Timbalier Towing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

TIMBALIER TOWING CO. 613
Timbalier Towing Company , Inc.' and Inland Boat-
men's Union of Seafarers ' International Union of
North America Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland
Waters District, AFL-CIO. Case 15-RC-5240
January 22, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PF.NFLI.O
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerry
Boykin. After the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 15, this proceeding was transferred to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Petitioner, Em-
ployer, and Intervenor2 filed briefs in support of
their respective positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the
National Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer recognized the Intervenor as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
its marine personnel on the MV Shawnee on August
1, 1973, on the basis of signed authorization cards. At
that time it signed a recognition agreement providing
that it would obtain marine personnel for the MV
Shawnee through the Intervenor; that the parties
would meet within 30 days to complete negotiations
for a collective-bargaining agreement; that, pending
such agreement, there would he no changes in terms
of employment without mutual agreement; that if an
agreement was reached by September 1, 1973, it
would be applied retroactively with respect to wages
and welfare and pension benefits; that there would
be no strike or lockout; and that the agreement could
be terminated by either party on 7 days' written
notice on or after September 1, 1973.
On August 29, 1973, the Petitioner filed a petition
for an election accompanied by sufficient signed
authorization cards to demonstrate its interest in the
unit. The report on the investigation of the Petition-
er's interest in the unit shows that its cards were
obtained on August 9, 1973.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the
petition is barred by the Employer's good-faith
recognition of the Intervenor, which requires that
they be given a reasonable period of time to
negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement. The
Petitioner contends that the contract is not for a
definite period and cannot act as a bar. It also
contends that the Employer's recognition of the
Intervenor is not a bar because there was no card
check by an impartial person and because its cards
were signed only 7 days after Intervenor's cards.
Because we find that, in the circumstances, recogni-
tion does bar the petition, we do not reach or pass
upon the contention that the contract is not a bar.
There is no requirement in the Act or in precedent
that valid recognition of a labor organization on the
basis of signed authorization cards, and in the
absence of competing claims, may occur only after a
card check by a disinterested party. We have
previously found recognition accorded to a union in
the absence of such a check a bar to an election.3
Nor do we find the fact that Petitioner's cards were
signed "only" 7 days after Intervenor's significant.
What is significant is that they were obtained after
recognition of the. Intervenor.
Petitioner does not contend that recognition was
extended to Intervenor after it began organizing, nor
does it contend that the Employer was aware that it
intended to launch an organizing campaign at the
time it recognized the Intervenor. Petitioner does not
contend, nor does it advance facts which would
suggest, that recognition of the Intervenor was not in
good faith, or that the Intervenor did not represent a
valid majority of the employees in the unit.
The Employer examined the Intervenor's authori-
zation cards and fully satisfied itself that the
Intervenor rightfully represented a majority of the
employees in the unit which all parties have agreed is
appropriate. In those circumstances, and in the
absence of any competing claim, the Employer was
then bound to, and did, recognize the Intervenor.
Thereafter the Employer and the Intervenor signed a
preliminary agreement, terminable on proper notice,
contemplating, and providing the basis for, negotia-
tion of a comprehensive collective-bargaining agree-
ment as well as memorializing recognition of the
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. AFL-CIO.
2 Associated Maritime Workers , Local No 8, a/w International a Dale's Super Valu, Inc, 181 NLRB 698
208 NLRB No. 89
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor. But that is a separate matter, neither
affecting the validity of the Employer's recognition
of the Intervenor nor its effect.
We have previously held that the good-faith
recognition of a labor organization on the basis of a
demonstrated majority, when no other labor organi-
zation is engaged in organizing, supports a presump-
tion of continuing majority and bars an election for a
reasonable period of time to permit the parties to
negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement.4 The
Intervenor was recognized August 1, 1973. The
petition was filed August 29, 1973. We conclude that
the 4 weeks which elapsed between these events was
not a reasonable period and that the petition is
barred by the prior recognition of the Intervenor. We
shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
4 Eg., Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc, 157 NLRB 583, Dale's Super Valu,
Inc, supra