Permanente Steamship Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 827 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

PERMANENTE STEAMSHIP CORPORATION 827
us that there has been so great a disintegration of the alleged joint
bargaining relationship that there no longer exists an effective means
of bargaining upon a multiemployer basis 14 Accordingly, we find
that the single-employer unit as requested by the Petitioner is now
appropriate.
We find that all employees performing work in the Employer's plant
or in sheds or lots adjacent thereto in the Pittsburg, California, area,
where commodities are stored, processed, manufactured, or sold, ex-
cluding professional employees, administrative, technical, and office
employees, independent contractors and independent contractor em-
ployees, bricklayers, truck drivers transporting finished goods, gate-
men-guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 15
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication- in this
volume.]
14 Cf. Remington Rand, Inc., 89 NLRB 1638; United Fur Manufacturers As8octi etion,
Inc, 49 NLRB 1405.
15 The composition of the unit was stipulated to by the parties.
PERMANENTE STEAMSHIP CORPORATION and SAILORS UNION OF THE
PACIFIC, SEAFARERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER
PERMANENTE STEAMSHIP CORPORATION and NATIONAL UNION OF
MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS , INDEPENDENT , PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 20-RC 1.408 and 20-RC 1.13. October 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 Robert V. Magor,
hearing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists in Case No. 20-RC-1408
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
96 NLRB No. 122.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act. As the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-1433 is presently the bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the steward department
of the SS Silver Bow and it has not indicated that it seeks an election
at the present time among those employees in a separate unit, we find
that no question of representation exists with respect to those em-
ployees.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-1408, hereinafter referred to
as the SUP, seeks to represent the unlicensed personnel of the stewards
-department employees on the SS Permanente Cement. The Petitioner
-in Case No. 20-RC-1433, hereinafter referred to as the MC&S, seeks
to represent the same employees but contends that the appropriate
:unit should be the stewards departments of both the SS Permanente
Cement and the SS Silver Bow. The Employer-agrees with the SUP
and contends that the two ships constitute separate units.
In support of ;its contention that the only appropriate unit is a
two-ship unit, the MC&S maintains that the history of collective
,bargaining shows that steamship companies on the Pacific Coast have
always recognized this union as bargaining agent for the stewards
departments on all their vessels;-' that this Employer has always
'recognized the MC&S for the stewards on its ships, whether owned
-or chartered; that it is the practice of the industry to include new
-vessels acquired by a company under the existing contracts covering
older ships, and that since the SS Permanente Cement was acquired,
,the Employer has executed contracts on a two-ship basis with the SUP
.and other unions representing the crews on both ships. In further
support of its position, the MC&S contends that the wages and
working conditions on the two ships are substantially the same, that
there is over-all central management and control, and that both ships
are used to supply the shoreside plants of the parent corporations
and are engaged in performing substantially identical functions.
The Employer, a corporation related to the Kaiser companies, is
engaged in the water transportation of bulk cement from the ports of
California, Washington, Oregon, and the Territory of Hawaii. The
,above-mentioned vessels are the only ships presently used for this
purpose. The SS Permanente Cement, formerly owned by the Santa
Cruz Cement Corporation, and then known as the SS Santa Cruz
Cement, was chartered by the Employer in 1949. In 1951, following
her purchase by the Employer for the cement trade, she acquired her
present name. -
I The MC&S introduced in evidence its current contract with the Pacific Maritime
Association , an association of employers acting on behalf of the member companies in
the intercoastal , offshore, and Alaska trades . -. However, it does not appear_ that the em-
ployer is a member of this association.
PERMANENTE STEAMSHIP CORPORATION '829
Collective Bargaining History
The MC&S has had collective bargaining contracts with the Em-
ployer covering the stewards department employees on the SS Silver
Bow since 1947. The last contract expired in July 1951, but has subse-
quently been extended and is now in effect. Since 1945, the MC&S
has had contracts covering the stewards of the SS Permanente Cement
when it was named the SS Santa Cruz Cement and then owned by the
Santa Cruz Cement Corporation, and has had contracts covering the
stewards of the ships of that corporation for more than 20 years.
Pending the charter negotiations in 1949, and thereafter, the Employer
participated in the collective bargaining for the stewards on the SS
Santa Cruz Cement. After the ship was acquired by the Employer
in the spring of 1951, she was given a general overhaul. It was during
the period when the ship was in drydock that the demand of the MC&S
to represent the prospective crew of stewards was denied by the
Employer.
The SUP has had contracts with the Employer for a number of
years covering the unlicensed deck personnel of the SS Silver Bow.
Since the Employer acquired the SS Permanente Cement, the SUP
has obtained contracts covering the deck personnel on both ships,
which contracts are now in effect. The Employer has also executed
-contracts with other labor organizations covering the firemen, the
licensed engineers and the masters , mates, and pilots of both ships .2
The MC&S appears to be the only labor union which has obtained
bargaining rights for a department of the SS Silver Bow, without
recognition being extended for the same department of the sister ship.
The evidence indicates that both ships are engaged in the same type
of trade, perform the same functions , make substantially the same
trips, and use the same ports . Both are subject to the same centralized
supervision and control. There are no significant differences in wages
and working conditions 3 The same hiring methods and transferabil-
ity practices apply to both vessels . Although there is no evidence of
transfers from one ship to another, there is evidence that the duties
and job classifications of the crew are virtually the same for both
vessels.
On the other hand, there is no evidence of any interdependence of
operation between the two ships. Each appears to function as a sepa-
rate entity under the immediate supervision of its own master. Each
2 The evidence shows that some of these contracts cover both ships , while others cover
only the single ship. In the case of the current contract with the SUP , the Employer's
representative testified that negotiations were carried on separately for each ship, and
that the contracts were subsequently combined for convenience only. However, it ap-
pears that the substantive provisions - of all these contracts are substantially the same
or identical for both ships herein involved.
3In at least one current contract with the Marine Firemen, it is provided that seniority
for vacation purposes may be cumulative for services on either ship, if there has been
no employment on any other company 's ship during such period.
830 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has its own schedule of sailings. Grievances are settled on the individ-
ual ship basis. Furthermore, the history of collective bargaining, at
least that before 1951, does not indicate that there has been joint
,bargaining for the two ships.4 Although, after the spring of 1951,
when the Employer acquired the SS Permanente Cement, it appears
that the several unions involved endeavored to obtain equality of wages
and working conditions for the two ships and that most of the current
contracts covering the several crew classifications are identical, the
record does not clearly establish that such contracts resulted from
joint negotiations covering the employees of both ships.
Although the foregoing supports a finding that the employees on
the two ships may constitute a single appropriate unit, we do not find
that the arguments urged upon us by the MC&S are sufficiently per-
suasive to justify a finding that only a two-ship unit is appropriate.
The MC&S argues that because it has represented the steward .depart-
ments on the ships of the West Coast and of this Employer for many
years, the Board is compelled to find a two-ship unit appropriate.
Although we ,accord considerable weight to the history of collective
bargaining in the determination of the unit issue, the present record
does not disclose such a history of collective bargaining up to 1951 as
would require a finding that only a two-ship unit is appropriate.
While it appears that after the SS Permanente Cement was acquired
in March 1951, the Employer executed contracts, identical or similar
in -character for the crews of the two ships with other unions, such
history, even if multiship in character, is of too recent origin to be
accorded controlling weight in the determination of the appropriate
unit.' The Board has held that generally it will view each ship ac-
quired by the Employer as a separate operations Otherwise, for the
Board to determine that the employees of a new ship are automatically
included in the same unit with the others might result in denying such
employees the right to a representative of their own choosing.'
We find that the employees of the steward department of the SS
Fermanente Cement, may, if they so desire, constitute a, separate unit
or they may be added to the steward department unit of the SS Silver
Bow. We shall, therefore, make no determination with respect to the
employees of the steward department aboard the SS Perma' ente
Cement at this time but shall first ascertain the desires of those em-
ployees as expressed in the election to be directed. If a majority of
these employees vote for the SUP, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If a majority
4 The negotiations between the MC&S and the Employer for the SS Silver Bow were held
In June 1949 and the contract for this ship was executed July 2, 1949 . Thereafter, the
Employer participated with the former owners of the SS Santa Cruz Cement in negotia-
tions for a contract covering the stewards of that ship . The MC&S endeavored to obtain
the same terms and conditions for this ship as -for. the SS Silver Bow, and did so except
on one issue Thereafter ,' the contract for the SS Santa Cruz Cement was signed in
August 1949.
Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 74 NLRB 513.
American Steel & Were Co. of New Jersey , 63 NLRB 1244 ; Nicholson Transit Company,
85 NLRB 955
° See footnote 6, supra.
REEDER MOTOR COMPANY 831
vote for the MC&S, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be added to the steward department unit of the SS Si'ver Bow
and may be represented by the MC&S as part of such unit.
The SUP would include the chief steward in the voting group.
The Employer has no objections to his inclusion and the MC&S would
leave this question to the Board. The chief steward assigns all over-
time schedules, subject to final confirmation by the captain. He
effectively recommends promotions. He does not have the power to
hire but does have the authority to discharge and to effectively recom-
mend discharge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the chief steward is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and we shall exclude him from the unit.,, We shall direct an election
among the employees in the steward department aboard the SS
Permanente Cement, excluding the chief steward, professional em-
ployees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 80 NLRB 1512, 1514.
REEDER MOTOR COMPANY and LOCAL 900, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L.
REEDER MOTOR COMPANY and JACKSON THEODORE PATTY AND CHARLES
F. JONES. Cases Nos. 10-CA-1011 and 10-CA-1022. October 16,
1951
Decision and Order
On April 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Allen MacCullen 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications.
' The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record, the
exceptions , and brief , in our opinion adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
96 NLRB No. 112.