General Petroleum Corp. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM' CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
SAkORS UNION OF THE PACIFIC, A. F. L.
In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
PACIFIC DIST. SEAFARERS' INTL. ENGINE DIVISION, AFFIL. SEAFARERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION' OF NORTI1 AMERICA,
In the Matter of GENERAL'PETROLEUM'CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
PACIFIC DISTRICT SEAFARERS' INTL. STEWARDS Div. AFFIL. SEAFARERS'
INTL. UNION, OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL -
Cases Nos. C-2570, C-2571 and C-0572, respectively.-Decided May
8, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 30, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent,
General Petroleum Corporation of, California, had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and tike certain affirmative action as set
out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with
a brief in, support thereof.-- The Board has considered the rulings of
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 and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except
1 _as hereinafter modified:
1. The Trial Examiner has referred to the prevailing practice under
which unions having access to vessels collect dues and distribute the
Organizations' trade papers to their members. We find that it is neces-
sary to the mutual aid and protection of union members that they be
enabled thereby to pay their union dues and receive their union trade
papers onboard the respondent's vessels, and that these activities are
I See our decision in Richfield Oil Corporation and Sailors Union of the Pacific, A. F. L.,
etc, Cases Nos. C-2568, 2569.
49 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
606 -
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORAT'ON OF CALIFORNIA 607,
included within the necessary and appropriate scope, of concerted
activities as an incident to which we. shall order passes to be issued.
We emphasize in this connection, however, that we do not intend, to
require ,the respondent to, permit the, passes to be used for the solicita-
tion of membership.
2. We shall order the respondent to issue passes to the.Unions•;for
the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and presenta'-
tio'n of 'grievances, and for other mutual aid and protection of the
employees represented by the Unions, including the collection of, dues
and distribution of trade papers to union members, and providing, that
the respondent is not requited to -issue passes for the solicitation, of
membership. Upon consideration of the various wartime security
laws and regulations applicable to the instant case, 'and which the
Trial -Examiner also has considered, we find that our order; as
described, does not require any conduct which is in derogation of such
laws and regulations, or which would endanger the safety of the
respondent's vessels or adversely affect discipline, on board these
vessels.2.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10, (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, General Petroleum Corpora-
tion of California, Los Angeles, California, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to grant passes to representatives of the Sailors Union
of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North
America; Pacific, District, Seafarers'- International Engine Division,
Seafarers' International Union of North America; and Pacific Dis-
trict, Seafarers' International Stewards Division, Seafarers' Iirter-
national'Union of North America, in order' that such representatives
may go aboard the respondent's vessels for the purposes of collective
bargaining, for the discussion and presentation of grievances, and for
other mutual aid and protection of the employees represented by these
Unions, including the collection of dues and distribution of trade
papers to union members, provided, however, that the respondent is
not required, to issue passes for the solicitation of membership;
(b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
' See Matter of The Texas Company, Marine Division and National Maritime Union,
Port Ai thur Branch, 42 N. L. R B. 593, 604-607.
608 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATION'S BOARD
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or' protection as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act."
2. Take the- following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act : - _ `
(a) Grant passes to the duly authorized representatives of -the
Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division-of Seafarers' International
Union of-North America; 'Pacific District, Seafarers' International
Engine Division, Seafarers' International Union of North America;
and Pacific District, Seafarers' International Stewards Division, Sea-
farers' International Union of North America; to go aboard its vessels
for - the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and
presentation of grievances,"and: for other' mutual aid and protection
of the employees represented by the Unions, including the collection
of dues and distribution of trade papers to union members, provided,
however,, that the respondent is not required to issue passes for ',the
solicitation of` membership; • `
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places on its vessels; for it
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting,
notices to the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel, stating :
(1')' that the respondent will not engage in the'conduct from which
it is ordered to cease-and desist,, in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) ; (2) that
the respondent will take the affirmative 'action set forth in paragraph
2 (a)" hereof-'
(c) Notify the Regional Director for' the Twenty-first Region, in -
writing within ten (10) 'days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
-INTERMEDIATE REPORT -
Messrs. ,Charles M . Ryan and Thomas C. Moore, for the Board
Messrs. D. W. Woods and J. L. Goddard, of Los Angeles , California , for the
respondent.
Messrs.-Harry Liidenberg and William Gries, ' of San Francisco , for the Unions:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Sea-
farers' International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, by Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, a divi-
sion of Seafarers' International Union of North America, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, and Pacific District, Seafarers' International Stewards
Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America, affiliated
with the.American Federation of Labor, herein called the'Unions, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its consolidated com-
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATON OF CALIFORNIA 609
plaint'. dated February 22, 1943 against the General. Petroleum Corporation of
.California, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent on or about October, 1942 and at all times
thereafter refused to permit the duly authorized representatives of the Unions
to go abroad the respondent's Pacific, Coast oil tankers, thereby interfering
with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of, the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charges
accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent
and the charging Unions. -
- In its answers the respondent admitted refusing passes to the duly authorized
representatives of -the Unions but denied the alleged unfair labor practices
and interposed, several affirmative defenses to the allegations of the unfair
labor practices. .
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on March 8, 1943, at Los Angeles,
California, before James C. Batten, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and, the Unions by their representatives.' All parties
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. During the course of the hearing the' respondent's motion to amend the
answer was granted without objection on the part of the Board and the Unions 2
At the conclusion'of the hearing a motion to conform the pleadings to` the proof
as to minor details was granted without objection. -
At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent and the 'repre-
sentative for the Unions, Harry Lundeberg, argued orally. The undersigned
advised all parties that they might file briefs provided such briefs were sub-
mitted 'within five days from the close of the hearing Briefs were.filed by
the Board, the respondent and the Unions. '
- From' the entire record thus made and from the undersigned's observation
of the witnesses,`the undersigned makes in addition to the above the follow,ng:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF, THE RESPONDENT,
General Petroleum Corporation of California is a Delaware corporation with
its, principal place of business at Los Angeles, California. The respondent
operates ocean-going oil tankers which transport its petroleum products between
the various ports of the Pacific Coast and offshore ports. The respondent is an
integrated corporation engaged in all branches of the petroleum business from
production through to marketing, including the transportation by various means
of oil and oil-products. Of its total sales annually, valued in excess of $50,000,-
.1 The Board on February 23, 1943, pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (b) of the Rules
and Regulations , as amended , ordered the consolidation of the cases herein.
2The motion to amend referred to the respondent's second separate and afflimative
answer ,to' the complaint by 'striking "Case No XXI-C-1101" and substituting therefor
"XX-C-1101' ;' and striking "Sailors Union of the Pacific, A. F. of L, Pacific District ;
Seafarers ' International Steward Division ,' A. F. of L," and substituting therefor "Na-
tional Maritime Union " Board's counsel stated that Case No. "XX-C-1101" is also known
as Case No "XX-C-2011."
610 DECISIONS O'F NATIONAL ^LABORR RELATIONS BOARD
000, 39 percent in volume were shipped to points outside the 'State of California
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. - i
11. THE - ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED _
Sailors Union,of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of
North America-is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor. It admits to membership the unlicensed personnel,, employed in the
deck department on the respondent's tankers.
Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, a division of Sea-
farers' International Union of, North America is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. It admits'to membership the unlicensed
personnel employed in the engine department on the respondent's tankers.
Pacific District, Seafarers' International Steward Division, a division of Sea-
farers' International Union of North America is a labor organization affiliated
with 'the American, Federati on of Labor. It admits to membership the unlicensed
personnel in the steward department on the respondent's tankers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue and the contention of the parties
The complaint alleges and the respondent admits that the Unions are and have
been at all times material herein the exclusive representatives of the unlicensed
deck, engine, and steward personnel on board the, respon dent's tankers 3 and that
the Unions were refused by the respondent, passes for the purpose of access by
their duly authorized representatives to go aboard the tankers. The sole
question in the case is whether, as the complaint alleges, such refusal to grant
access by the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced and,is interfer-
ing,with, restraining and coercing the respondent's unlicensed deck, engine, and
steward personnel in their exercise of the, rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act thereby violating Section 8 (1) of the Act.
The Board contends under, the circumstances of the operations of the respond-
ent, hereinafter related, a denial of passes to the Unions' duly authorized repre-
sentatives interferes with the right of the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward
personnel to bargain collectively with, representatives of their own choosing and
to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.
, The Unions contend that. since the' dates upon which the Unions were certi-
fied as the collective bargaining representatives for the unlicensed deck,, engine,
and steward personnel on respondent's tankers, they have sought passes for their
representatives through direct negotiations for the purpose of settling griev-
ances on board the 'tankers. The Unions state that the refusal of access to
respondent's tankers denies to the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward per-
sonnel, who are unable to adequately adjust grievances, the right to have their
own chosen representatives negotiate adjustments for them.
The respondent asserts that the cancellation of all existing passes on or
about December 7, 1941 including the passes theretofore issued to representa-
tives of the Unions, and the denial of passes thereafter to its tankers are not
The, Sailors Union,of the Pacific ; the Engine Division, and the Stewards Division, affili-
ated with the Seafarers' International Union of North America were certified by the Board
respectively on September 26, 1942, as the exclusive repiesentatives of the unlicensed deck,
unlicensed engine, and unlicensed,stewards personnel on the respondent's tankers. -
GENERAL, PETROLEUM COR'PORATON OF CALIFORNIA ^ 611
interference within the meaning of Section 8 (1) ^ of the Act ; 4 that the cancella-
tion and denial of passes were precautionary measures to safeguard its tankers
and personnel from unnecessary hazards and a reasonable and prudent exercise
of its judgment in the course - of its business - of operating tankers ; 'that the
respondent has been for many months past and is now operating its tankers'
as an agents for 'the "War Shipping Administration" and 'that the, tankers
are operated under the rules and regulations of this agency of the United
States Government; ; that the requirements of the "War- Shipping Administra-
tion" and of the- war effort make it necessary that 'all' cargoes' be handled
with dispatch and so it is necessary and prudent for the respondent to refuse
access to its tankers of all - persons who would interfere, with the arrival,
departure, loading or unloading of its tankers ; that to require the respondent
-to grant passes to representatives of the Unions would force it to grant passes-
to representatives of all unions desirous of coming on board its tankers in
order to avoid charges of discrimination ; and finally that for several weeks
prior to January 5, 1943 respondent and the Unions were engaged in, negotia-
tions for an agreement including a provision relating to the terms and condi-
tions under which passes might be issued to representatives of the Unions
and that the agreement upon which the parties could not agree has now been
submitted to the National War Labor Board." 1
B. Interference with the,exercise of the rights guaranteed in'Section 7 of
the Act.
1. The necessity for the right of access °
In the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 the Act provides that
"Employees shall have the right to . . . bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of collective bargaining +:.
Since it is obvious, that grievances concern "conditions of work" within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act, they are proper subjects for collective
bargaining . It follows that Section 7 guarantees employees the right to bar-
gain collectively concerning grievances. The 'Unions herein are the collec-
tive bargaining representatives of all the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward
personnel employed on the respondent's tankers. Therefore any interference
by the,, respondent with these employees' rights to bargain collectively' con-
4 The respondent ' s contention that the Regional Director's (Twenty -first Region) re-
fusal on February 20, 1942 to issue a complaint upon a charge by the National' âlaritime
Union, that respondent bad' denied passes for access by representatives of that organiza-
tion was a bar to ' the present proceeding is without mei it,' either upon the theory of
estoppel or res judicata . It is noted that , National Maritime Union was not the certified
representative of the respondent 's unlicensed seamen.
5 This war-time arrangement does not affect the respondent 's control over the hire and
tenure of'its seamen or their conditions of employment . The iespondent operates its
tankers as usual, except for certain security restrictions promulgated by governmental
agencies. .
6 The respondent does not allege that pendency of this matter before the war Labor
Boaid is a bar to this proceeding although the matter is set up in the ansiuer` as a
"separate affirmative answer to the complaint herein." Under ' the Act the Board is
granted exclusive power to prevent any peison from engaging in specified unfair labor
practices affecting commerce See 49 Stat 449, Section 10 (a). -
4 The term "access" in the shipping industry means the boarding of vessels) by union
representatives , in order to ascertain whether or not seamen onboard have grievances,
to determine the validity of the ' alleged grievances , and to ' settle ' those possible of settle-
nient'with the propei officials on board the vessels. '
5 31 647-4 3-vol 49-40
612 DECISIONS OF' ,NATIONAL LABOR ,' RELATIONS BOARD
N 4
cerning grievances through their duly designated representatives , the Unions,
is proscribed by Section 8 (1) of the Act: '
In order, to, determine whether or , not' denial of passes to .the representatives
of,,the Unions for , the purpose of obtaining access to respondent 's tankers
to confer with ,the unlicensed deck,, engine, and steward , personnel thereon,
interferes with , the,rights of these seamen to bargain ,collectively through their
duly chosen - representatives concerning grievances , it is essential to give con-
sideration to the operations of the respondent 's tankers and-to the collective
bargaining procedure in ;dealing with grievances in the tanker and shipping
industry . , ^ ` _
, The respondent operates three ocean -going tankers which ply between Pacific
coast ports , including Seattle, Washington ,, Portland , =Oregon , -San Francisco,
California ,' and the Los ' Angeles , California , and off-shore . and foreign ports.
The loading and .discharging terminals in the Pacific coast ports are, in most
instances located h a the bay areas some distances fipm the shipping districts,
requiring a round ' trip of from 1 hour ;,to 3 hours to the Unions ' office. , Coast-
wise trips require 3 to 15 days each way, and offshore and foreign trips , require
substantially longer , periods. , Respondent ' s tankers spend approximately 30
hours , in port when discharging and approximately 24 -hours in port when , load-'
ing.8 The usual tanker crew on respondent ' s vessels comprises 30 unlicensed
personnel distributed as follows : 12 in the deck department , 10 in the engine
department ,, and 8 in • thesteward 's department . "Watches" are maintained for
certain of theunlicensed deck and engine personnel while the tankers are in
port, while certain other seamen work on- relief jobs such as loading stores,
and other miscellaneous work ' "Watches ' are- 4-hour shifts with 8 hours off
duty between shifts ; Approximately 1/3 of the unlicensed deck and engine
personnel are on duty at all times . The seamen working on the miscellaneous
jobs work at irregular 'hours depending upon the "extra " work to' be per-
formed ; " the stewards" hours of work in 'port, is determined largely by the
number of seamen who eat their meal's on the tankers . `Stewards may enjoy
shore leave only after meals have been served ; unlicensed deck and ' engine
personnel , who stand watch cannot be absent from the tanker for more than
8 hours, including the time required by them to piepare for their departure 'and'
return and they ` cannot all leave the: tanker simultaneously since their -watches
terminate at different times ; those of the seamen who are working on miscel-
laneous jobs , because of the short time the ' tankers are at dock , cannot leave
the tanker until their work is completed ° Although some of ' the tanker
personnel have,, families and homes in various ports , while employed on the
tankers - their homes are actually on the vessels , for, it is on board that they
eat, sleep, and'?work. Moreover, 'even those who have, homes . can. only visit
them when "the tankers happen to arrive in those poits in which 'the homes
are located , and then only during the time normally allotted by the regular
schedules of the tankers . The respondent employs approximately 90 unlicensed
seamen.
The union representative in the shipping industry on the Pacific coast who
has access , to vessels is known as a "patrolman ."" When the vessel "docks"
the patrolman , boards the vessel in , order to , ascertain whether or not the crew
X
8 "Port time" as distinguished from discharging, and loading time is 'calculated from
the moment,the tanker arrives in the harbor until it leaves the harbor ; it does not in-
dicate the elapsed time spent at,the dock or discharging or loading a cargo.
e At times the respondent employs "relief workers" to perform the miscellaneous lobs
on the tankers but when as now under war time conditions extra men are not available,
the crew performs this work. "
10 In some ports known as a "shore delegate."
r
GENERAL 'PETROLEUM CORPORATON OP' CALIFORNIA 613
on board have grievances If so, the patrolman investigates and determines the
validity of the alleged grievances 'and then proceeds to settle those possible of
settlement with the master, mate, or the proper official on board the vessel.
The patrolmen are experienced seamen and negotiators, whose jurisdiction
includes all of the tankers which arrive in the port in which they are on duty.'
The patrolman function's'as follows: He boards the vessel: immediately after it
is moored 'to'the dock, proceeds to the crews' quarters and confers with the
ship's delegate representing the department (deck, engine, and isteward)' who
relates to the patrolman 'the various grievances, if any, concerning food, living
conditions, or overtime pay which have arisen during the voyage" The patrol-
man then interviews the allegedly aggrieved seaman and decides whether the
grievance is meritorious, using as a guide his long experience and intimate
knowledge of the nature of seamen's grievances, their attitude toward such
grievances, and the problems of the shipping industry. In most instances before
deciding the merits of the grievances, the patrolman interviews others interested
in its adjustment, including the master or other official aboard. If he decides
it is a valid grievance the patrolman then attempts settlement with the master
or proper official aboard the vessel. If these negotiations -fail, the patrolman
refers the grievance, to the Union Port Committee on shore, who proceed to
discuss the grievance with' the respondent's shore officials. It is apparent that
under this collective bargaining' procedure providing for the prompt adjust-
ment of grievances, which necessitates 'access, the seamen have complete op-
portunity to confer with their duly designated representatives who are, _well
equipped by training and experience" to 'assess their grievances, and, who are
specialized negotiators." •
11 Patrolmen are assigned to certain ports and where the performance 'of a patrolman's
duty requires more than one in a port, each is assigned to handle all the vessels of cer-
tain companies thus lmnti ng•access to one patrolman. ,
1' Grievances usually involve one or more of these basic conditions of work. The record
indicates that approximately 90 percent of the grievances reported are disposed of on
board the vessel after access by the patrolman in conference «ith the proper officials,
who have the requisite authority to settle them. The balance of the grievances which are
of a major nature are refeiied to the Union Port Committee; such grievances constitute
as a rule matters affecting the general standards to be applied to the crew as a whole.
11 Patrolmen must have had, before selection to their' positions, 3 years , actual sea
service 11 '
14 The refusal to issue passes to the Union's representatives prevents the most effec-
tive sort of collective action by the seamen , See INT. L. B. B. v. Cities Service Oil Co.,
122 F (2d) 149 (C. C A 2) where the Second Circuit, per Augustus N. Hand, J., said :
Ships, and particularly these oil tankers, which ordinarily remain in port for a
day only, afford less opportunity for investigation of labor conditions than do fac-
tories where the employees go home every afternoon and have the evenings at their
disposal. There is no cessation of work rat the end of each day for seamen on a
tanker A large number of them are on watch, others, are loading, or discharging
cargo : their houis for work. and shore leave are different and, in the short time the
vessel is in poet, it is impossible for Union representatives to assemble the unlicensed
personnel either on shore or on shipboard to discuss grievances or investigate con-
ditions. Therefore, the Union must have the members of the crew readily accessible
in order to work to any real advantage. Moreover, the complaints frequently ielate
to conditions on and even of the vessel itself
It may be true that many, or even most, grievances are settled on the ship by
the ship's committee without the intervention of the Union, but one of the prime
objects of the Union is to afford the seamen advisors, and negotiators who are not
continually' under the-eye of the master and inclined through fear of untoward
consequences to defer, to his demands. Its advice as to major differences would
naturally be needed and in many cases it cannot advise the personnel wisely with-
out visiting the ship and seeing the conditions under which work is done and of
which criticism is made.
614- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By Section , 7 of the Act , "employees shall have the right to self-organization,
to form, , join, , or assist labor organizations . . . for the purpose of . . . mutual
aid or protection ." Interference , restraint , or coercion in the exercise of their
rights is also proscribed by Section 8 (1), of the Act . The rights thus guaran-
teed to employees against impairment by the . employer include , full freedom to
the employees , upon request , to receive aid, advice , and information from their
chosen representatives . The issue , presented by-the "mutual aid or protection"
clause of the Act, is whether the respondent 's denial of passes to the chosen
representatives of the unlicensed deck,lengine , and steward personnel , for the
purpose of obtaining access to its tankers , under the' circumstances of this case,
interfered with, restrained , and coerced these employees in the exercise of their
right to obtain . the aid of their chosen representatives.
It is unnecessary here to again state the details, hereinbefore related, which
snake ineffective collective bargaining through chosen representatives, where
there is a denial of the right of access, except to note that substantially all of
the factors making prohibitive effective bargaining procedure also prevents the
unlicensed deck, engine , and steward personnel on respondent ' s tankers from
participation in the exercise of their rights to "mutual aid, or protection"
through representatives chosen by them' Moreover , the denial of access inter-
feres with the aid and protection the seamen receive through burial and
insurance benefits, of special , importance during the war, an ' incident to their
menibership "in'the'Unions , because , of their -inability to visit the Unions' head-
to pay current dues.'b
The respondent by not permitting access to the Unions ' representatives to aid
the unlicensed deck, engine , and steward personnel at their request , is exercis-
ing, "domination and control " over the efforts of these seamen to engage in
"mutual aid and'protection" thereby infringing upon Section 8 (1) of the Act.
To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to exempt the respondent ' s tankers from
the prohibitions of the Act. But Congress' did not exclude the respondent's
tankers from the operation of the Act, by implication or otherwise . Congress
has declared that "the policy of the United States" shall be to remove ob-
structions to the free flow of commerce "by protecting the exercise by workers _
bf full freedom of association , self-organization and designation of represent-
atives of their own choosing , for the purpose of mutual aid or protection."
The undersigned finds that the denial of right of access to the chosen repre-
sentatives of the unlicensed- deck, engine, and steward, , personnel prevents these
seamen from exercising their rights to collective bargaining and to other mutual
aid or protection ie - - -
is The collection of dues and the distribution of the Unions ' newspaper has been and
now is considered by the Pacific Coast Shippers, who grant access a proper form of aid
to be given -by the representatives of 'the 'Unions . The respondent's contention that such
representatives should not solicit seamen for membership in the Unions is well taken and
such practice if persisted in should be grounds for the revocation of the passes of those
representatives who engage in such activities.
16 The respondent asserts that other ' methods , than access , are available, to the un-
licensed deck , engine, and steward personnel to exercise their rights under Section 7,
and suggests the possibility of the seamen visiting union headquarters or of conferring
with their representatives on shore where reports would be made of the grievances. The
Court in the Cities 'Service Case , referring to alternative grievance procedure stated :
Respondents suggest that the so -called ship's committee consisting of^three meni-
beis of the , crew chosen by the seainen ean'present complaints to the ship 's officers
and if the grievances are not settled thus , can report in person or mail statements to
the Union of matters in dispute which the Union may then take up with the respond-
ent's shore officials But negotiations conducted in such a way would be slow and
the men would lack the ' advantage ' of having their bargaining agent promptly
acquainted with grievances by the seamen themselves and ready at once to "negotiate
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORA'TON OF CALIFORNL 615
2. Respondent's position-relation of the War to the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 -
The respondent does not in fact contend- that under peace time conditions it
would be justified in refusing passes to the duly authorized representatives of its
unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel for the purpose of access to its
tankers, but asserts in its answer that the policy of cancelling outstanding
passes including those of the Unions and refusing to grant further passes was
adopted following the attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor, because of notices
received from" shipping and naval authorities on the Pacific Coast to take
immediately all necessary precautions to` secure and safeguard ships, 'piere,
ivarehouses, terminals and other property, to refuse access to such property to
unauthorized persons, and' as agent of the War Shipping Administration in the
operation of its tankers to'comply with the requirements of the War Shipping
Administration and of the war effort to handle all cargoes with dispatcli.
Although the respondent considers that the presence of the duly authorized
representatives of the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel would
increase the hazards to which the tankers are normally exposed it has *not
seen fit to exclude relief work parties, 'not members of the crew, and several
employees of the respondent whose presence on the tankers are not essential.
At the present it is the almost universal practice of the shipping industry on
the West Coast 'to grant access to 'the duly authorized representatives of their
seamen whether or not such right is provided for, in collective bargaining con-
tracts. 'Access during the 'war has been granted to representatives of unions
to board all types of vessels incluchng"tankers and ships whose entire cargo
included explosives and war supplies, as well as troops Frequently, the offi-
cials of shipping companies and the military or naval authorities have 're-
guested-representatives of the seamen to board vessels in order that grievances
might be promptly adjusted Thus under war time_ conditions it appears that
access is necessary., The respondent is practically alone in its fear of increased
hazards from the presence of seaume'n's representatives on board vessel-.1P
IThe contention of the' respondent that to grant access to'the duly authorized
representatives of the seamen would `result in non-compliance with the war
time security, orders, rules,'or regulations'of the "Captain of the Port" (Coastt
Guard) the "War Shipping Administration" or any other Governmental agency
is without merit. Of utmost significance is the fact that the Navy and the
Coast Guard have provided the representatives of the respondent's unlicensed
deck, engine, and steward personnel' with the proper identification and au-
,with the shore, officials Moreover, so far as possible the men themselves should
have the privilege of airing their individual complaints to their representatives, just
as do employees whose Mork is on land. The sugg'estion' that the Union representa-
tives can be stationed'on the dock,'there investigate complaints by meeting members
of the crew as they come off the ship-and'after thus learning the facts from seamen
can then bargain with respondent' s shore officials , is subject to the objection that
the dock is manifestly no place for an adequate discussion of labor grievances. 'Even
if, despite the inconvenience, the men were able to visit Union' headquarters for such
discussion of, their grievances, they, would not have the presence and backing of
experienced bargaining representatives when presenting their claims, to the ships'
officers. Nor under such restrictions can there be,adequate discussion by the dele-
gate aitlrthe ships' officers of,matters requiring explanation.
S7 The Unions' representatives who board tankers are men who are thoroughly familiar
with conditions prevailing on sucli vessels, and with safety precautions which must be
taken ; more so it would appear, than others who are permitted to board the tankers. All
docks, terminals; and vessels are now guarded by military or naval personnel This
security measure insures to the respondent the'protection needed, by any increased hazards
rd th Wto a a . ,ue
,616 DECISIONS ,0F ' NATIONAL , LABOR R(ELATION'S, BOARDI -
.thority , to enter restricted areas- and • to board tankers and vessels, . includ-
ing respondent 's tankers , providing respondent issues its passes to the
representatives.18
The undersigned' does -not believe , that these contentions ' of • the respondent
are,valid reasons for denying access."
C. Concluding findings
In conclusion, the undersigned finds that respondent's unlicensed deck, en-
gine, and'steward personnel are in port for aashort time•with very little time
ashore; that tanker terminals are usually located in port areas inaccessible
to union headquarters; that collective bargaining procedures for the settlement
of grievances which do not involve access are in a practical sense unworkable,
and do not afford the respondent's unlicensed deck, engine, and steward per-
sonnel the opportunity to bargain collectively concerning their grievances; that
the refusal of the respondent to issue passes to the duly authorized repre-
sentatives of its unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel for the purpose
of access prevents these seamen from receiving aid, advice, and information
through their duly chosen representatives; that procedure which involves access,
for these purposes is prevalent today, and has long been in use in the west
coast shipping industry; that with access these representatives may investi-
gate the nature of, assess the value of, and properly present grievances on
behalf of these seamen and give to them the aid, advice, and information essen-
tial forfmutual,protection ;.that without access,-the; .espondent's unhcensed deck,
engine, and steward personnel would be denied the benefits of essential rights,
conferred upon them by the Act, providing for collective bargaining and other
mutual aid through their duly chosen representatives
It is plain from these findings and from the entire recoi d, and- the under-
signed finds that the respondent by refusing to grant passes to the duly desig-
nated representatives of its unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel in
order that such representatives might confer with and aid such personnel oir
board respondent's tankers has interfered-with, restrained, and coerced, and by
continuing such refusal is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its unli-
censed desk, engine, and steward personnel in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in, Section 7 of the Act, and is thereby violating Section 8' (1)
of the Act. ,
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the-operations of the respondent: