cardinale________________________ MV J Ernandez-------------------------------- 23, 652 50
Paul Biazevich ______________________ MV Liberator ----------------------------------- 158,183 43
A. E. Lucido ------------------------ MV E S Lucido ------------------------------- 133,566 87
Antonio Pisano ---------------------- MV Lucy Ann ---------------------------------- 58, 235 02
John Vilicich --------------------___ MV Marsha Ann----------- ------------------- 164,989 30
Isadore Califano _____________________ MV New San Antonio-------------------------- 103,402 53
Nick Manncovich ___________________ MV New Sea Rover---------------------------- 166,233 37
John Mardesich _____________________ MV Nyna Rose --------------------------------- 98, 758 92
Gaetano Scotts ______________________ MV Nyna Rose II------------------------------ 89,398 72
John Ryono ------------------------- MV Patriotic ---------------------------------- 41, 138 97
Ralph Galante _______________________ MV Pier (Ralphy Boy) ------------------------- 32, 845 77
E.arou Suzuki _______________________ MV Redeemer ---------------------------------- 158, 090 14
Andrea Spinoza--------------------- MV Robert M---------------------------------- 12, 402 99
John Misetich ----------------------- MV Ronnie M --------------------------------- 191,145 53
Jack Russo ----__---------------------- MV Russo Bros ________________________________ 2,050 00
Salvatore Castaldi___________________ MV S Restituta________________________________ (1)
G C di Meglio__-__________________ MV S. G. Giuseppe ---------------------------- 44, 133 98
Pasquale Artiano-------------------- MV S Teresa----------------------------------- 14, 856 85
Frank Iacono------------------------ MV Saint Rita --------------------------------- 47, 425 92
Antbonv di Leva-- ------------------ MV San Antonio IV________________________ 72,180.39
Antonio d 'Ambra-- ----------------- MV San Raffaele _______________________________ 48,805 11
Liberate Aversano __________________ MV San Silverio ________________________________ 20,520 17
1 No figure
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Group A-Continued
Employers Vessel Amount of
deliveries
Antonio di Bernardo ________________ MV Santa Maria ------------------------------ $77,255 99
Peter Guarrasi ______________________ MV Santa Rita --------------------------------- 146,905 85
John Sima --------------------------- MV Santa Teresa____ ___________________________ 59.394 90
Amello Pilato _______________________ MV Sea Maid ---------------------------------- 51,443 76
Andrew Rafkin , Jr__________________ MV Sea Scout ---------------------------------- 169,563 60
Joe Califano _________________________ MV St Augustine II___________________________ 74, 661 67
A. di Leva-------- ------------------ MV St Christina-------------------------------
74, 567 59
Dominic Rocky_ __ ----------------- MV St Cluistopher ____________________________ 00,178 69
Anthony Pisano _____________________ MV St George II------------------------------- 71,510 45
Lours di Megho _____________________ MV St Lucia 1I------------------------------- 98, 669 65
Ben Fukuzakr______-___-_____--___ MV Stella Mans ________________________________ 119,110 26
Lawrence Zuanich ____________ ------ MV Stranger ---------------------- ---- 14,153 77
Carman di Massa___________________ MV Tacoma ------------------------------------ 28,475 00
John Scognamillo ____________________ MV Vittoria ------------------------------------ 30,4t5 11
Norman Mezin______________________ MV Western Fisher ____________________________ 163,135 35
Yutaka Yoshimoto __________________ MV Windward--------------------------------- 92,352 71
Group B
John Vihcich ______________ --------- h4V California--------------------------------- $266 944 37
Santo Trama------------ ------------ MV Carol Jo Ann------------------------ ----- (i)
W U Gillette ---------------------- MV Corregidor I1--------------- ---- ------------
47,274 81
Robert L Williams _______ --------- MV Dixie Lee--- ----------------------------- (1)
Frank Iacono ____________ _____ ----- MV Der Ann------------ -------------- --------- 85,594 71
Joe Randazzo --------_______________ MV Endeavor (Small ) ______ 94 422 42
Mike Trama________________________ MV Fisherman-------------------------------- 37, 753 55
Robert E. Lamprecht _______________ MV Garay------------------- -------- (i)
Guiseppe Russo _ _____-_-___ MV Joan of Arc___ __________________ ----------- (i)
Don Ku,ar -------------------------- MV Lucretia IC---------------------------------
45,420 48
John Ahoto --------------------- --- MV Maria--------------------------------------
24,927 06
Joe T Lauro ________________________ MV Mercury---------------------------------- 84,915 16
W C Smith ---------- ------------- MV Nereid -------------------------
(1)
Pasquale Lauro _____________________ MV Ronnie F---------------------------- ---- 2,301 60
John di Meglio ______________________ MV San Gennaro------- ------------ ---------- 5,078 38
Tony Mattera-- ----------------- - - MV Sealanes II--------------- - ------------- (i)
N. Wolf------------------- --------- MV Sham GuI ---------------------------------
(' )
John J . Guglielmo ___________________ MV St Aniello II______________________________ 82, 523 76
John Vihcich ______ --------------- - MV Sunbeam --------------------------------- 143,310 47
Alfredo Valtino ___________-_________ MV Three Sistei s----------------------------- 15,130 24
Tom Trama------------------------ MV Tommy Boy------------------------------- 29, 850 50
Group C
W. E. Duggan ---------------------- MV City
of Long Beach ________________________ $11,136 00
Don R Marvin_____________________ MV Dorothy M -------------------------------- (i)
Joe Barber , Jr_______________________ MV New Malibu------------------------------- (i)
Frank Trama_______________________ MV N Y--------------------------------------- (i)
Group D
Tom Nishida________________________ MV Gaviota------------------------------------ $8,468 01
Group E
Amos Hashimoto ____________________ MV Wave Crest---- ---------------------------- $23,067 61
I No figures.
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO 9
Each of the following named companies operates a cannery in San Pedro Harbor,
California, where each has engaged in the business of processing, canning, and dis-
tributing tuna, sardines, mackerel, and other fish and fish products:
Coast Fisheries, Division of Quaker Oats Company
Van Camp Sea Foods Company, Inc.
French Sardine Company, a.k.a. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.
South Coast Fisheries, Inc.
F. E. Booth Company, Inc.
California Marine Curing & Packing Co.
Franco Italian Packing Co.
Pan Pacific Fisheries, Inc.
Each of these canneries ships annually directly to points located outside the
State of California canned fish and fish products valued at more than $100,000.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent, Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro, affiliated with
Seafarers' International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act and admits to membership employees of the employers
listed in section I, above.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On and since September 15, 1956, the Respondent has been party to collective-
bargaining agreements with each of the employers named in section I, above, con-
taining the following provisions:
Union Security
On or after the 30th day following an employee's first employment in the
Fishing Industry of San Pedro Harbor, or connected or associated therewith, or
following the date of this agreement, whichever is the later, such employee shall
become a member of the Union in good standing and shall, as a condition of
employment, continue and remain a member of the Union in good standing.
The parties hereto further recognize that the Union,'as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all crews covered by this agreement, does render services in
representing all said crews in collective bargaining. They further recognize
that any non-union fisherman and/or individual performing work in connection
with the boat in any of the respects covered by this collective bargaining
agreement between the Union and the Master, and in consideration of the terms
of such agreement establishing wages, hours, and working conditions, and the
services performed by the Union in securing such wages, hours, and working
conditions, shall contribute "support money" to the Union in like amount and
terms as the Union dues and assessments and other contributions required of
Union members, and pursuant to the same conditions of a person becoming or
remaining a member of the Union, and the Master agrees in further consideration
of these premises that no individual shall be permitted to perform any services
on or in connection with the boat or the operation thereof or engage actively
in any fishing trip or the operation thereof, who refuse to authorize checkoff
of the amounts herein described in like manner with the Union members. If any
fisherman fails to pay the sum due the Union, or any part thereof, the Employer
agrees that within five (5) days after receiving notice thereof from the Union,
such fisherman shall be discharged. If such fisherman is not discharged and con-
tinues to perform, services on the boat, his share of the catch shall accrue
to that of and be distributed among the:other crew members as part of their
share.
Checkoff
The Master shall pay to the Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro
one half ( i/z) of one percent (1 qo) of the gross share of each fisherman's wage
due him for his employment on the vessel, plus One Dollar ($1.00) per month,
plus any other Union assessments of which the master is notified, such amounts
representing dues to the Union, as authorized in writing by the individual mem-
bers of the crew. A check for the amount due the Union separately drawn in the
amount of the total deductions due from each crew member shall be delivered
to the agent of the Union at the Union offices in San Pedro, California This
deduction shall be made each time the crew is paid. All tuna boats shall pay
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the One Dollar ($ 1.00) per month portion of the dues to the Union for twelve
months in advance upon completion of the first trip under this contract.
It is alleged as to all the employers named in subparagraphs A, D, and E, above,
that they are members of Fishermen 's Association of San Pedro , d/b/a Fishermen's
Co-operative of San Pedro, herein called the Co-op. In its Krist Gradis, et al.,
decision,' the Board found that the Co-op was organized primarily to act as a
marketing agency but that it has in fact acted as bargaining agent for its members in
dealing with the Respondent and Local 33 . The Board further found upon an
examination of the history of bargaining with the two unions mentioned that certain
of the employers named herein had evidenced an intention to bargain jointly through
the Co-op. The Board then went on to find a unit comprising such Co-op members to
constitute one appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
The Respondent denies that the contracts with any of the employers named in
this case were arrived at by means of bargaining through the Co -op. Thus it is the
burden of the General Counsel to establish that in fact the contracts complained of
were the product of bargaining between the Respondent and employers or an em-
ployer group whose operations are in or affect commerce so as to come within the
ambit of the Board 's jurisdictional standards . Although the Board found a group
of Co-op members to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit and that this group
had evidenced an intent to bargain jointly it remains the fact that nowhere in this
record is there evidence to support a finding that the contracts in issue were arrived
at through multiemployer bargaining . I think it may not be said that the employers
in the Co-op unit described by the Board were precluded from bargaining separately
with the Respondent by that circumstance if the Respondent and the other em-
ployers concerned had no objection . Thus I think that the Board 's unit finding
affords slight basis , if any, for a presumption that the contracts involved here
eventuated from multiemployer bargaining . Because I am convinced that the
evidence does not by its preponderance support the position of the General Counsel
in this particular, I find that the allegation as to bargaining with the Co -op on behalf
of certain of its members has not been sustained.
Looking to the sales from the various vessels to the San Pedro canneries I find
that all employers whose sales amounted to $50,000 or more for the 12-month period
involved are engaged in commerce . They are listed in Appendix B, attached hereto.
Sales in such amounts to canneries whose annual out-of-State shipments exceeds
$100,000 satisfies the jurisdictional criteria of the Board. In respect to all vessels
whose sales fall short of $50,000 , it will be recommended that the complaint against
the Respondent be dismissed . As to MV S. Restituta the figures relied upon by the
General Counsel to establish jurisdiction appear to have reference to S. Restituta II,
another vessel separately owned. In any event the sales were less than $50,000.
As to owners and managers of Arlene S., City of Los Angeles , Columbia, Defense,
Delores M., Golden West, Liberator , Marsha Ann , New Sea Rover, Ronnie M., Sea
Scout, and Western Fisher, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed
for the reason that in another and contemporaneous proceeding , I have passed upon
the legality of the contract sections in issue and the matter is now before the Board
for decision . I see no reason to make a second recommendation to the same effect
as the first . Those employers whose sales were less than $50,000 and those last
named are listed in Appendix A.
Coming to the merits of the complaint , I find that the first paragraph under
"Union Security " permits and perhaps requires the interpretation that anyone who
has been "connected or associated" with the fishing industry in San Pedro Harbor
in whatever capacity be denied the statutory 30 days before his employment is con-
ditioned upon membership in or the payment of dues to the Respondent . This at-
tempt to impose upon anyone who has fished on another vessel out of San Pedro and
who perhaps is a member of another labor organization a requirement that he become
a member of Respondent immediately upon obtaining employment on vessels oper-
ating under a contract with the Respondent is unlawful . The contract provision is
overreaching for the Respondent thus imposes, upon employees not lawfully covered
by the contract , a requirement to obtain membership in or to pay dues to the Re-
spondent immediately upon gaining employment on a vessel under contract with the
Respondent.
As to the support money provision in the contract, I think it implicit in Union
Starch and Refining Company, 87 NLRB 779, enfd . 186 F 2d 1008 (C.A. 7), that
1121 NLRB 601
SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO 11
in a situation where membership in a union is open , support money provisions are
not unlawful. I find no violation of the Act in respect to the support money clause.
I find that the requirement to pay "assessments and other contribution" coupled as
it is with the threat of discharge for failure to do so imposes upon employees some-
thing more than the burden of tendering the "periodic dues and initiation fees" of
which the Act speaks. The Act does not permit that in any situation continued em-
ployment be conditioned upon any payments other than dues and initiation fees. I
conclude that the contract in this particular is unlawful.
An employee may not, be required under the Act to do more than tender dues
and initiation fees as a price of employment and may satisfy that requirement by mak-
ing the tender directly to the entitled union rather than by means of employer deduc-
tions. I find that the requirement to execute a checkoff authorization as a condition
of employment is in violation of the Act.
Crew members are not always employed for a year and the contract itself speaks
of hire for 6-month periods. I think it not a valid requirement that employees be
forced to pay a year 's dues in advance when their expectation of employment may
be substantially less than that period. Dues to the Respondent are assessed on a
_monthly.basis.and I think it reasonable to interpret the "periodic dues" as used in the
Act to refer here to monthly periods. I find the requirement to pay dues 12 months
in advance to be an unlawful one.
I do not interpret the contract as calling for the forfeiture of earnings by a crew
member who does not comply with the contract conditions and thus find no merit
in the contention of the General Counsel in that particular. Similarly, except to the
extent already found, I do not think that a fair reading of the contract imposes a
requirement that monthly dues be paid by those whose obligation to become mem-
bers of the Respondent has not matured.
Upon consideration of the findings above in respect to the contract provisions, I
find that the Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(b)
(1) (A) of the Act.
By contracting so as to impose upon crew members an obligation to become mem-
bers of the Respondent or to pay dues to it within a period of less than 30 days after
employment, to pay "assessments and other contributions," to execute a checkoff
authorization, and to pay dues 12 months in advance, all as a condition of employ-
ment, the Respondent has caused or attempted to cause the employers listed in
Appendix B to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act and has thereby violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the employers and canneries described in section 1,
above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent is party to collective-bargaining agreements con-
taining unlawful provisions with the employers listed in Appendix B, attached hereto,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from giving effect to the
union-security and checkoff provisions of such contracts. It would not effectuate the
policies of the Act to permit the Respondent to retain any payments which have been
unlawfully exacted from the crew members of such employers. In order therefore
that the remedy be commensurate with the unfair labor practices found it will be
recommended that the Respondent reimburse all such crew members who since the
date beginning 6 months prior to the filing and service of the charge herein have been
required as a condition of continued employment to pay dues, initiation fees, assess-
ments, or any other contributions to the Respondent.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1 The employers listed in Appendix B are the employers of their crew members
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2 The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By contracting with the employers listed in Appendix B to require membership
in or the payment of dues to the Respondent before the expiration of 30 days after
date of hire; by conditioning employment upon the execution of checkoff authoriza-
tions and the payment of assessments and other contributions; and by requiring pay-
ment of dues 12 months in advance, the Respondent has attempted to cause the said
employers to discriminate against crew members in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
4. By this conduct the Respondent has restrained and coerced crew members of
the aforesaid employers in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Because of jurisdictional and other considerations, no violation of the Act is
found in respect to contracts running between the Respondent and the employers
listed in Appendix A.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
VESSELS OF EMPLOYERS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENT WHOSE OP-
ERATIONS Do NOT SUFFICIENTLY AFFECT COMMERCE TO WARRANT THE AS-
SERTION OF JURISDICTION
Bella Marie Joan of Arc S. Teresa
Carol Jo Ann Lucretia K. Saint Rita
Charlotte Maria San Gennaro
City of Long Beach Nereid San Raffaele
City of Pacific Grove New Malibu San Silverio
Corregidor II N.Y. Sea Lanes II
Dixie Lee Patriotic Shani Girl
Dorothy M. Pier (Ralphy Boy) Stranger
Fisherman Robert M. Tacoma
Fortress Ronnie F. Three Sisters
Garey Russo 'Bros. Tommy Boy
Gaviota S. Restituta Vittoria
J. Ernandez S. G. Giuseppe Wave Crest
VESSELS OF EMPLOYERS WHOSE CONTRACT RELATION TO THE RESPONDENT HAS
BEEN LITIGATED IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING
Arlene S. Delores M. New Sea Rover
City of Los Angeles Golden West Ronnie M.
Columbia Liberator Sea Scout
Defense Marsha Ann Western Fisher
APPENDIX B
VESSELS OF EMPLOYERS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENT WHOSE OPERA-
TIONS AFFECT COMMERCE SUFFICIENTLY TO WARRANT THE ASSERTION OF
JURISDICTION
American Venture Lucy Ann St. Aniello II
Anthony M. Mercury St. Augustine II
California New San Antonio St. Christina
City of Naples Nyna Rose St. Christopher
Dor Ann ' Nyna Rose II St. George II
Endeavor (Small) Redeemer St Lucia II
Endeavor (Large) San Antonio IV Sea Maid
A. A.,Ferrante Santa Rita Stella Maris
Gigi Santa Maria Sunbeam
E. S. Lucido Santa Teresa Windward