Pacific Steamship Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1936

2 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

III the Matters of PACIFIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY, AMERICAN-
HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, AMERICAN MAIL LINE, Los
ANGELES-SAN FRANCISCO NAVIGATION COMPANY, J. H. BAXTTR &
COMPANY, BEADLE STEAMSHIP COMPANY, W. R. CHAMBERLIN &
COMPANY, Coos BAY LUMBER COMPANY, DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINES,
S. S. FREEMAN & COMPANY, GRACE LINE, INC., JAMES GRIFFITHS &
SONS, INC., HAMMOND SHIPPING COMPANY, KINGSLEY COMPANY,
LA*RENCE PHILIPS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, MCCORMICK STEAMSHIP
COMPANY (two cases, Nos. R-81 and R-82), MOORE MILL & LUMBER
COMPANY, NATIONAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, NELSON STEAMSHIP COM-
PANY, CHARLES NELSON COMPANY, OCEANIC & 'ORIENTAL NAVIGATION'
COMPANY, OGDEN COMPANY, OLSON STEAMSHIP COMPANY, PARAMINO
LUMBER COMPANY, SCHAFER BROS. STEAMSHIP LINES, STATES STEAM-
SHIP COMPANY, SUDDEN & CHRISTENSON (two cases, Nos. R-93 and
R-94), SWAYNE & HOYT, UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, MATSON LINES,
J. R. HANIFY COMPANY, A. B. JOHNSON LUMBER COMPANY, E. K.
WOOD LUMBER COMPANY, J. RAMSELIUS, HART WOOD LUMBER COM-
PANY, DISPATCH STEVEDORING & CONTRACTING COMPANY, E. L. REITZ
COMPANY and SAILORS' UNION OF THE PACIFIC
Cases ,Nos. R-64 to R-76, inclusive, R-79 to R-102, inclusive,
R-104 and R-105
Decided September 10, 1936
Water Transportation Industry-Representation : no controversy as to ; recog-
nition of and negotiation with representatives by employer-Petition for In-
vestigation and Certification ; no action taken with respect to where no con-
troversy concerning representation of employees exists.
Mr. Bertram Edises for the Board.
Mr. Gregory A. Harrison, Mr. David C. Dunlap, and Mr. William
0. Crim, of San Francisco, Cal., for Pacific Steamship Co., Ameri-
can-Hawaiian Steamship Co., American Mail Line, Los Angeles-
San Francisco Navigation Co., Coos Bay Lumber Co., Dollar Steam-
ship Lines, Grace Line, Inc., Kingsley Co., McCormick Steamship
Co., National Steamship Co., Nelson Steamship Co., Charles Nelson
Co., Oceanic & Oriental Navigation Co., States Steamship Co.,
Sudden & Christenson, Swayne & Hoyt, United Fruit Co., and Mat-
son Lines.
214
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 215
Mr. Nat Levin, of San Francisco, Cal., for J. H. Baxter & Co.,
Beadle Steamship Co., W. R. Chamberlin & Co., S. S. Freeman &
Co., James Griffiths & Sons, Inc., Hammond Shipping Co., Lawrence
Philips Steamship .Co., McCormick Steamship Co., Moore Mill &
Lumber Co., Charles Nelson Co., Olson Steamship Co., Paramino
Lumber Co., Shafer Bros. Steamship Lines, Sudden & Christenson,
J. R. Hanify Cd., A. B. Johnson Lumber Co., E. K. Wood Lumber
Co., J. Ramselius, Hart Wood Lumber Co:, Dispatch Stevedoring
& Contracting Co., and E. L. Reitz Co.
Mr. Aaron Sapiro and Mr. Milton D. Sapiro, of San Francisco,
Cal., for Sailors' Union of the Pacific.
Mr. John L. McNab and Mr. Robert R. Littler, of San Francisco,
Cal., for International Seamen's Union.
Mr. H. P. Melnikow, of San Francisco, Cal., for Pacific Coast
Marine Firemen's Oilers', Watertenders' & Wipers' Association and
Marine Cooks and Stewards Association of the Pacific Coast.
Mary Lemon Schleifer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On May 21, 1936, the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, hereinafter
referred to as S. U. P., filed 34 petitions with the Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of the sailors
employed by Pacific, Steamship Company, American-Hawaiian
Steamship Company, American Mail Line, Los Angeles-San
Francisco Navigation Company, J. H. Baxter & Company, Beadle
Steamship Company, W. R. Chamberlin & Company, Coos Bay
Lumber Company, Dollar Steamship Lines, S. S. Freeman & Com-
pany, Grace Line, Inc., James Griffiths & Sons, Inc., Hammond
Shipping Company, Higgins Company, Hobbs Wall Company,
Kingsley Company, Lawrence Philips Steamship Company,
McCormick Steamship Company,' Moore Mill & Lumber Company,
National Steamship Company, Nelson Steamship Company,2 Charles
Nelson Company,2 Oceanic & Oriental Navigation Company, Ogden
1 Two petitions were filed in these cases, one applicable to operations of off-shore
vessels , the other to operations on coastwise vessels
'An older of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
No 27277-S, dated May 15, 1936, appointed a trustee for the Charles Nelson Company
and its subsidiary , the Nelson Steamship Company, in reorganization proceedings under
Sec. 77B of the Bankruptcy Act. Such an order has been held not to suspend or inter-
fere with a proceeding 'under the National Labor Relations Act. See In the Matter of
Englander Spring Bed Company, Inc , decided July 1, 1936, by the United States District
Court , Eastern District of New ' York. `
216 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Olson Steamship Company, Paramino Lumber Company,
Schafer Bros. Steamship Lines, States Steamship Company, Sud-
den & Christenson, Swayne & Hoyt, Matson Lines," and United
Fruit Company,4 and requesting investigations and certifications of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935.
On June 29, 1936, the National Relations Board, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Board, authorized the Regional Director for-the
Twentieth Region to conduct an investigation in each of the above
cases and to provide for an appropriate hearing in connection there-
with. On July 1, 1936, the Regional Director issued and duly served
on each of the Companies notices of a hearing ' to be' held' in San
Francisco, California, on July* 20, 1936. Copies of the notices of
hearing were duly served upon S. U. P., the International Seamen's
Union, hereinafter referred to as I. S. U., the Pacific Coast Marine
Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, hereinafter
referred to as the Firemen, and the Marine Cooks and Stewards
Association of the Pacific Coast, hereinafter referred to as the
Stewards.
Pursuant to the notices of hearing, a hearing was held in San
Francisco, California before Charles A. Wood, a Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board, on July 20 and 21, 1936. All of the
companies were represented at the hearing. At the beginning of
the hearing counsel for S. U. P. asked leave to file additional peti-
tions concerning the representation of sailors employed by J. R.
Hanify Company, A. B. Johnson Lumber Company, E. K. Wood
Lumber Company, J. Ramselius, Hart Wood Lumber Company,
Pacific Lumber Company, Dispatch Stevedoring & Contracting
Company and E. L. Reitz Company. All parties agreed that these
Companies be considered parties to the proceedings. The represent-
ative of these Companies also waived notice. During the course of
the hearing formal petitions respecting these Companies were offered
and received in evidence. Upon motion of counsel for S. U. P. the
petitions concerning the representation of sailors employed by Hig-
gins Company, Hobbs Wall Company and Pacific Lumber Company
were withdrawn during the hearing, when it was discovered that
these Companies are engaged in intrastate activities only. The
petitions having been withdrawn, this decision does not cover, these
three Companies.
1 Two petitions were filed in these cases, one applicable to operations of offJshore
vessels, the other to operations on coastwise vessels.
*Comprising Matson Navigation Company, Matson Steamship Company and Oceanic
Steamship Company.
4 The names of several of these companies were incorrectly stated in the petitions.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 217
S. U. P., I. S. U., the Firemen and the Stewards were also repre-
sented at the hearing. The petitions filed had alleged that I. S. U.
,claimed to represent the sailors, but no mention had been made in
the petitions of the Firemen or the Stewards. Upon the theory that
the Firemen and the Stewards were "directly affected" by the inves-
tigations, within the meaning of Article III, Section 3, of the Board's
Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,5 the Regional Director
also sent copies. of the notice of hearing to them. The representa-
tive of the Firemen and the Stewards took the position that having
received notice, they were parties to the proceeding, as provided
in the Section just cited. Counsel for S. U. P. objected to the par-
ticipation of these groups on the grounds that they had no interest
and that to allow them to participate would becloud the investiga-
tion. The Trial Examiner treated the appearance of the Firemen
and the Stewards as a petition to intervene and reserved ruling on
the petition, granting the representative of the Firemen and the
Stewards the right to participate fully in the hearing until such
time as a ruling was made on the petition to intervene. Subse-
quently, however, the representative of the Firemen and the Stew-
ards withdrew from the hearing, so that no ruling on the petition
was ever made. The interest of the Firemen and the Stewards in
'the proceeding was protected when counsel for the Board at the
direction of the Trial Examiner called officials of the Firemen and
the Stewards to testify as witnesses for the Board.
By stipulation of all parties concerned it was agreed that one
record of the hearing should be made and that the testimony ad-
duced should be deemed applicable to each of the cases. Counsel
'for I. S. U. moved that the petitions be dismissed on the ground
that the Board had no jurisdiction. This motion was denied. Many
objections were made to the introduction of evidence.
On August 14, 1936, pursuant to permission previously granted
by the Board at the request of counsel for I. S. U., a brief was
filed on behalf of I. S. U. At the same time, counsel for I. S. U.
filed a formal motion that the hearing be reopened for the purpose
of taking further evidence.
On August 27, 1936, the Board issued and duly served notice upon
the representatives of all the interested parties that a further hear-
ing would be held. Pursuant to the notice of hearing, a further
hearing was held in San Francisco, California on September 2, 3
and 4, 1936, before Alice M. Rosseter, Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region, duly designated to act as Trial Examiner.
I. S. U., S. U. P. and the Companies herein involved were repre-
a The reason for and extent of this interest will appear more fully hereafter.
218 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seated at the hearing. I. S. U. moved that the hearing be postponed
in view of the inability of Ivan Hunter, Secretary -Treasurer of
I. S. U., to attend. The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.
Again, many objections were made to the introduction of evidence.
Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties at both hearings . The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiners on the motions and objections and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearings and from the entire
-,record now before it, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE COMPANIES
A stipulation entered into on behalf of all the parties, and made
part of the record, sets forth that each of the Companies
"is and at all times since July 5, 1935, has continuously been
engaged at a place of business in the City and County of San
Francisco , State of California , in operating merchant vessels
of American registry for the transportation of freight and/or
passengers between ports in the State of California and ports
elsewhere in the United States or in foreign countries.
"The employees as to whom petitioner Sailors' Union of the
Pacific seeks to be certified as collective bargaining representa-
tive in the instant cases are members of the crews of the ves-
sels operated by said companies in interstate and/or foreign
commerce, being those unlicensed seamen who comprise the deck
departments of said vessels.
"All and singular said employees perform services which
are actually a part of the operation of said vessels in interstate
and/or foreign commerce , and which are essential to the mainte-
nance of the efficiency, safety and operation of said vessels."
We find that each of the Companies herein involved is engaged
in traffic, commerce and transportation between the States and be-
tween the United States and foreign countries. The sailors em-
ployed on the vessels of the Companies herein involved are directly
engaged in such traffic, commerce and transportation.
II. THE UNIONS
Sailors' Union of the Pacific is a labor organization which was
organized in 1885. It maintains its principal office at San Fran-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 219
Cisco, California. It has branch offices, with separate memberships,
at Seattle and Aberdeen, Washington; Portland, Oregon; San Pedro,
California; and Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii. S. U. P. has juris-
diction over three classes of sailors-petty officers, able-bodied sea-
men and ordinary seamen.. Its present membership is about 6800 to
7000 persons.
In 1892, I. S. U., also a labor organization, was organized under
the name of National Seamen's Union by S. U. P. and by the Great
Lakes Sailors' Union. In about 1896 the name of the National
Seamen's Union was changed to the International Seamen's Union,
the International being a member of the American Federation of
Labor. In 1902 I. S. U. granted a charter to S. U. P., S. U. P.
thereby becoming a district union of I. S. U. and through I. S. U.
affiliated with the American 'Federation of Labor. The Firemen
and the Stewards are each a district union of I. S. U. and continue
to exist as such at the present time.
S. U. P. remained a district union of I. S. U. until January 27, 1936,
when I. S. U. in its Convention, meeting in Washington, D. C., took
action which is alleged to have resulted in the revocation of the
charter of S. U. P. Shortly after this William, Green, President
of the American Federation of Labor, directed that S. U. P. be sus-
pended from affiliation with the City Labor Councils of San Fran-
cisco and San, Pedro, California, Portland, Oregon and, Seattle,
Washington, and the California, Oregon and Washington State
Federations of Labor, on the basis that revocation of the charter of
S. U. P.
"means that said Sailors' Union is no longer affiliated with the
International Seamen's Union of America and has no standing
with the American Federation of Labor. It cannot be repre-
sented in any state federation of labor or city central body
chartered by the American Federation of Labor."
On March 2, 1936, S. U. P. filed a bill in equity in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the City and County
of San Francisco. This bill in equity asked the Court to determine
that the alleged revocation of the charter of S. U. P. by I. S. U.
be declared null and void for the reasons, inter alia, that S. U. P.
had not been given notice of the charges nor been granted a hearing
prior to the revocation of the charter, and that the revocation had
been effected by delegates improperly chosen under the constitution
of I. S. U. and therefore without authority to act. S. U. P. also
requested other affirmative relief. The Superior Court has granted
a temporary injunction against I. S. U., but no final hearing has
yet been held.
220 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 1, 1936, I. S. U. notified S. U. P. that in light of the
allegations of S. U. P. that it had had no notice of the charges
and that no hearing had been granted, which allegations I. S. U.'
denied to be true, a further hearing, would be held in Chicago, Illi-
nois on May 25, 1936, on the charges set forth in the notice and com-
manded S. U. P. to attend. Shortly thereafter Harry Lundeberg,
Secretary-Treasurer of S. U. P., wrote a letter on behalf of S. U. P.
to I. S. U. This letter stated that in view of the position of I. S. U.
that the charter of S. U. P. had been revoked on January 27, 1936,
as evidenced' both in the prosecution of six suits in the courts of
California e and in the answer' filed by I. S. U. to the bill in equity
filed by S. U. P., I. S. U. no longer held the power either to com-
mand S. U. P. to appear nor to'conduct a hearing to try S. U. P.
for alleged violations of the' constitution of I. S. U. The letter
further stated that a new constitution had been illegally adopted by
I. S. U. in February, 1936, and that the Executive Council before which
the hearing was scheduled to be' held had no authority' to revoke the
charter 'of S. U. P., either under the new, constitution or under the
old. Despite the failure of S. U. P. to attend, the Executive Council
held a hearing in Chicago on May 25, and on May 26, for the second
time, took the steps considered necessary to revoke the charter of
S. U. P. Although no legal steps have yet been taken by S. U. P.
to challenge the validity of this revocation, counsel for S. U. P.
indicated that such steps would be taken as soon as the suit con=
cerning the alleged expulsion on January 27, 1936, had been decided.
Negotiations between I. S. U. and S. U. P. for the restoration of
the charter of S. U. P. have been carried on between these parties at
least since July 24, 1936, and perhaps before. Proposals for rein-
statement were submitted to S. U. P. by I. S. U. on July 24, 1936, but
were rejected by S. U. P. The rejection was made by a standing
vote of members, in meetings in Seattle and Aberdeen, Washington;
Portland, Oregon; San Francisco and San Pedro, California; and
Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii. On August 10, 1936, I. S. U. was
notified that its proposals had been rejected. At the same time
S. U. P. submitted counter proposals to I. S. U. No official action
has yet been taken by I. S. U. in accepting or rejecting these counter
proposals. While negotiations between I. S. U. and S. U. P. have
apparently reached an impasse, the possibility of a voluntary
reassociation is not precluded.
0 A suit by I. S. U. against S. U. P. in the United States District Court to recover
property and funds ; a suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
same purpose ; four suits by I. S. U. against four banks holding funds of S. U. P. to
secure the funds so held.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 221
III. QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
A. The position Of the employers
In the fall of 1934 the National Longshoremen's Board appointed
by the President of the United States under Public Resolution
No. 44, held that the entire unlicensed personnel employed on vessels
constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The unlicensed personnel consists of sailors, firemen and
cooks, who are eligible, respectively, for membership in S. U. P., the
Firemen and the Stewards. Each of these groups was at that time
a district union of I. S. U. The Longshoremen's Board also certified
I. S. U. as the representative of the entire unlicensed personnel.
Pursuant to this certification, the shipowners, including some ' of
those herein involved, entered into contracts with I. S. U.,7 which
contracts were also signed by S. U. P., the Firemen and the Stewards.
The contracts, which covered wages, hours and working conditions
of the sailors, firemen and cooks, provided for arbitration of provi-
sions on which there was disagreement. The award of the arbitra-,
tors on such provisions was made part of the contracts. The ' con-
tracts provide, inter alia, that the contracts will be binding upon
the parties from the date of signing until September 30, 1935, and
"shall be considered as renewed from year to year thereafter between
the parties hereto, unless any party to any such agreement shall give
written notice to the other of its desire to terminate or amend such
agreement . . . at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
date. . ." These contracts were renewed from September 30, 1935, to
September 30, 1936, by the failure of any of the parties to terminate
them.
Shortly after the alleged revocation of the charter of S. U. P. on
January 27, 1936, by I. S. U., approximately 6,800 sailors on the
Pacific coast signed pledge cards stating :
"The undersigned is a member of the Sailors' Union of the
Pacific.
"I desire to continue all activities of the SAILORS' Union
through an Emergency Committee, to be composed of the same
men who are officers of the Union under the Secretary-Treasurer.
"I authorize such committee to do all the things for me which
they did or, could do as officers of the Union.
"I authorize the Committee and the Emergency Officers to
collect from me regularly an amount equal to the DUES of the
Sailors' Union; and to issue receipts-therefor; and to use the
7 Two contracts were made, one with steam schooner operators, the other with off-
shore operators.
222 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
money as they may consider proper for the needs and purposes
and for the expenses and obligations of the Committee or the
members of the Sailors' Union, without limitation; and to report
all expenditures at the end of the Emergency as the Committee
may decide; and to take all the steps necessary or advisable to-
adjust with the Sailors' Union all obligations for dues equal to
the payment made hereunder -to the Emergency Committee of the
Sailors' Union.
"I also authorize the Committee to hold meetings; to conduct
business; to represent me in all matters and activities that the
Committee and the Officers could do or.transact as Officers of the
Sailors' Union, without limitation."
At about the same time these pledges were being signed, or shortly
thereafter, Lundeberg telephoned the shipowners and stated that
S. U. P. was operating as usual and that its office was open if they
wanted men.8 The shipowners informed Lundeberg that they had a
contract with I. S. U. and could not recognize S. U. P. On June
26, 1936, letters were sent by S. U. P. to 18 of the Companies herein
involved, stating :
"The agreement made with your company and on behalf of
the Sailors Union of the Pacific will soon expire.
"It will shortly be necessary, that a new agreement be nego-,
tiated to take effect on the expiration of the present agreement.
"The Sailors Union of the Pacific is ready and willing to Ne-
gotiate such an agreement with you on behalf of its members,
and feels that such negotiations ought to get under way without
delay.
"Will you kindly advise us immediately whether we may meet
with you and negotiate a new agreement to become effective at
the expiration of the present agreement under which we are
operating."
On or about July 16, 1936, aproximately 17 of these Companies
replied in identical terms to the effect that :
"Since receiving your letter of June 26th, 1936 . . . request-
ing a meeting with Sailors' Union of the Pacific, we have been
notified of a proceeding pending before the National Labor Rela-
tions Board relating to the representation of, our seafaring
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. , It would
seem proper to await the result of the proceedings before the
8 S. U. P. maintains meeting halls at Seattle and Aberdeen , Washington ; Portland,
Oregon ; San Francisco and San Pedro , California ; and Honolulu , Territory of Hawaii,
where the men report after returning from trips and await calls from shipowners to,
report for next duty . These meeting halls are apparently hiring halls.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 223
Board before taking any further 'action with reference to the
subject of your letter."
On August 10,1936, T. G. Plant, Chairman of the Coast Committee
for the Shipowners, which includes the off-shore operators, addressed
a letter to I. S. U. stating :
"The award of April 10, 1935 which constitutes a series of
agreements between your unions and certain of the undersigned
steamship companies, as well as certain agreements between your
unions and others of the undersigned steamship companies, will
all expire on September 30, 1936.
"Looking to this end they (the shipowners) have formulated
certain modifications which they wish to discuss with you at
the earliest possible date.
* * * * * * *
"Please advise promptly when you will meet us, . . ."
The names of S. U. P., the Firemen and the Stewards were placed
under the name of I. S. U. in the address of this letter and copies
of the letter were sent to S. U. P. and to the Firemen and the Stew-
ards.
On August 17, 1936, Lundeberg replied to the Coast Committee,
stating in part:
"2: Your letter is addressed to the International Seamen's
Union of America and to the three district unions;-
"You probably know that the Sailors' Union of the Pacific
is not now a -.part of the International Seamen's Union of
America.
"The award and agreements you refer to in your letter were
signed by the International Seamen's Union, as agent, for
the several district unions, including the Sailors' Union of the
Pacific.
"The act of revocation of the charter by the International
Seamen's Union automatically revoked this agency and auto-
matically stopped the International Seamen's Union from repre-
senting the Sailors' Union of the Pacific in any negotiations
or in any agreements. Therefore, the Sailors' Union of the
Pacific prefers to and does cancel and terminate the existing
agreements on September 30, 1936, as far as these agreements
affect the Sailors' Union of the Pacific.9
This notice has been construed by all the patties to constitute the notice required
to terminate the existing contracts on September 30, 1936, even if the letter of Plant
quoted directly above had not done so.
224 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"3: But the Sailors' Union of the Pacific will be glad to ne-
gotiate a new agreement with the shipowners covering the,
requirements of the sailors of the Pacific Coast.
"All of these negotiations will be directly by the representa-
tives of the Sailors' Union without the intervention of any
`agents."'
Plant replied on August 21, 1936:
"The arbitration award under which we have been working
resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with the agency
designated by the National Longshoremen's Board, in the late
Fall of 1934. That agency was the International Seamen's
Union. ' - `
"You have advised us that ^ a disagreement, has arisen between
your Union and the International Seamen's Union, resulting
in the revocation of your charter by the International. One
Court action, pends, instituted by your Union, seeking to declare
your expulsion null and void. There also pends your application
to the National' Labor Relations Board for a determination that
your Union and not the International, represents the sailors.
"We are'anxious to proceed on the desired modifications with-
out delay, but feel that we must be assured that we are dealing
with the properly authorized agency. We suggest a joint con-
ference with representatives of your Union and those of the
International."
On August 28, 1936, Plant replied to a letter of August 22 from
Lundebexg in which Lundeberg stated that S. U. P. refused to attend
a joint conference of the steamship companies and of I. S. U., that:
"You will appreciate that we have not the authority to deter-
mine who is the proper representative of our sailors. However,
we are desirous of meeting with someone, in an effort to find
a means of arriving at a solution of our mutual problems. We
feel, therefore, that we should confer with representatives of the
Sailors Union of the Pacific at an early date, in an effort to find
some method for settlement of the proposed modifications of the
award of April 10, 1935 and your agreement of April 11, 1936
with steamship companies in the Alaskan Trade. We will there-
fore be glad to meet you at our earliest mutual convenience that
our pending negotiations with other groups will permit."
On September 3, 1936, at the second hearing of this case, Plant
testified that no conferences had yet been held with S. U. P. pursuant
to the invitation of the off-shore operators. His testimony as to the
position taken by the off-shore operators was as follows:
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 225
"Q. Do I ' understand your statement to be that if the Inter-
national Seamen 's Union, so to speak , washes its hands of the
question of negotiating on behalf of the sailors of the Pacific
Coast, that your group is willing to enter into a working
agreement with the Sailors ' Union of the Pacific?
"A. That is correct.
"Q. In the event that such an agreement between your clients
and the Sailors' Union of the Pacific should be worked out, is
it your understanding that the International Seamen's Union
would not be a signer of any such agreement?
"A. Yes.. , That is our understanding , that the ISU would not
then be a party to it.
"Q. Is it proper to interpret your action iri requesting or
in acquiescing to the demands or the requests of the ' Sailors'
Union of the Pacific for separate negotiations as meaning that
the International Seamen's Union at present is out of the bar-
gaining picture on behalf of the sailors of the Pacific Coast?
"A. We do think so, ..."
Nat Levin, representing the steam schooner operators,1° testified
that on September 1, 1936, a committee of these operators held a
conference with S. U. P. and that further conferences were scheduled.
The significance of these conferences is shown in the following
testimony of Levin : • '
"Q. What was the purpose of your conference?
"A. The purpose was to attempt to negotiate an agreement
with the Sailors' Union of the Pacific on behalf of the companies
which are members of the Ship Owners Association of the
Pacific Coast.
"Q. Was the International Seamen's Union in any way con-
nected with or' officially notified or asked to participate in that
conference and negotiations?
"A. No.
"Q. Your group recognizes the Sailors' Union of the Pacific
as the collective bargaining representative of the sailors em-
ployed on steam schooners employed on'the Pacific Coast?
"A. Well, I will say in yesterday's meeting we met with them
for the purpose of making an agreement on' wages and working
conditions covering the sailors who are members of the Sailors'
Union of the Pacific which, we understand; are practically all
of the sailors working on the ships of our members.
10 All of the Companies herein involved belong either to the off-shore or steam schooner
groups.
226 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Q. Well, is it the position of your group that the Interna-
tional Seamen's Union is properly to be a party to any agreement
which may result from your negotiations?
"A. Not as far as our present meetings with the Sailors'
Union of the Pacific are concerned. In other words, in the
meeting with the Sailors' Union of the Pacific in the hope of
making an agreement, it didn't enter into the thoughts of the
committee that they would be--the International Seamen's
Union-in the picture at all as far as the sailors were concerned.
"Q. But the present negotiations that you have referred to
are for the purpose of consummating a contract with the Sailors'
Union of the Pacific. Is that correct?
"A. That is correct."
It is apparent, both from the acts of these operators and from the
testimony of their representatives, that at the present time the ship-
owners are meeting or intend to meet with S. U. P. for the purpose
of entering into a new agreement concerning the sailors 'employed
on the Pacific Coast and that they will recognize S. U. P. as the sole
representative of these sailors at least so long as I. S. U. makes no
claim to represent them.
B. The position of I. S. U.
In the notice of May 1, 1936, sent by I. S. U. to S. U. P. command-
ing S. U. P. to attend a meeting of the Executive Council in Chicago,
Illinois on May 25, 1936, it was stated that the purposes of the meet-
ing, in addition to the hearing in relation to the charges against
S. U. P., were :
"4. To consider and act upon the question of organizing an-
other union or unions of Sailors on the Pacific Coast, irrespective
of whether said charter of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific is
revoked or not;
"5. To consider and act upon any other business, proposal,
resolution and suggestions bearing directly or indirectly upon
any of the above mentioned matters, and also upon the questions
of property, moneys, and any other matters. of any kind whatso-
ever affecting the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, the organization
of the members of the International Seamen's Union on the
Pacific Coast, labor problems and wages on the Pacific Coast,
and policies in connection therewith, and any other matters con-
cerning the business of the International Seamen's Union on the
Pacific Coast."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 227
Lundeberg testified that after the charter of S. U. P. was revoked,
I. S. U. "went on record to reorganize this Coast and sent organizers
on the Coast here to start another union"; that "they J. S. U.) estab-
lished an office at 64 Pine Street to reorganize or open up a dual union,
which would interfere with the Sailors' Union of the Pacific"; and
that "they (I. S. U.) sent a letter to the shipowners after the charter
was revoked that they J. S. U.) represented the men on the Coast
here." The purpose of this testimony was to show that I. S. U. also
claims the right to represent the sailors in the pending negotiations.
Whether or not I. S. U. intends to or has begun to organize a rival
union of sailors is not pertinent to the issues involved here, since it is
clear from the record that practically every sailor employed by these
Companies is at present a member of S. U. P. Any intention of
I. S. U. to interfere in the pending negotiations on behalf of a group
of newly organized sailors in a rival union could not be seriously
urged by S. U. P. as a basis for the need of a certification by us at
the present time.
Whether or not I. S. U. sent a letter to the shipowners after the
charter of S. U. P. was revoked stating that I. S. U. represented the
sailors on the Coast, it seems apparent from the entire record in the
case that this letter, if sent, constitutes the only attempt of I. S. U.
to interfere with the representation of the sailors by S. U. P. in the
pending negotiations. Nor is there any indication in the record that
it intends to do so. On the contrary, at the first hearing Ivan Hunter,
Secretary-Treasurer of I. S. U., testified in direct examination by
counsel for I. S. U. as follows:
"Q. Were these provisions inserted in the notice (i. e., of May 1,
1936) to indicate any purpose on behalf of the International Sea-
men's Union to.interfere at the present time with the function of
the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, in accordance with the state-
ment (testimony) of Mr. Lundeberg
,'A. No sir.
"Q. Nov, Mr. Hunter, even if the charter of the Sailors' Union
of the Pacific is not restored, in the negotiations within the next
few months looking toward the renewal of the present Pacific
Coast agreement would the International Seamen's Union be will-
ing to have the Sailors' Union participate directly in such negotia-
tions in order to protect the bargaining unit?
"A. It would."
His testimony on cross-examination by counsel for S. U. P. was:
"Q. You stated in your direct testimony that you would be
perfectly willing to have the Sailors' Union appear jointly in
5727-37-vol i1-1G
228 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new negotiations-was that the effect of that testimony which you
gave in answer to a question ...?
"A. That is right.
"Q. You didn't have any idea in that that you would represent
them, did you?
"A. No, sir; I did not.
"Q. You meant that they would represent themselves, did you?
"A. That is right; yes, sir.
'Q. Frankly, Mr. Hunter, :you testified you hadn't any desire
to interfere with the interests of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific,
is that correct ?
"A. That is correct."
The brief filed on behalf of I. S. U. stated :
"While the shipowners did raise the question as to whether or
not the loss of the charter created an obstacle to negotiations in
case the International Seamen's Union objected to the partici-
pation of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific nevertheless, this
doubt was completely dissipated by the testimony of Mr. Ivan
Hunter as Secretary-Treasurer of the International Seamen's
Union to the effect that the International has always been willing
that the spokesmen designated by the Sailors through the Sailors'
Union of the Pacific should speak for the Sailors in the negotia-
tions. The record clearly shows that the International Sea-
men's Union at no time interfered with the Sailors' Union of
the Pacific in the negotiation of those contracts which have been
consummated since the revocation of the charter "
".:. the International Seamen's Union has taken the position
that it is willing to bring directly into the negotiations the chosen
spokesmen of the Sailors themselves."
At the second hearing counsel for I. S. U. submitted as part of the
record the following answers to these questions by the Board :
"Question 1: Is it the intention of the I. S. U. to refrain en-
tirely from interfering with the negotiations of S. U. P. as the
representative of the sailors or is it the position of I. S. U. that
it has a joint right to negotiate with S. U. P. on behalf of the
sailors ?
"Answer : The International Seamen's Union has never made it
a practice of negotiating directly for its district unions, nor of
participating directly in the negotiations except (1) when re-
quested by the district unions, (2) when the district unions have
"The testimony shows that since January 27, 1936, S. U. P. has entered into about
20 contracts with Alaskan shipowners and that I. S. U. has made no.attempt to inter-
fere with the making of these contracts.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 229
reported inability to agree and the, Secretary-Treasurer of the
International Seamen's Union is called in preliminary to a strike
in accordance with the International constitution, and (3) where
by contract, as in the case of the agreements and awards of the
Pacific Coast, the International Seamen's Union has obligations
to perform. Since notices of termination have been given re-
specting the two Pacific agreements, and since negotiations now
pending are for new agreements, the, only participation of the
International Seamen's Union will be under conditions (1) and
(2) above. Since the Sailors' Union of the Pacific charter is
revoked, neither of these conditions can occur.
"Question 2: Does I. S. U. take the position that, in the event
a contract is consummated with the ,ship, owners as a result of
the pending negotiations, I. S. U. would have the right to sign
the contract jointly with S. U. P. on behalf of the sailors?
"Answer : Under circumstances as they now exist-no."
Most significant, too, is the fact that S: U: P. admits that it no
longer believes I. S. U will attempt to interfere in behalf of the
sailors in the pending negotiations. Lundeberg himself testified
at the second hearing in the following manner concerning the con-
' 11ferences, with the steam schooner operators:
"Q. The question was, in the conference which was held yes-
terday between the Sailors' Union of the Pacific and the steam
schooner group, was that conference a part of negotiations look-
ing to the consummation of a contract between the steam
schooners and the SUP without the participation of ISU in,any
shape or.form?
"A. Absolutely.
"Q. So that it is understood by the parties who participated in
that conference that the ISU is not to have any voice in the
determination of the terms of your agreement, and is not to be
a party, either through having its signature on the contract or
in any other way?
"A. That is right."
In addition, counsel for S. U. P. stated that the right of S. U. P.
to negotiate for the sailors was one point on which I. S. U. and
S. U. P. agreed in the terms which had been submitted by each to
the other as a basis for the reinstatement of S. U. P into I. S. U.
He also admitted that he understood I. S. U. had definitely expressed
its desire not to participate in the pending negotiations.
It is apparent, from the foregoing recital of facts, that there
did exist, until recently, a question concerning the representation
of the sailors employed by the Companies herein involved. But
230 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the present time the ship owners are recognizing S. U. P. as the
representative of the sailors and have entered into negotiations with
S. U. P. for the purpose of consummating a contract concerning
the sailors, and I. S. U. is neither interfering in any way nor
asserting the right to represent the sailors in these negotiations.
In addition, it clearly disclaims any intention of doing so. There-
fore, no question exists at the present time concerning the repre-
sentation of the sailors employed by the Companies herein involved.
DISPOSITION OF CA SE
Since no question exists concerning the representation of the
sailors employed by the Companies herein involved, the Board will
take no action on the petitions at this time. If it should become
apparent to the Board that because of the actions of I. S. U. or of
the Companies herein involved a question affecting commerce con-
cerning the representation of the sailors employed by these Com-
panies should again arise, the Board will reopen the case and take
such action as it may deem necessary.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, doubting :
In signing the above decision, I have done so with some reserva-
tions as to the wisdom of denying certification to S. U. P. Even
though the current situation, as described in the decision, seems to
indicate that there no longer exists a controversy regarding repre-
sentation, I feel that there are uncertainties and ambiguities in the
relationship of the parties, as revealed by the Board's investigation,
which would warrant the Board in hesitating to deny a formal
certification of S. U. P. as the bargaining representative of the
sailors employed by the companies. It is the opinion of the Chairman
of the Board that certification of S. U. P. is not called for in the
absence of more precise indications of either present or potential
controversy. I am unwilling to press my doubts to the point of a
possible disagreement, since to do so would result in no decision
being issued, thus preventing the parties from receiving the .benefit
of the Board's detailed investigation into a question of great impor-
tance both to the sailors and to the shipowners on the Pacific Coast.
The last sentence of the Board's decision, leaving the way clear
for an immediate reopening of the whole matter should an occasion
arise, seems to me a desirable form of insurance of the petitioner's
rights.