Delaware-New Jersey Ferry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1935

1 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 1935)

In the Matter of DELAWARE-NEW JERSEY FERRY COMPANY and'
MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION No. 13
Case No. C-41-Decided December 30, 1935
Water Transportation Industry-Evidence-Unit Appropriate for Collective-
Bargaining : craft ; distinctiveness of occupation ; licensed personnel-Represent-
atives: proof of choice : membership in union ; statement designating-Collective
Bargaining: refusal to negotiate with representatives.
Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arkel and Mr. Nathan Witt for the Board.
Lewis, Wolff cfi Gourlay, by Mr. Otto Wolff, Jr., of Philadelphia,.
Pa., for respondent.
Mr. M. Herbert S,yme, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Laurence A. Knapp, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
A charge having theretofore been filed with the Regional Director-
for Region Four by Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association No. 13
(hereinafter referred to as the Association), the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the said Regional Director, issued its complaint in this.
proceeding on October 19, 1935, charging the Delaware-New Jersey
Ferry Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) with
having committed an unfair labor practice affecting commerce in vio-
lation of Section 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, by reason-
of its refusal to bargain collectively with the Association as the rep-
resentative of the marine engineers employed by respondent.
The complaint states that the respondent, a Delaware corporation,
is engaged in the operation of ferry boats for the transportation of
vehicles and persons in interstate commerce between New Castle, Dela-
ware and Pennsville, New Jersey, and between Wilmington, Delaware
and Pennsgrove, New Jersey; that the marine engineers employed by-
respondent in the mechanical operation of such ferry boats constitute
an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining; that a
majority of those engineers authorized the Association to represent
them for the purpose of collective bargaining with the respondent;
that, as so authorized, the Association, by Warren C. Evans, its busi-
ness manager , sought to bargain collectively with the respondent in
behalf of the employees referred to; and that, on September 27, 1935,.
85
86 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent refused so to bargain . Prior to the hearing on the
complaint the respondent filed a motion to dismiss and an answer.
The motion to dismiss , predicated entirely on constitutional grounds,
was denied by the Trial Examiner assigned by the Board to hear the
case.
In its answer , the respondent denies that it is engaged in transpor-
tation in interstate commerce; admits that it refused to bargain col-
lectively with the representative of the Association; but denies knowl-
edge of his authority to represent the engineers , affirmatively alleging
that nq proof of that authority was produced. The answer also denies
that the engineers constitute an appropriate unit for collective
bargaining.
With the proceedings in this stage, the testimony and evidence were
taken by the Trial Examiner on October 31, 1935, pursuant to the
notice of hearing. All parties were present and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner rendered
his intermediate report finding the charge of the complaint sustained,
to which report the respondent filed various exceptions . The follow-
ing are our findings upon the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
1. The respondent is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware . It operates ferry boats for the
transportation of persons and vehicles for hire across the Delaware
River between New Castle, Delaware and Pennsville, New Jersey,
and between Wilmington, Delaware and Pennsgrove, New Jersey,
pursuant to express authority conferred in its corporate charter "to
maintain and operate ferries across the Delaware River and Bay
between the States of Delaware and New Jersey." At least two
boats are operated on regular schedule at each crossing throughout
the year. During the summer season four are in operation at the
New Castle-Pennsville crossing.
2. The number of vehicles transported by respondent at both cross-
ings for the years from 1930-1934 , inclusive , varied from approxi-
mately 500,000 in 1930 to approximately 650,000 in 1934, with the
first five months of 1935 showing a twenty-five per cent increase in
vehicles carried over the corresponding months of 1934. Approxi-
mately two -thirds of the vehicles transported over a period of years
have borne license tags of states other than New Jersey or Delaware,
and approximately fifteen per cent of all motor vehicles transported
during- such period have been commercial trucks carrying various
manufactured and agricultural products..
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 87
3. Both crossings maintained by respondent are strategically lo-
cated with reference to interstate highway traffic. The New Castle-
Pennsville crossing is a segment of U. S. Highway No. 40, a trans-
continental highway commonly known as the "National Highway,"
running between Atlantic City, New Jersey and the Pacific Coast.
Both crossings are readily accessible from U. S. Highway No. 1, a
main interstate highway running north and south through the east-
ern states and connecting, in the states near Delaware, the following
cities : Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark and
New York.
4. Both crossings are particularly advantageous to through inter-
state traffic between New York City and such points as Wilmington,
Baltimore and Washington. Immediately upon entering New Jersey
from respondent's New Castle-Pennsville crossing, U. S. Highway
No. 40 connects with U. S. Highway No. 130, a main arterial high-
way to and from New York City. U. S. Highway No. 130 is equally
accessible from respondent's Wilmington-Pennsgrove crossing. U. S.
Highway No. 130 runs generally north and south in New Jersey be-
tween Pennsgrove and Pennsville, and a point near New Brunswick,
where it merges with U. S. Highway No. 1 to follow a jointly-
occupied highway to New York City. Lying on the eastern side of
the Delaware River, U. S. Highway No. 130 necessarily avoids Wil-
mington and Philadelphia. It circles Camden and passes by Tren-
ton. The area through which it passes is considerably less con-
gested than the area along the western bank of the Delaware River,
through which other highways run on subtantially parallel lines.
A considerable saving of time is effected for the distance between
New Castle or Wilmington and New Brunswick by crossing the
Delaware on respondent's ferries and following U. S. Highway No.
130 rather than the routes on the western bank.
5. On a highway map published by respondent advertising its
crossings, respondent claims :
"THE SHORTEST ROUTES AND FASTEST from NEW YORK TO
WASHINGTON and from the SOUTH & WEST TO ATLANTIC CITY
are via the DELAWARE-NEW JERSEY FERRIES. Avoid congested
areas and save time and mileage by using the ferry routes."
Respondent further advertises its boats as of "75 car capacity, the
largest on the Delaware."
6. Actual transportation of vehicles and passengers on the Waters
of the Delaware River in respondent's ferries occurs entirely within
the State of Delaware, respondent's ferry slips at Pennsgrove and
Pennsville being physically situated 700 feet and 450 feet, respec-
tively, west of the low-water mark on the New Jersey shore. That
97571-36-vol i-7
88 NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mark constitutes the eastern boundary of the State of Delaware at
Pennsgrove and Pennsville.
7. Vehicles and passengers received into and discharged from re-
spondent 's ferries at its slips on the New Jersey side approach from
and proceed to New Jersey territory over pier structures entirely
owned by respondent and continuously extending into New Jersey
territory from the slips . There is no other method of ingress or
egress available on the New Jersey side at either crossing , and the
land immediately adjoining the river ,at both points on the New Jer-
sey side is owned by respondent . Interstate traffic between Delaware
and New Jersey proceeds over instrumentalities and property entirely
owned and maintained for the purpose of such transportation by
respondent.
8. In its operations at both crossings respondent is engaged in the
transportation of persons and property in interstate commerce and is
an instrumentality of such commerce.
H. RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES-THE ENGINEERS AS A UNIT
9. In the operation and maintenance of its.ferry boats, respondent
employs three classes of personnel between which sharp distinctions
exist , namely, pilots , engineers and unlicensed personnel or crew.
10. Each of respondent 's ferries carries one pilot. The pilot is in
general command of each vessel , its personnel and movements. He
must be licensed as such by the Steamboat Inspection Service of the
United States Department of Commerce (R. S. § 4426; U. S. C.,
Title 46, § 404 ). With certain minor exceptions , no person may re-
ceive such a license who has not served at least three years in the deck
department of a steam vessel ( Rules and Reg., Board of Supervis-
ing Inspectors of the Steamboat Inspection Service, March 2, 1931,
Rule V , Sec. 34 ). In addition to qualification by experience , a pilot
must also satisfy the Steamboat Inspection Service as to his knowl-
edge and skill and be found to be trustworthy and faithful (R. S.
§ 4442; U. S. C., Title 46, § 214 ). In order to obtain an extension of
route beyond the limits prescribed in his existing license, a pilot must
pass a further written examination at the hands of the local inspectors
having jurisdiction (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 , c. 334, 38 Stat . 765; Rules
and Reg., supra, Rule V, Sec . 35). In various other respects peculiar
to his special functions, a pilot is subject to strict regulation (See,
Rules and Reg., supra , Rule V, Secs. 1-25, 34-37, incl., and statutes
there cited).
It. Each of respondent 's ferries carries one engineer , whose main
responsibility while the ferry is under way is that of operating the
engines under signals from the pilot. In addition , he is responsible
for the maintenance and repair of the engines, as well as all other
mechanical equipment . The engineer is an officer (R. S. § 4131;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 89
U. S. C. Title 46, § 221) and must be licensed as such by the Steam-
boat Inspection Service (R. S. § 4426; U. S. C., Title 46, § 404). No
applicant for a license as third assistant engineer of a steam ferry,
the lowest rank provided for by the Rules and Regulations of the
Steamboat Inspection Service, may receive such a license unless he
has had :
"First. Three years' service in the engine department of steam
vessels, or,
"Second. One year's service as stationary engineer, together
with one year's service in the engine department of steam ves-
sels, or,
"Third. Two years' service as an apprentice to the machinist
trade and engaged in the construction and repair of marine,
stationary, or locomotive engines, together with one year's serv-
ice in the engine department of steam vessels." (Rule V, Sec.
43.)
Corresponding requirements are imposed for a similar position
on motor vessels (Rule V, Sec. 51).
In addition to qualifications of experience, the applicant'for an
engineer's license must satisfy the examining inspectors that "his
character, habits of life, knowledge and experience in the duties of
an engineer are all such as to authorize a belief that he is a suitable
and safe person to be intrusted with the powers and duties of such a
station", and it is the duty of the inspectors to suspend or revoke the
license upon satisfactory proof of "negligence, unskillfulness, intem-
perance, or willful violation" of applicable laws of Congress, and
specifically to revoke the license upon proof that the holder has
permitted the boilers in his charge to "become in bad condition"
or "that he has not kept his engine and machinery in good working
order . . . " (R. S. § 4441; U. S. C., Title 46, § 229). No license is
granted for a longer period than five years and may be renewed at
expiration only upon further examination (R: S. § 4441, supra).
By various other Acts of Congress and rules of the Steamboat
Inspection Service, engineers are subject to strict regulation in the
exercise of their peculiar duties and responsibilities. (See, Rules
and Reg., supra, Rule V, Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 39-50 incl.,
and various Acts of Congress there cited.)
12. The remaining employees carried in service on each of re-
spondent's ferries consist of a quartermaster, two deck-hands and a
fireman or oiler. None of these employees need be licensed, and they
are commonly referred to as unlicensed personnel. The quarter-
master assists the pilot, principally in actual navigation. The duties
of the deck-hands, are discernible from their, name. The fireman
and oilers work under the direction of the engineers in the actual
90 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operation, maintenance and repair of the engine-room and other
mechanical equipment, the fireman on steam ferries and the oilers on
the one Diesel-motor ferry operated by respondent.
13. There exist among employees of the ferry service or industry
along the Delaware River three labor organizations, whose respec-
tive jurisdictions correspond to the three general classes of respond-
ent's employees. One, the National Organization of Masters, Mates
and Pilots of North America, admits only pilots; The National
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, represented in this area by
the subordinate Association, admits only the licensed engineers; and
the Harbor Boatmen's Union admits only unlicensed personnel.
14. The qualifications, responsibilities and duties of the licensed
engineers differ in kind from those of pilots, quartermasters and
deck-hands, and in the same respects differ in marked degree from
those of firemen and oilers. Those differences serve to identify the
engineers as a class or group distinct from all other employees of
respondent.
15. The licensed engineers employed by respondent in the capacity
of engineers constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining. At all times hereinafter mentioned, such engineers
were twelve in number.
III. THE RESPONDENT AND THE ASSOCIATION
16. On or before August 2, 1935, eleven of such engineers signed
and delivered to Warren C. Evans, Financial Secretary and Business
Manager of the Association, cards stating as follows :
"I hereby authorize the National M. E. B. A. to represent me
in negotiating wage scales and working conditions, as provided
in the Wagner-Connery Labor Disputes Bill."
At that time, the twelfth engineer was and for a substantial preced-
ing period had been a member in good standing of the Association,
and three of the remaining eleven engineers had become members not
later than the end of August, 1935. The authorizations and mem-
bership in the Association were matters of discussion between Evans
and various of the twelve engineers during the months of July and
August, 1935.
17. On August 7, 1935, Evans, as Business Manager of the Associa-
tion, transmitted to L. H. Garrison, the General Manager of the
respondent, a letter stating :
"Under date of May 23, 1935, I asked that you grant a con-
ference for the purpose of negotiating an agreement covering
wages, hours, and working conditions of the engineers employed
by your company. This request has been ignored.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 91
"In accordance with the provisions of the National Labor
Relations Act, I am authorized to represent all the engineers
employed by your company for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining.
"I hereby renew my request for a conference for the purpose
of negotiating an agreement covering wages, hours, and working
conditions for the engineers employed by your company and
ask that such conference be set at the earliest convenience."
Under date of August 9, 1935, Garrison replied to Evans as follows :
"Your letter of the 7th instant received relative to a con-
ference.
"Wish to advise I will be here Friday the 16th and Saturday
the 17th as far as I know now, but give me a call before you
come down. Call Wilson Line at Philadelphia Lombard 7640
and ask for me."
18. As a result of this exchange of correspondence a meeting be-
tween Evans and Garrison took place on August 23, 1935, at the
latter's office in Wilmington, Delaware. At this meeting Evans
again stated that he was authorized to represent the licensed engi-
neers in the employ of respondent for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, and presented a draft of agreement containing proposals
concerning the wages, hours and working conditions of all such
licensed engineers. The draft agreement so presented was a revi-
sion of a prior draft whose provisions Evans had discussed with
certain of the engineers concerned.
19. At the conference on August 23, 1935, Garrison told Evans
that the respondent could see no reason why it should negotiate with
him, as all of its negotiations theretofore had been carried on with
its men, and that the respondent wanted to continue dealing in that
fashion. To this Evans replied that under the National Labor
Relations Act any one representing a majority of employee groups
was authorized to negotiate in their behalf. Garrison then expressed
a lack of familiarity with the Act and a desire to have a copy of it.
Evans thereupon gave Garrison a copy, and the conference ended
with Garrison's statement that he would "take up" the agreement and
advise Evans of the respondent's position at a later date.
20. Neither at this conference nor at any earlier or later date in
his negotiations with Evans did Garrison deny or question the au-
thority of Evans to represent the employees concerned.
21. On or about September 27, 1935, Garrison advised Evans in
a telephone conversation that the respondent had "decided not to
negotiate but to await the outcome of the Supreme Court decision
on the law", stating that in the opinion of the respondent the law
92 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was unconstitutional . Garrison had theretofore discussed the matter
with Mr. Junkin, the president of respondent , and had transmitted
to Junkin the proposed agreement presented by Evans. The decision
communicated by Garrison to Evans was made by Junkin.
CONSIDERATION OF RESPONDENT 'S OBJECTIONS
At various stages of the case the respondent has made and pre-
served objections , with which we will now deal.
I. OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
At the hearing , the Trial Examiner overruled respondent 's motion
to dismiss the complaint , a motion predicated upon the following
constitutional grounds : That the Act violates the Tenth Amendment
in purporting to regulate matters reserved to the States ; that it
violates the Fifth Amendment by depriving the respondent of free-
dom of contract ; that it violates the Seventh Amendment by depriv-
ing respondent of trial by jury; and violates Article III by confer-
ring judicial power upon an administrative board in the executive
branch of the government . We have given these objections every
consideration consistent with our functions under the law, and over-
rule them.
In connection with the objection under the Tenth Amendment, our
finding that respondent is engaged in and is an instrumentality of
interstate commerce merits some further exposition in view of the
contention of respondent that , since the slips to and from which its
ferries proceed are entirely in Delaware waters, it is not engaged
in such commerce . In the case of The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. (10
Wall.) 557, the Supreme Court held that a steamer transporting
passengers and merchandise between points and over a course en-
tirely within the State of Michigan was nevertheless an instrument
of and engaged in commerce among the states because she was em-
ployed in transporting "goods destined for other states, or goods
brought from without the limits of Michigan to places within that
State" (p. 565). The Daniel Ball was cited with approval by the
Supreme Court in its decision in Texas i New Orleans Railroad
Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, upholding the
Railway Labor Act of 1926.
In addition , respondent urged in its motion to dismiss that Sec-
tions 8 (5) and 9 (a) of the Act violate the Fifth and Tenth Amend-
ments. In the absence of specification we take it that respondent's
objection to these sections is directed to the "majority rule" which
they establish for the conduct of collective bargaining negotiations.
But no question of majority representation is present in this case,
in view of the fact that the Association represents every employee
in the unit defined in the complaint and in view of our finding that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 93
that unit is one appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Our findings as to representation and the unit involve overruling
objections of the respondent, to which we will now advert.
II. OBJECTIONS TO REPRESENTATION AND THE UNIT
The respondent questions the authority of the Association on the
ground that the cards signed by eleven of the men involved referred
to the national organization and not to the Association. This objec-
tion cannot be said to come with full grace since the ground of the
respondent's refusal to bargain with the Association clearly implies
unwillingness to deal with its parent organization as well. Funda-
mentally, however, the question concerned not the respondent but
the national and its local associations. The national association has
not questioned the authority of its subordinate, and, not having done
so, we do not believe that the respondent may raise this question.
Aside from that aspect of the matter, the proof shows that the
Association was the agency intended. The cards were distributed
by Evans, signed as a result of his efforts and returned to him.
Evans was engaged in this and related activity as Business Manager
of the Association. His activities as such official were but steps
incidental to instituting and carrying on collective bargaining nego-
tiations with the respondent. In the draft agreement which he
discussed with the signers of the cards and later presented to the
respondent, "Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, No. 13" is
specified as the party to execute the agreement in behalf of the
employees. Furthermore, a number of the engineers who signed the
cards were or shortly thereafter became members of No. 13. Nowhere
in the record is there any evidence that the national organization,
as opposed to the local, was expected to represent the men.
Finally, to the extent that the objection made is based upon the
technical rule of evidence in courts of law that the terms of a
written instrument may not be varied by parol evidence, we are of the
opinion that, in view of that provision of Section 10 (b) of the Act
which states that in proceedings before this Board " the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be control-
ling ", the parol evidence rule should not bar us from attributing to
the signers of the cards the intention which the surrounding circum-
stances otherwise appear to require.
With respect to the unit, respondent has excepted to the finding of
the Trial Examiner that the engineers are an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with it. As the exception taken
is in general terms, it will be met by a statement of the more
important considerations which, in our judgment, warrant the
finding.
94 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear that, so far as the pilots and engineers are concerned,
such wide differences in authority , experience , responsibility and
duty prevail that a separation of engineers from the pilots for the
purposes of collective bargaining is warranted . And the same is
true, for like reasons , of a separation of the engrineers from the
quartermasters and deck-hands.
The engineers are, likewise , properly differentiated from the fire-
men and oilers. An engineer is an officer , licensed to act as such by
the United States Government . To obtain the license he must exhibit
substantial attainments in experience , skill and character. These
attainments , visible and significant , are not required of his assistants,
the firemen and oilers . And while the duties and responsibilities
of the engineer and his assistants both relate to the engine -room or
mechanical department , those of the first are of command, the latter
of execution . Nor have the fireman and oilers made any claim that
they should be grouped with their superiors.
III. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
Respondent objected to the introduction in evidence of a copy of
the draft of agreement submitted by Evans to the respondent, on the
ground that it was irrelevant . The proposed agreement was rele-
vant and properly admitted.
Respondent objected also to the introduction of compilations of
data prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor and certified by Isador Lubin, Commissioner
of Labor Statistics , and by the Secretary of Labor ( Board Exhibits
B-8 and B-9), on the ground that the right to cross-examine was
denied. Exhibit B-8 shows the total number of strikes and lock-outs
in the water transportation industry from August, 1934 to July, 1935,
inclusive, together with the number of workers involved and man-
hours of idleness caused thereby . Exhibit. B-9 is a breakdown of
the strikes and lock-outs referred to in Exhibit B-8, by causes, show-
ing that slightly more than one-half of all strikes and lock-outs,
workers and man-days of idleness during the period in question were
concerned with "Organization" disputes , that is, disputes over union
recognition , collective bargaining , discrinnination, and the like.
While we think that such evidence is admissible , the Exhibits in
question are not necessary to sustain jurisdiction in this case. -
The respondent further objected to certain testimony and exhibits
concerning the extent of the flow of highway traffic over , and in the
area immediately surrounding , respondent 's ferry crossings, on the
ground that this evidence was irrelevant or immaterial . Certainly
this evidence bearing upon the need for and use of respondent's fa-
cilities , was both relevant and material . In the face of the proof
given of the precise number of vehicles transported by the respond-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 95
ent in the last five and one-half years , the evidence was not highly
significant , but it nevertheless served a proper purpose in helping
establish the general setting in which respondent's operations are
conducted.
Other objections were interposed by respondent to certain lines
of examination . We have given no consideration to the testimony
designed to show that the respondent paid its engineers less than
neighboring ferry companies , that their inferior level of wages was
a source of dissatisfaction to them, and that higher wages were paid
where collective bargaining prevailed . We need not , therefore, pass
upon the merits of these objections. None of the other objections
merit discussion.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT
In addition to the findings of fact previously stated, upon the en-
tire record in the case , the following concluding findings of fact are
made by the Board:
1. The respondent , Delaware -New Jersey Ferry Company, is en-
gaged in the interstate transportation of persons and property by
ferry-boats operated on the Delaware river between the cities of
New Castle , Delaware , and Pennsville , New Jersey, and between the
cities of Wilmington , Delaware, and Pennsgrove , New Jersey.
2. In the operation of its said ferry-boats , respondent employs
twelve persons assigned as engineers whose functions are to super-
vise the operation, maintenance, and repair of the engines and me-
chanical equipment of the boats . Each such engineer is required to
be, and is, licensed for such position by the Steamboat Inspection
Service of the United States Department of Commerce.
3. The services performed by the engineers described in paragraph
2 above are performed in and upon instrumentalities of transporta-
tion among the states during the operation of such instrumentalities
in such transportation , and said engineers and their services are an
integral part of the operation of such instrumentalities in such trans-
portation.
4. The said engineers constitute an appropriate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
5. Prior to September 27, 1935, each and all of the said engineers
designated or authorized Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Association
No. 13 as his and their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respondent , Delaware -Newv Jersey Ferry Company.
6. Pursuant to such designation or authorization , Marine Engi-
neers' Beneficial Association No. 13 , by Warren C. Evans , its Finan-
cial Secretary and Business Manager , requested-of respondent, Dela-
ware-New Jersey Ferry Company , that it confer with said Associa-
tion for the purpose of negotiating an agreement concerning the
96 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment of the said engineers.
7. On September 27, 1935, respondent, Delaware-New Jersey Ferry
Company, declined said request and refused to confer with said
Association for the purpose of negotiating an agreement concerning
the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment of the said engineers.
8. The aforesaid acts of respondent, Delaware-New Jersey Ferry
Company, occurred and are occurring in commerce among the states.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Upon all findings of fact hereinabove made, and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a matter
of law that respondent, Delaware-New Jersey Ferry Company, by
refusing to bargain collectively with Marine Engineers' Beneficial
Association No. 13, as the representative of all of the licensed engi-
neers employed in that capacity by said respondent, has engaged and
is engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5), and Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7), of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
On the basis of its findings of fact and conclusion of law and act-
ing pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board orders that respondent, Dela-
ware-New Jersey Ferry Company, its officers and agents, shall cease
and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with Marine En-
gineers' Beneficial Association No. 13 as the exclusive representative
of the licensed engineers employed in such capacity by respondent
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other
conditions of employment.