Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1211 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. 1211
situation, there were no employees within the amended unit either
at the time that the original petition was filed, or at the time of the
hearing, when the Petitioner amended its proposed unit. Under these
circumstances, we find that no question concerning representation of
employees of the Employer exists within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) of the Act.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition without prejudice to the
filing of a new petition when the Petitioner may and does make a
substantial showing of interest among employees sought.
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is hereby ordered that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed in
the instant case be, and it is hereby, dismissed without prejudice.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. and BERING SEA FISHERMEN 'S UNION,
PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-746. Jwne 15,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard A. McIntyre, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning. of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of resident fishermen , set netters,
beachmen, net tenders, boat crews (including cooks on tenders and
tally scows), mess house employees, tally men, and utility men em-
ployed by the Employer in the Bristol Bay area, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, machinists, carpenters, radio operators, doctors and
nurses, timekeepers, storekeepers, resident and nonresident inside can-
94 NLRB No. 204.
1212 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eery workers, mess house employees serving nonresident inside can=
eery workers, guards, other employees, and supervisors. The Em-
ployer and Alaska Fishermen's Union, herein called the Intervenor,
contend that the proposed unit limited to resident employees is inap>
propriate for bargaining purposes. They further contend that boat
crews, mess house employees, tally men, and utility men should be in-
cluded in a separate bargaining unit, alleging a separate bargaining,
history for employees in these categories.
The Employer is a nonprofit corporation composed of member
companies who are engaged'in the catching and canning of salmon in
Alaska.' Since 1902 the Employer has bargained with the Intervenor
and its predecessor for fishermen, set netters, beachmen, and net tend-
ers operating in the Bristol Bay area. In 1937 the Employer recog-
nized the Intervenor as bargaining representative for its boat crews;
mess house employees, tally men, and utility men employed in the
same area. The Employer and the Intervenor thereupon entered
into a supplemental. agreement setting up scales for wage payments
covering these'new categories and making the master contract cover-
ing fishermen and other categories both applicable to the new cate-
gories and an integral. part of the supplemental contract. Since that
time the parties have continued to make their master contract appli-
cable to employees in all categories represented by the Intervenor and
have continued to set forth in a separately executed document, ex-
pressly incorporating the master agreement, provisions for the coin-
pensation of boat crews, mess house employees, tally men, and utility
men.
All these contracts have covered employees in the categories named
without regard to residence. Cannery workers of the Employer, on
the other hand, for reasons set forth in the earlier decision cited above,
have traditionally bargained in separate units of resident and non-
resident employees, respectively. The considerations which prompted
.the Board to separate for purposes of collective bargaining, resident
and nonresident cannery workers do not obtain in the matter of fisher-
men and the related categories herein concerned.
In biew of the long bargaining history for resident and nonresident
fishermen and related, categories in a single bargaining -unit, and
the absence of any showing that essentially different working con-
ditions now obtained among these employees on the basis of their
.residence, we reject the primary contention of the Petitioner for a
' The business of the Employer and its members is set forth in an earlier decision.
A laska Salmon Industry, Inc., et al., 61 NLRB 1508.
In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we find that the Employer 's fishermen
in the Bristol Bay area, unlike Alaskan fishermen in other areas , are employees of the
Employer and not independent contractors. See Alaska Salmon Industry , Inc., 81 NLRB
1335 ; 82 NLRB 1056.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. 1213
separate unit of resident workers.2 We likewise reject the contention
of..the Employer and the Intervenor that past bargaining history
justifies 'a separate bargaining unit for boat crews, mess house em-
ployees, tally men, and utility, men, as set forth above. It is true that
employees in these categories were first included in the bargaining
negotiations between the Employer and the Intervenor more than 30
years after negotiations had first been had for fishermen, and that
wage agreements for the added group were set forth in a separate
-document. The, fact, however; that the master contract .and the -sup-
plemental' contract were executed on the same day and. the master
contract was expressly made 'part of the supplemental contract pre-
cludes our finding that the later added employees were regarded as a
separate bargaining unit by the contracting parties. Moreover, the
common working conditions of, all employees in the work categories
sought by the Petitioner reflect their common interests and indicate
,they properly form a single bargaining unit.
On the basis of the above facts, and the entire record in this case,
we find that all resident and nonresident fishermen, set netters, beach-
nien, net tenders, boat crews (including cooks, on tenders and tally
scows), mess house employees, tally men, and utility men employed by
,the Employer in the Bristol Bay area, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, machinists, carpenters, radio operators, doctors. and nurses,
timekeepers, storekeepers, resident and nonresident inside cannery
workers, mess house employees serving nonresident inside cannery
workers, guards, other employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. .
5. The salmon industry is highly seasonal . Fish and Wild Life
,Service of the Department of the Interior determines the extent of
the open fishing season for salmon in the Bristol Bay area and desig-
nates the specific days during this period when fishing may be done.
The open season runs approximately from June 25 to July 25. Seven-
teen possible fishing days are anticipated during the 1951 season.
The Employer's superintendent may, however, stop the delivery of
.fish to the Employer before the close of the salmon fishing season de-
termined by the Government. Payment for services performed dur-
ing the season by employees in the appropriate unit is computed at the
close of the season.
We shall direct the Regional Director to hold an election at such
time in the discretion of the Regional. Director as there is peak em-
ployment and there are no unfair labor practice charges present,,
2 The Board has consistently refused to establish units based upon special considerations.
unrelated to work interests and functions . See U. S. Bedding Comnpany ;% 52 NLRB 382;
The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, 67 NLRB 100 . The instant record, does not show
' special considerations related to work interests for residents and nonresidents , respectively..
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among employees in the appropriate unit who are employed on a
day to be selected by the Regional Director when a representative
number of such persons may be employed, subject to the limitations
set forth in the Direction of Election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
THE JACOBS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOCAL 379, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-CA-513. June 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On June 28, 1950, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent 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 copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case. It hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the
extent that they are consistent with the additions and modifications
hereinafter set forth.
1. In July 1948, the Respondent and the Union executed a 2-year
bargaining contract which, by its terms, could be reopened 1 year after
its execution date for discussion of "wage rates." In July 1949 the
Union invoked the reopening clause of the 1948 contract, and there-
after gave the Respondent written notice of its "wage demands." In
addition to a request for a wage increase, these demands included a
request that the Respondent undertake the entire cost of an existing
group insurance program, and another request for the establishment
of a pension plan for the Respondent's employees. When the parties
met thereafter to consider the Union's demands, the Respondent re-
fused to discuss the Union's pension and insurance requests on the
I Article XIX, section 5 , of the 1948 contract stated : "After the expiration of one year
from the date hereof either party may request a meeting after fifteen days ' written notice,
the purpose of which shall be to discuss wage rates of employees covered by this
agreement . . .11
94 NLRB No. 175.