United Fruit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
135
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
We WILL NOT discourage membership by any of our employees in United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer Robert Malcolm and Melvin Johnson immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE WILL make them, and Donald Sweeney, whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of the disciiinrnation against them, in the
manner described in the Trial Examiner's Decision.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities, tell
them they can earn more money without a union and will earn less with a
union representing them, create the impression among the employees of
company surveillance by telling them management representatives know the
identity of union proponents, offer more favorable recommendations to
employees as a condition foi their voting against a union, or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization. to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of any labor organization.
J. DUNCAN COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE -We will notify Robert Malcolm and Melvin Johnson if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must iemain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108,
Telephone 223-3353.
United Fruit Company and National Maritime Union of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 2-RC-14173. June 10, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Wilbur H. Friedman. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with the
Board.
159 NLRB No. 4.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case;'the National Labor Relations
Board finds : T, -
The Petitioner -seeks to represent the Employer's clerical employ-
ees who are employed in the Canal Zone. The Employer urges that
the petition should be dismissed,on the grounds that the Act does
not apply to the employees in question, and that the requested unit is
inappropriate.
The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place
of business in Boston, Massachusetts, operates throughout, the United
States and in various countries of Central and, South America, where
it is engaged in, inter alia, the business of 'providing transportation
in interstate and foreign commerce. The employees whom -the Peti-
tioner seeks to represent are Panamanian nationals. Their work is
performed at the Employer's shipping terminal in the Canal • Zone,
and the Employer pays them wages in accord with the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. They reside outside of the Canal
Zone, are forbidden to make purchases in the Canal Zone, are sub-
ject to the laws of the Republic of" Panama, and pay taxes to
Panama.
The Employer urges that the Canal Zone is not a State, foreign
country, or territory within the commerce definition in the Act.' The
Petitioner asserts, on the other hand, that the Act applies to these
operations of the Employer in view of the sovereignty over the Canal
Zone granted to the United States under the treaty of 1903 between
the United States and the Republic of Panama. We note, however,
that these two countries are currently negotiating the terms of a new
treaty, to replace the 1903 treaty and its amendments, which will
govern the relationship between them with respect to the area of the
Canal Zone. The President of the United States has announced that
the two countries have already agreed that the 1903 treaty will be
abrogated; that the new treaty will effectively recognize Panama's
sovereignty over the area of the present Canal Zone; and that a pri-
mary objective of the new treaty will be to provide for an appropriate
political, economic, and social integration of the area used in the canal
operation with the rest of the Republic of Panama?
In all the relevant circumstances, and without reaching the ques-
tion whether the Board in fact has jurisdiction over the Employer's
'Section 2(6) of the Act defines "commerce " as "trade, traffic , commerce , transporta-
tion, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or
any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory , or between any for-
eign country and any State , Territory , or the District of Columbia , or within the District
of Columbia or any Territory , or between points in the same State but through any other
State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country."
2 statement by the President on the Progress of Treaty Negotiations with Panama, re-
leased by the Office of the White House Press Secretary , September 24, 1965. Although
this statement is not a part of the record in this proceeding , it is a public document of
which we take official notice.
GRAND LODGE INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 137
operations with respect to the employees involved in this proceeding,
we deem it inappropriate to assert jurisdiction in the instant proceed-
ing. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition.3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
s In view of this disposition , we find it unnecessary to consider the unit grounds on
which the Employer urged that the petition he dismissed.
Grand Lodge International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO and I.A.M. Representatives Associa-
tion, Petitioner
Grand Lodge International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers , AFL-CIO, Employer-Petitioner , and I.A.M.
Representatives Association Union. Cases 10-RC-6555 and 10-
RM-433. June 10, 1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Scott P. Watson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs were filed by I.A.M. Representatives Association and Grand
Lodge International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner and Employer
respectively.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, ,the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. Based on a stipulation of the parties, we find that the Employer
is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor orga-
nization . The record shows that the Petitioner, an organization in
which employees participate, was recently organized for the purpose
of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, and working conditions. Although the Peti-
tioner as yet has no constitution or elected officers, meetings of those
eligible for membership have been conducted, and the Petitioner has
filed the petition in Case 10-RC-6555. The Petitioner sought recog-
nition as collective-bargaining representative, and bargaining, on
behalf of those who have designated it gas their representative, upon
159 NLRB No. 25.