Van Camp Sea Food Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

VAN CAMP SEA FOOD CO. 537
Van Camp Sea Food Company and United Cannery &
Industrial Workers of the Pacific, Los Angeles and
Vicinity District, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 37-
RC-1916
July 23, 1974
RULING ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
Having duly considered the Petitioner's appeal
from the Regional Director's administrative dismissal
of the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction over the
territory of American Samoa, the Board finds as fol-
lows:
On November 14, 1973, Petitioner filed a petition
to represent a unit of the 600 production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer at its location on
the island of American Samoa. The Regional Director
administratively dismissed the petition under the au-
thority of Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 172 NLRB 1467,
wherein the Board held that American Samoa, an
unincorporated, unorganized territory,' was not with-
in the jurisdiction of the Act. In its appeal, the Peti-
tioner urges that the 1972 Supreme Court decision in
U.S. v. Standard Oil of California,2 wherein American
Samoa was found to be a covered territory within the
meaning of the Sherman Act, compels a reversal of
Star-Kist. We agree.
In ruling in the Star-Kist case that Samoa was not
a "Territory" within the meaning of Section 2(6) of
the Act,' the Board drew a distinction between orga-
nized and unorganized territories. However, in Stan-
dard Oil the Supreme Court in defining the scope of
the word "Territory" as used in section 3 of the Sher-
man Act 4 rejected the dichotomy between organized
and unorganized territories and concluded that
American Samoa was a covered territory on the broad
i The status of "incorporation" denotes a territory declared by statute or
treaty to be a part of the United States The term "organized" refers to
Congssional establishment of a system of local self-government.
244 U.S. 558, rehearing denied 405 U.S. 969.
3 Sec 2(6) of the Act defines "commerce" as:
trade, traffic, commerce transportation , 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
foreign 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.
° Sec. 3 provides in pertinent part;
Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise , or conspi-
racy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United
States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or com-
merce between any such Territory and another, or between any such
Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Colum-
bia, or with foreign nations , or between the District of Columbia and
any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal
view that "Congress intended by [Section] 3 `to exert
all the power it possessed in respect [to] the subject
matter-trade and commerce . . . [and] to include all
territories to which its powers might extend....' "
Contrary to the Employer, the Board is convinced
that this holding of the Supreme Court is equally ap-
plicable to the word "Territory" as used in Section
2(6) of the Act, for it is clear that in regulating labor
relations under the Act, the Congress intended to
exercise fully the same plenary and comprehensive
commerce power which it had exercised in regulating
commerce under the Sherman Act.5
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board finds that
it has statutory jurisdiction over American Samoa.
Furthermore, as it appears that other aspects of labor
relations in American Samoa are regulated by other
Federal legislation,' the Board finds that it would ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over any person who satisfied our jurisdictional stan-
dards?
Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby reinstat-
ed and the case is remanded to the Regional Director
for further processing.
CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. If we
are correct, as I think we are, in reading the Supreme
Court's decision in Standard Oil of California, 404
U.S. 558(1972), as rendering erroneous our previous
view that American Samoa was without our jurisdic-
See , e.g, Ronrico Corporation, 53 NLRB 1137, 1143, and N.LR.B v
Gonzalez Padm Co., 161 F.2d 353 (C A, 1, 1947).
6 For example, The Fair Labor Standard Act, 29 U.S.C . 201, et seq, and
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U S.C §
401, et seq
7 We agree with our dissenting colleague that the Board, subject to the
proviso of Sec. 14(c)(1) of the Act, is empowered to decline to assert jurisdic-
tion when it appears that such an assertion ofjunsdiction would not effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Contrary to our dissenting colleague , however for
the reasons stated in the majority decision , particularly the rejection of any
distinction between "organized" and "unorganized" territories by the Su-
preme Court in defining the word "Territory" in the Standard Oil decision,
we feel the ambit of the Court' s decision requires a similar definition of the
word "Territory" in Sec 2(6) of our Act. Thus, on the basis of the clear
import of the Court' s decision , we have concluded that the Board has statuto-
ry jurisdiction over American Samoa . Further, as explicated in our decision,
other Federal labor statutes are applied over enterprises in American Samoa
and our discretionary power to continue to decline jurisdiction is no longer
warranted Our agency has an obligation to interpret and follow the trend
of the Supreme Court's decisions as they presently or may affect the Act we
administer In view of the Court's decision, we do not deem the continued
pendency of H R . 756 as precluding our following the interpretation of the
Supreme Court regarding a commerce clause similar to the one in our Act
Thus, our action here is based on cogent reasons We are not here asserting
jurisdiction over this Employer or any other employer without a hearing Our
decision merely reinstates the petition earlier dismissed by the Regional
Director and remands it to him for further processing The parties have an
opportunity to raise any relevant issues they desire, if they so choose, at a
representation hearing. Finally, in response to the contention that additional
appropriations may be required, we say only that the proper exercise of the
mandate under our Act is sometimes more costly than at other times ; howev-
er, while we strive to exercise caution in the expenditure of the appropriations
entrusted to our agency, we shall not do so to the exclusion of extending the
protection of our Act to those entitled to it
212 NLRB No. 76
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion as an unorganized territory, then I simply see no
rational legal basis on which we can decline jurisdic-
tion here. Whatever our concerns about the costs, or
administrative difficulties incident to accepting the
Supreme Court's determination, I see no more legal
basis for declining jurisdiction over a substantial tuna
canning factory operated by a manufacturer, which
happens to be located in American Samoa than would
exist if it were located in Hawaii (assuming the com-
merce data which will be forthcoming in the course of
our processing this petition shows that this Employer
meets our jurisdictional standards).
Member Kennedy's colorful rhetoric 8 offers, in my
view, no adequate rebuttal to careful and rational
legal analysis:
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting:
I would affirm the Regional Director's dismissal of
the petition herein. Assuming arguendo that the Board
has statutory jurisdiction over American Samoa, I be-
lieve that it would not effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
In its discretion, the Board, subject to the proviso
of Section 14(c)(1) of the Act, is empowered to decline
to assert jurisdiction? The Board has not previously
asserted jurisdiction over firms located in American
Samoa. See Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 172 NLRB
1467(1968). Indeed, the Board has declined jurisdic-
tion over the Pago Pago plant with which we are here
concerned. See Van Camp Sea Food Division, 172
NLRB 1469(1968). No cogent reason has been pre-
sented for the assertion of jurisdiction over such firms
at this time.
Contrary to my colleagues, I do not construe the
Supreme Court's decision in the Standard Oil case
(which involved interpretation of sec. 3 of the Sher-
man Anti-Trust Act) as a signal to this Board to assert
jurisdiction in American Samoa.1° I have no intention
of defying or disregarding a decision of the United
States Supreme Court. I find no statement in the cited
case which can be fairly interpreted as an instruction
or suggestion that we no longer have discretion to
refrain from asserting jurisdiction in American Samoa
on policy grounds.
My colleagues correctly point out that other Feder-
al labor statutes are applied over enterprises in
American Samoa. They ignore the fact that Congress
has expressly directed that the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., be applied to territories.
"And may there be no moaning at the Bar / When I put out to sea"
etc.
9 In Facilities Management Corporation, 202 NLRB 1 144 (1973), the Board
declined to assert jurisdiction over an employer located on Wake Island
10 A single case hardly qualifies as a "trend "
There is no such mandate in our Act.
Congress has been aware of our earlier decisions
declining to assert jurisdiction in American Samoa. It
is significant, in my view, that H.R. 756, which was
introduced in January 1973 and which provided for
the coverage of our Act in American Samoa, has not
been adopted by the Congress. The failure of the Con-
gress to pass that legislation justifies the conclusion
that a majority of the Congress does not favor our
assertion of jurisdiction in American Samoa. I note
that the Board's refusal to assert jurisdiction in the
earlier decisions in the Van Camp Sea Food Division
and Star-Kist Samoa cases were predicated in part
upon the "absence of a clear congressional mandate."
It cannot be doubted that the decision of my col-
leagues to assert jurisdiction in American Samoa will
require a substantial increase in congressional appro-
priations for the operation of this Agency. In my view,
it is unwise to expand our jurisdiction by decision
when Congress has expressly considered and failed to
approve such expansion. I believe it unseemly for the
Board to enlarge jurisdiction in the absence of con-
gressional action and then attempt to justify larger
appropriations. I would await congressional direction
to assert jurisdiction in American Samoa and the
Agency would then be in a better posture to seek
increased appropriations.
If there are cogent reasons for asserting jurisdiction
in this case, my colleagues should state them. I recog-
nize that it is the prerogative of a majority of this
Board to expand its jurisdiction. So long as there is
legal jurisdiction, I think it unlikely that reviewing
courts will interfere with such expansion. If this is the
judgment of my colleagues, so be it. Henceforth, how-
ever, I trust, we will be spared the familiar' refrain that
the Board's caseload is increasing." If we are unwill-
ing to adhere to the wise judgments of our predeces-
sors in declining jurisdiction of policy grounds, we
should not belabor our rising caseload. See my dissent
in Allen & O'Hara Developments, Incorporated d/b/a
Illini Tower, 210 NLRB 355(1974).
For the reasons stated, I believe that the purposes
of the Act would not be effectuated by the assertion
of jurisdiction in this case.
11 See address by Chairman Miller. Labor Law Conference, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana , January 22, 1971, National Law-
yers Club, Washington, D.C, May 27, 1971, Pacific Coast Labor Law Con-
ference, May 12, 1972; Symposium of the Allegheny County Bar Association,
May 26, 1972, Labor Relations Law Section, ABA Annual Convention,
Washington , D.C August 7, 1973.
Addresses by Member Fanning - Fourth Annual Federal Trial Examiners
Conference Washington, D C., September 1966, Fifth Annual Labor Rela-
tions Institute , Atlanta, Georgia, November 21, 1968 ; 14th Annual South-
eastern Conference on Current Trends in Collective Bargaining, Knoxville,
Tennessee , November 21, 1969; Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Bar
Association , New Haven, Connecticut October 19, 1970, Labor Law Semi-
nar, Kansas City , Missouri , March 25, 1970