Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1250 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1250 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge of the Employer's bookkeeping. P. G. Komarnicki heads the
cash department, and audits disbursements. M. L. Pye is in charge
of all the Employer's files and the routing of mail. The record shows
that Kreischer, Smith, Komarnicki, and Pye responsibly direct the
work of one or more employees in the performance of their duties.
In addition, all have authority to recommend the discharge of em-
ployees, and all but Pye have effectively done so. Accordingly, we find
that Kreischer, Smith, Komarnicki, and Pye are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
Margaret Eichorn is one of two statistical typists and stenographers
working for the comptroller. She receives a monthly salary of $226,
while the other typist receives $210. She does not direct the work
of any other typists although, when ordered by the comptroller, she
will divide the work with the other statistical typist and the pool
typist, whose monthly average salary exceeds that of Eichorn. As
Eichorn does not responsibly direct these employees, and does not
have any other supervisory authority, we find that she is not a super-
visor.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All office and clerical`•
employees at the Employer's main office located at 132 West 43rd
Street, New York, New York, excluding professional employees, con-
fidential employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in-
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this.
volume.]
SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST AND ITS MEMBER
COMPANIES and MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS, AFL, AFFILIATED WITH
THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,1 PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1416. September 23, 1952
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.
1 The petition herein was filed by the Sailors Union of the Pacific , Seafarers International
Union of North America, AFL , hereinafter referred to as the SUP . After the hearing, the
SUP moved to substitute as petitioner the Marine Cooks and Stewards , AFL, affiliated with
the Seafarers International Union of North America, hereinafter referred to as the
MCS-AFL, on the ground that the MCS-AFL has succeeded the SUP with respect to its
jurisdiction over the employees involved The Board notes that a similar motion was.
made by the SUP during the hearing in Pacific Maritime Asaaciation and its Member
Companies , et ad, 100 NLRB 1259 , a closely related proceeding . In the instant proceeding;
lit; NL -RB No. 2431ZY.
SHIPOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 1251
officer . The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer 2
3. The MCS urges as a bar to the instant proceeding, an agreement
between itself and the Employers 3 executed on January 19,1949, cover-
ing the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner. This agree-
ment was one of a series of supplemental agreements which extended,
with certain modifications, the terms of an earlier contract entered into
by the parties on July 10, 1946, and was effective until June 15, 1951,
and from year to year thereafter in the absence of a written notice of
a desire to amend or terminate by either party at least 60 days prior
to said expiration date. By letters, each dated April 13, 1951, the
parties, in accordance with the reopening provisions of the contract,
gave timely notice of a mutual desire to amend its terms.
The petition was filed on June 1, 1951. The MCS contends that,
notwithstanding the notices to reopen, the contract was automatically
renewed on the ground that no negotiations pursuant thereto have ever
taken place. This contention lacks merit.4 In accordance with well
the Board issued its notice to the parties to show cause why the motion should not granted.
The MCS was the sole party to respond to the motion and notice and opposed the motion
on the ground , among others, that the use of the name MCS-AFL is an effort to confuse
the voters in their choice of representatives
As to*this objection, we believe that any confusion which may exist in the minds of the
employees can be best dissipated, and the desires of the employees ascertained by directing
an election herein , with the ballot disclosing the full affiliation of the MCS-AFL as here-
inafter designated in the Direction of Election See P. R Mallory & Co., Inc ., 89 NLRB
062 The MCS further contends that the record should be reopened so that evidence may
be adduced to support the allegations of the SUP' s motion Although the MCS requests
a hearing on the motion , it has not shown any prejudice or alleged any facts inconsistent
with the allegations of the motion . Accordingly, we find that sufficient cause has not
been shown why the MCS-AFL should not be substituted as petitioner . Thus , it appear-
ing that the MCS-AFL Is the real party In, interest , the motion is hereby granted.
Aluminum Foils, Inc, 94 NLRB 806, Cherner Motor Company, 19 NLRB 609; Bushnell
Steel Company , 96 NLRB 218
Upon the showing of a sufficient interest , intervention was granted to the National
Maritime Union of America , CIO, hereinafter referred to as the NMU . The National
Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards , hereinafter referred to as the MCS , was permitted
to intervene on the basis of its recently expired contract The hearing officer properly
overruled the contention by the Petitioner and NMU that the MCS should be barred from
the hearing because of noncompliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The
fact of compliance by a labor organization in an administrative matter and is not litigable by
the parties . Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that the MCS is in com-
pliance Florida Citrus Canners Cooperative , 96 NLRB 1021 ; see General Baking Company,
90 NLRB 588
3 This agreement was signed on behalf of the Employers by the Pacific American Ship-
owners Association , an association whose identity is separate from that of the Employers.
The bargaining history of the parties will be more fully discussed in paragraph numbered 4,
herein
4 Whitin Machine Works, 76 NLRB 998 ; see Amco Tank and Welding Works, Inc., 85
NLRB 861.
227260-5 '3-vol. 100-80
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
established policy, we find that the reopening of the contract fore-
stalled its automatic renewal, and that the petition was, therefore,
timely filed with respect to the contract termination date of June 15,
19515 Moreover, part II, section 2, of the July 10, 1946, contract,
the terms of which were extended by the January 19, 1949, supplement
as stated above, contained an illegal preferential hiring clause 6 which
would, in itself, suffice to remove the contract as a bar to a present
determination of representatives.7 Accordingly, we find that a ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .8
4. All parties are in agreement that the unit, if any, established
by the Board should comprise only, stewards department employees.
The parties further agree that cook-stewards who are carried on
vessels operating in the steam schooner trade are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. The only unit issue in this case relates
to the scope of the unit. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all
stewards department employees on vessels operated in the steam
schooner trade by member companies of the Shipowners' Association
of the Pacific Coast.' The NMU contends that the petition should be
dismissed on the ground that the only appropriate unit is an over-all
unit, which would include employees in the steam schooner trade as
defined in the contracts covering that trade together with employees
United States Time Corporation , 86 NLRB 724 ; Strong Company, 86 NLRB 687.
This very clause of the contract in question was recently considered and found illegal
by the Board in National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards , 90 NLRB 1099 '
1 Mid-Continent Coal Corporation , 82. NLRB 261 ; C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing
Company, 80 NLRB 163
8 In addition to urging a contract bar, the MCS moved to dismiss the petition on the
following grounds: (1)i The failure of the Petitioner and the NMU to produce proof of a
showing of Interest , ( 2) the refusal and failure of the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region to answer questions relating to the Petitioner 's showing of interest,
(3) the Petitioner 's lack of good faith in that , allegedly , fewer jobs exist than those for
which Petitioner claims interest , ( 4) the unit sought by the Petitioner Is inappropriate,
and (5) the unit is in the process of change and an election at this time is not warranted.
We find without merit contentions ( 4), and ( 5) for the reasons set forth in paragraphs
numbered 4 and 5 herein As to contentions ( 1), (2), and ( 3), the various grounds ad-
vanced by the MCS relate to showing of interest . The Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region appeared at the hearing as a witness in response to a subpena duces
tecam issued at the request of the MCS IIowever , the Regional Director, ' i elying on
Section 102 90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , refused to give any testimony per-
taining to the parties ' showing- of interest. The hearing officer upheld the Regional
Director in such refusal , but permitted the MCS to make an offer of proof that the Regional
Director 's testimony would show that - the Petitioner had not made a proper showing of
interest The hearing officer's rulings upholding the refusal of the Regional Director to
testify and rejecting the offer of proof are affirmed. The record appeal from this ruling
by the MCS and its request that the Board direct the Regional Director to testify and
produce records relating to the above -mentioned matters are hereby denied . We have
repeatedly held that showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to direct
or collateral attack . Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 83 NLRB 407; Great Southern
Chemical Corporation , 96 NLRB 1013. Accordingly , the motion of the MCS to dismiss is
denied.
O The Employers , Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast and its Member Com-
panies , will be hereinafter refereed to as the SAPC
SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 1253
in the offshore, intercoastal, and Alaska trades (which trades are
commonly referred to collectively as the offshore trade) 10 as defined
in the contracts covering those trades. Such a unit would, in effect,
comprise all stewards department employees on all ships operated
by the members of both the SAPC and the Pacific Maritime Associa-
tion 11 The MCS, although also urging dismissal of the petition on
the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate,
does not unequivocally state what, in its view, constitutes the appropri-
ate unit. However, from a consideration of the whole record, it is
readily apparent that the MCS agrees with the NMU that only an
over-all unit of employees in both the offshore and steam schooner
trades is appropriate 12
Although the record and the argument in its brief indicates that the
SAPC takes the same unit position as the Petitioner, namely a unit
restricted to employees on ships operated by members of the SAPC
in the steam schooner trade, the SAPC describes in its brief its unit
contention as a unit limited to its membership. The unit thus de-
scribed could be taken to include employees on all ships operated by
members of the SAPC whether or not operated in the steam schooner
trade.13 In any event, we shall, in our determination of the appro-
priate unit, consider both views.
The SAPC, a nonprofit California corporation, is an association of
steamship companies which generally operate vessels in the steam
schooner trade on the Pacific Coast. The record discloses that the
steam schooner trade refers to ships which operate between ports in
California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska, ex-
cept ships operating between Puget Sound and Alaska .114
The PMA, also a nonprofit California corporation, is an association
of steamship companies operating vessels in the offshore trade. Thus,
the SAPC has been identified with the steam schooner trade while
the PMA has been identified with the offshore trade.
The members of the SAPC are few in number. They operate small
ships close to shore. Their principal cargo is lumber and paper. In
contrast PMA ship operators operate a large number of ships over a
wide variety of trade routes throughout the world carrying all kinds
of cargoes. They use large and fast modern freight and passenger
vessels, whereas ships in the steam schooner trade, as a rule, carry no
10 Hereinafter, the term "offshore trade" will be used to indicate all three trades.
"The Pacific Maritime Association, hereinafter referred to as the PMA, is not a party
to this proceeding
11 We have considered the contract bar contention of the MCS and its contention that
the unit sought Is inappropriate as alternative contentions
Is Although the members of the SAPC operate ships predominately in the steam schooner
trade, at various times, they also operate a few ships In the offshore trade.
14 Vessels plying the trade In Puget Sound and Alaska are commonly referred to as
belonging to the Alaska trade.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
passengers. In- addition to differing in size , ships in the steam
schooner trade differ from offshore ships in quarters, cargo gear, and
in internal construction. Members of the crew on steam schooners
work cargo, a condition which is generally not the rule for vessels in
the offshore trade. The effect of this practice is that members of the
stewards department on steam schooners often work at night while
the crew is working cargo. Other differences exist due to the fact
that numerous classifications such as bakers, waiters, deck stewards,
bar stewards, etc., found in the offshore trade, are not found in the
steam schooner trade where the stewards department is much smaller.15
Also the total number of stewards department employees in the steam
schooner trade is only a small fraction of the total number of stewards
department employees in the offshore trade. These differences, in-
cluding the different economic character of each trade, have been re-
flected over the years in a series of separate and distinct bargaining
contracts.
The Intervenors in urging an over-all unit of both trades rely prin-
cipally on the contentions: (1) That employees in both trades are
interchanged and enjoy similar working conditions; and (2) that
bargaining for both trades has been an over-all basis. As to the first
contention, such interchange of employees as does occur is due to the
existence of a common labor'pool and not to the employment policies
of the Employers. Granted that, in some respects, working conditions
in both trades are similar due to certain unvarying aspects of stewards
department work on seagoing vessels in all trades, working conditions,
in fact, are not wholly similar as illustrated by those differences be-
tween the trades pointed out above. Also, wages in each trade are
different. In any event, the Board has held that interchangeability
of employees due to a common labor pool and similarity of working
conditions are, by themselves, insufficient to justify a unit coextensive
with the existence of such factorsl8 As to the second of these con-
tentions, it is a sufficient answer thereto that this contention is not
supported in the record by the evidence as to the history of collective
bargaining.
Bargaining History: There have been separate collective-bargain-
ing contracts covering seagoing personnel in the steam schooner and
offshore trades for the past 14 years. During this time, contracts
covering stewards department personnel in each trade have been ne-
gotiated with the MCS. An examination of the collective-bargaining
26 In the steam schooner trades , the stewards department personnel usually number
only four , comprising a cook steward , a galley man , and two messmen . Usually, no baker
is carried on steam schooners due to the fact that they touch port often . It was testified
that employees in the steam schooner trade normally sign for a voyage with the captain
whereas employees in the offshore trade normally must sign shipping articles.
1G Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., 88 NLRB 521 ; F. E. Booth t Company,
et at, 10 NLRB 1491 ; Aluminum Line, at at., 8 NLRB 1325.
SHIPOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 1255
history shows this history readily falls into three separate periods :
the first period covering the prewar years, the second period from
1944 to 1949, and the third period from that time on. The effective-
ness of the entire bargaining history as a factor in determining the
appropriate unit requires a consideration of the bargaining history for
each of these periods.
Prewar: For the period prior to World War II, there are in evi-
dence three steam schooner contracts which were negotiated between
the SAPC and the MCS, and dated February 4, 1937, March 29, 1940,
and October 23, 1941, respectively. These contracts describe the unit
as all stewards department employees on vessels operated in the steam
schooner trade by members of the SAPC. In the 1937 and 1940 con-
tracts, provision is made for adding a second cook to the ship's regular
manning scale when a ship goes offshore outside of the regular
steam schooner trade. The 1941 contract, however, is specifically
limited to "Steam Schooners when operating Coastwise" 17 and con-
tains no such proviso. Instead, a separate agreement was signed
between the parties in 1941 which applied "to vessels operated in other
trades than the coastwise trade on the Pacific Coast when such vessels
were operated by members of the Association." This agreement pro-
vided for different manning and wage scales but incorporated certain
general terms of the 1940 steam schooner agreement. The last-men-
tioned agreement also provided that "when any vessel operating under
this agreement returns to the coasting steam schooner trade, it shall
operate under the steam schooner agreement during such coasting
operation."
1944-1949: During the war, practically all shipping was comman-
deered by the War Shipping Administration. The steam schooner
trade had substantially declined and many members of the SAPC
were operating ships offshore under general agency contracts with
the Federal Government. During 1944, as a consequence of this
change in their operations, the members of the SAPC joined the
Pacific American Shipowners Association, predecessor to the PMA.18
Thenceforth, in addition to negotiating the contracts for the offshore
trade, the PASA also negotiated the contracts for the steam schooner
trade.
The next contract in evidence is a contract covering the steam
schooner trade executed on July 10, 1946, between the MCS and the
17 The term "coastwise trade" is commonly used to refer to the steam schooner trade.
Although so used in the contract and throughout the record, it was brought out at the
hearing that strictly speaking the term "coastwise trade" refers to a trade distinct from
the steam schooner trade.
11 In 1949, the Pacific American Shipowners Association , hereinafter referred to as the
PASA, which represented its members with respect to seagoing personnel , and the water-
front Employers Association of the Pacific Coast, which represented its members with
respect to shoreaide personnel , merged to form the present PMA.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
PASA 19 On June 19, 1947, the 1946 contract was renewed by the
PASA and the MCS for an additional 1-year period. Thereafter, in
1949, two supplemental agreements which amended and extended the
1946 contract until June 15, 1951, were entered into by and between
the PASA, acting on behalf of the SAPC, and the MCS.20
1949-1951: Steam schooner negotiations were carried on through
the PASA until April 1949, after which date the steam schooner op-
erators resumed negotiating through the SAPC for their steam
schooner trade operations. This change is evidenced not only by
testimony but also by later supplemental agreements dated January 3,
1950, and October 27, 1950, amending the basic 1946 contract with
respect to a welfare security fund and wages, which supplemental
agreements were executed by the SAPC and the MCS, -with no
mention of the PASA or its successor PMA. -
The member companies of the SAPC which are presently operating
ships in the steam schooner trade are, with the exception of one com-
pany which has retained its PMA membership only for its offshore
operations, no longer members of the PMA with respect to their sea-
going personnel. Thus since April 1949 the PMA has not conducted
any collective bargaining nor does it have authority to bargain with
respect to stewards department personnel on vessels operated in the
steam schooner trade by the member companies of the SAPC.21 When
those members of the SAPC who have withdrawn altogether from the
PMA with respect to its negotiations for offshore personnel, have occa-
sion to operate any vessels offshore, it is their practice to apply the
terms of the existing offshore contract to such vessels.22 As indicated
above, during each of the bargaining periods just considered, the PMA,
or its predecessor PASA, and the MCS, negotiated separate contracts
for the offshore trade covering only vessels operating in that trade.
Although the steam schooner trade has generally followed the lead
'0 This contract provides that it is entered into on behalf of the member companies
therein listed and covers only vessels operated by them in the steam schooner trade. The
names of 24 companies are listed , which names , with the exceptions of 2, also appear in
the 1941 steam schooner contract negotiated between the SAPC and the MCS. Appar-
ently during the period from 19 44 to 1949 , all offshore operations of the steam schooner
companies came under the offshore contract concurrently negotiated between the PASA
and the MCS. In this connection , the 1946 and 1948 offshore ' contracts contained special
manning provisions for old type freighters, a type of vessel in common use in the steam
schooner trade. -
20 Although the 1946 contract listed the steam schooner operators as above illustrated,
it did not provide, as did the 1949 supplements , that it was entered into on behalf of the
SAPC. The SAPC contends that the 1946 contract inadvertently failed to include this
statement and points to the 1949 supplements as an indication that the 1946 contract
was actually signed in its behalf
21 See Pacific Maritime Association , 89 NLRB 894 , 899, 909 where it is indicated in the
Intermediate Report based on a hearing held in August 1949 that the PMA has no author-
ity to bargain for employees in the steam schooner trade.
22 In this regard , each company has , apparently , made its own arrangements with the
MCS Thus bargaining has not been association -wide but rather has been based on opera-
tions in the steam schooner trade or trade-wide
SHIPOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 1257
of the offshore trade in granting wage increases and other benefits,
the record shows that, following the completion of the offshore nego-
tiations, such terms have been separately negotiated in the steam
schooner trade 23 The bargaining pattern which thus emerges is one
in which the steam schooner trade has been traditionally represented
as a separate unit.24 Therefore, the bargaining history supports the
unit sought by the Petitioner. Moreover, the propriety of the unit
sought by the Petitioner was not questioned by the intervening MCS
in a recent Board proceeding involving the MCS and the PASA,
wherein the Board approved a finding by the Trial Examiner that a
unit limited to the steam schooner trade was appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining25 In view of the above and upon the
entire record in this case, we believe that the traditional unit sought
by the Petitioner, confirmed by many years of collective-bargaining
history and already approved by the Board, is the appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes .21
The cook-stewards: Although the parties agree to the inclusion of
the cook-stewards who have in the past been included in the contract
unit, a careful examination of the record reveals that they possess
supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. Thus the cook-
steward, who is the top-ranking employee in the stewards department
on a steam schooner, is in charge of from three to five other employees.
In this respect, it was testified without contradiction that a cook-
steward not only does the ordering of food and supplies, and performs
the cooking, but also supervises the running of the stewards depart-
ment. He plans the menu and tells the employees in the stewards de-
partment what to do. Upon being advised by the captain that the
ship's crew are going to work cargo at night, the cook-steward assigns
the extra work to be done and approves such overtime which is then
23 It is noteworthy that during the period from 1944 to 1949, a separate contract for
each trade was negotiated by the parties despite the fact that ( 1) the steam schooner
trade had all but disappeared , ( 2) the MCS was the only union representing stewards
department personnel on'all ships, (3) all steam schooner companies were members of the
PASA, and (4) the PASA negotiated the contracts for both trades.
24 Other than contracts with the MCS covering employees in stewards departments, the
record discloses that the SAPC has executed contracts with the following labor organiza.
tions representing employees of its member companies in the steam schooner trade : Sailors
Union of the Pacific (unlicensed deck ). 1%faiine Firemen and Oilers ( unlicensed engine),
Marine Beneficial Organisation ( licensed engineers ), and Masters , Mates & Pilots ( masters
and mates ). It was testified that the PMA or its predecessor PASA did not bargain
with any of these unions with relation to the steam schooner trade with the exception of
the period from 1944 to 1949
25 National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards , 90 NLRB 1099 . The above finding is
all the more significant in that it was made on the state of facts existing during the period
in which the PASA negotiated the contracts for both trades.
29 As bargaining has occurred on a trade -wide and not on an association -wide basis, we
shall not include stewards department personnel on ships operated by members of the
SAPC in the offshore trade , but shall limit the unit to those stewards department per-
sonnel on vessels operated by the members of the SAPC in the steam schooner trade. See
Tide Water Associated Oil Company , 38 NLRB 582, 590; Merchant if Miners Transporta-
tion Co, 37 NLRB 1165 , 1168 , Standard Oil Company of California, 67 NLRB 506. _
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
checked by the captain. The cook-steward is the only stewards de-
partment employee that has his own stateroom. His pay is substan-
tially higher than the pay of the men under him. Under all circum-
stances, and upon the entire record in this case, we find that cook-
stewards exercise independent judgment in assigning and responsibly
directing the work of other employees. Accordingly, we find that cook-
stewards are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall,
therefore, exclude them from the unit herein found appropriate 21
We find that all stewards department employees on vessels operated
in the steam schooner trade by the member companies of the Ship-
owners' Association of the Pacific Coast, excluding cook-stewards and
other supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The MCS objects to our holding an election at this time on the
ground that the unit is in the process of change. The record discloses
that any such change is due to a strike which commenced on June 16,
1951, as the result of a dispute between the SAPC and the MCS over
the signing of a new contract covering steam schooners. The Em-
ployer asserts that the very existence of the strike makes an early
election advisable to determine the question of representation. The
Board has frequently declined to withhold an election solely because
of the existence of a current economic strike.28 We shall, therefore,
direct the holding of an election permitting all employees to par-
ticipate who were employed during the payroll period immediately
preceding the date of the issuance of the notice of election. All per-
sons hired since June 16, 1951, the date of the strike, and all strikers
shall be presumptively eligible to vote subject to challenge.29
The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the
results of the election, in which case the question as to which of these
ballots shall be opened and counted shall await further investigation
concerning the employment status of the affected individuals 30
It is generally our practice in directing elections among employees
on seagoing vessels to leave the method of voting to the discretion of
the Regional Director." We shall therefore follow this practice in
2v Nicholson Transit Company , 85 NLRB 955 ; Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 80
NLRB 1512; see Wilson Transit Company, 75 NLRB 181; The M. A. Hanna Company, 75,
NLRB 185
28 The Pipe Machinery Company, 76 NLRB 247.
29 Nothing in this direction should be construed as indicating that the Board has pre-
judged in any respect any of the questions which may be drawn in issue by a challenge to
the eligibility of certain voters including such questions as whether ( 1) a new employee is
a permanent replacement , (2) a striking employee has been validly replaced, or (3) any
employee's position no longer exists by reason of its permanent discontinuance for eco-
nomic reasons . The Pipe Machinery Company, supra.
Z0 The Pipe Machinery Company, supra.
8' Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania , 80 NLRB 1512; American Export Lines, Inc.,
84 NT .RB 134.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 1259
the instant case. Accordingly, we hereby vest in the Regional Director
discretion to determine the exact time, place, and procedure for con-
ducting the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBER COMPANIES 1 and
MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS , AFL, AFFILIATED WITH THE SEAFARERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,2 PETITIONER
ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY and MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS, AFL,
AFFILIATED WITH THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA,3 PETITIONER
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND ALL OF ITS MEMBER COMPANIES
and NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,' PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 20-RC-1426, 20 RC-1127 (formerly 19-RC-296), and
20-RC-1451. September 23, 1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Louis S. Pen-
field, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.5 The motion
of the Petitioner (SUP) made at the hearing, in Cases Nos. 20-RC-
1426 and 1427, 'to substitute as Petitioner the MCS-AFL, is hereby
Hereinafter referred to as the PMA.
Hereinafter referred to as the MCS-AFL . The MCS-AFL is substituted as Petitioner
in the place of Sailors Union of the Pacific, Seafarers International Union of North Amer-
lea, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the SUP . See footnote 6, below.
3 See footnote 2, above.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the NMU. After the close of the hearing , the NMU
requested permission to withdraw its petition in which it sought a combined unit of the
offshore and steam schooner trades. This is the same unit contention made by the Inter-
venor herein . In the alternative , if the Board rejected its request for a combined unit,
the NMU sought a unit of employees in the offshore trade . The NMU 's alternative unit
request is the same as the alternative unit request of the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-
1426. The contention for a combined unit of both trades is hereinafter rejected and
instead a unit of the offshore trade is found appropriate for reasons given in paragraph
numbered 4, below . In view of the fact that the requested withdrawal cannot affect the
rights of the remaining parties to an election in the unit hereinafter found appropriate,
we shall grant the request of the NMU to withdraw its petition . Twentieth Century-
Fo,, Film Corporation, 96 NLRB 1052.
5 The National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards , Independent , was permitted to inter-
vene herein on the basis of its contractual interest.
100 NLRB No. 201.