Richfield Oil Corp.

In the Matter Of RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION and SAILORS UNION OF THE PACIFIC, A. F. L. In the Matter Of RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION and PACIFIC DIST. SEA- FARERS' INTL . ENGINE DIVISION , AFFIL. SEAFARERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, -A. F. L. Cases Nos. C4568 and C-2569, respectfully.Decided May 8, 1943. DECISION AND -ORDER On March 27, 1943, ,the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent, Richfield Oil Corporation , had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, 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 findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except 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 necessary 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 on board the respondent's vessels, and that these activities are 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 solicitation of membership. 49 N L R B , No. 86. 593 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. We shall order the respondent to issue passes to the Unions for the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and presenta- tion. 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 required 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 de- scribed, does not require any conduct which is in derogation of such laws and regulations, of which would endanger the safety of the respondent's vessels or adversely affect discipline on board these vessels.' 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, Richfield Oil Corporation, 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,.and Seafarers' International Engine Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America, in order that such representatives may, go abroad the respondent's vessels for the pur- poses 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 of self-organization, to form, join, or assist, labor organizations, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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 : I See utter of The Texas Company, Marine Division and National Maritime Union, Port Arthur Bi anch, 42 N L R. B.'503, 604-607. RICHFIELD OIL COR'PO'RATION 595 (a) Grant passes to the duly authorized representatives pf-,the'Sail- •ors Union of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of *North America, and -Seafarers" International Engine Division, a division of Seafarers' 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 theUnions, including the collection of dues and distribution of trade papers'to union mem- bers, 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 a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to the unlicensed deck and engine 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'respond- ent' will take ti e!aflirmative 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. Mr. David Guntert of Los Angeles, California, for, the respondent. Mr. Harry Lundeberg of San Francisco, California, for, the Unions. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Sailors Union of''the Pacific, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and upon a charge duly filed by the Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, affiliated 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 complaint' -dated February 19, 1943, against the Richfield Oil Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleg- ing that the respondent had engaged 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, as further, amended at the hearing,, 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 aboard the respondent's Pacific Coast roil tankers, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied' by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the charging Unions! ' I The Board on February 17, 1943, pursuant to Article II, Section 36 •(b) of the Rules and Regulations , as amended , ordered the consolidation of the cases herein. 531647-43-vol 49-39 596 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI? In its answer 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 unfair labor practices. . I • , Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 4, and 5, 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 representative . 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 Board's motion to amend the consolidated complaint was granted without objection ' on the part of the respondent' At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board moved • to conform the pleadings to the proof as to minor details . The motion was granted without objection.'. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Board and the respondent and -the Unions' representative argued. orally. The undersigned advised all parties that they might file briefs provided such briefs were submitted within 5 days from the close of the hearing. Briefs were filed by the Board and 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 following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Richfield Oil Corporation is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, 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 certain unidentified off-shore ports. The respondent's oil tankers are now under time charter with the War Shipping Administration, it acting as an agent of the Administration in the operation of the tankers.' The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The' undersigned finds that the Richfield Oil' Corporation is engaged in the operation of its oil tankers in traffic, transportation, and commerce among the several States on the Pacific Coast and certain unidentified off-shore ports, and that its employees thereon are directly engaged in such traffic, transportation, and commerce. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Seafaring International Union 'of North America, 1s, a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to its membership the unlicensed personnel employed in the deck department on the respondent's oil tankers. Seafarers' International Engine Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America, is'a labor organization affiliated with the American 2 The motion to amend referred to paragraph 5 (b) 'of the' complaint, by inserting after the words "Seafarers' Engine Division" the words "is and". 3 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 respondent operates its tankers as usual, except for certain security restrictions promulgated by governmental agencies. ' ' - ' , . RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION 597 Federation of Labor. It admits to its membership the unlicensed personnel employed in the engine department- on the respondent's oil tankers. III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issue and the contentions of the parties The, complaint alleges and the respondent admits that the Unions ar"e and hate, ,been at all times material herein, the ' exclusive representatives of -the unlicensed deck and engine, personnel on board the, respondent's tankers 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 inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing the, respondent's unlicensed deck and engine 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 re- spondent, hereinafter related, a denial of passes to the Unions' duly authorized representatives interferes with the right of the unlicensed deck and engine personnel to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. The Unions contend that since September 23, 1942, the date upon which the Unions were certified as the collective bargaining representatives for the un- licensed deck and engine personnel on respondent's tankers, they have sought passes, for their representatives through direct negotiations, for the purpose of settling grievances on board the tankers. The Unions state that the refusal of access' to respondent's tankers, denies to the unlicensed deck and engine 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 denial of passes to its tankers, on a non- discriminatory basis, is not interference within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the.Act ; that on December 7, 1941, as a precautionary measure to protect its tankers and personnel from unnecessary hazards, all passes to board its tankers ,were cancelled except those of the Unions and that upon the expiration of contracts with the Unions, the passes of the Unions' representatives were can- celled ; that to require the, respondent to issue passes to the Unions' representa- tives would violate the war security and safety regulations of the "Captain of the Port," Los Angeles, Long Beach Harbor, the Security Orders of the "War Shipping Administration," and the Statement of-Policy agreed upon between the "War Shipping Administration" and various unions, including the Unions herein, which prohibits "crews' mass meetings, crews' committee meetings, and ,other similar meetings aboard ship" ; and finally that to require the respondent to grant passes to the representatives of the Unions here involved would force it to grant passes to representatives of all unions desirous of coming on lioard its tankers, in order to avoid charges of discrimination.' 'The respondent's, contention that the Regional Director's (Twenty-first) refusal, on February 20, 1942, to issue a complaint,' upon a charge by the National Maritime Union, that respondent had denied passes for representatives is a bar to the present proceeding, Is 'withoiit'merit, either upon the theory of,estoppel,or res judicata. It is-noted that the National Maritime Union was not the duly authorized-representative of the respondent's unlicensed seamen.' c^98 , DECISIONS 'OF! NNATIONAt LABOR 'RELATtOI' S BOARD B.'Interference ioit1t the es•ercise' 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 representa- tives 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 guaranteed employees the 'right ' to bargain collectively concerning' grievances. The Union's herein are the 'collective bargaining repre- seiitatives of all the ' unlicensed -deck and engine personnel employed on the re- spondent's tankers.6 Therefore • any' interference ' by 'the respondent with the employees' "rights to bargain collectively ' concerning grievances tliiough' their duty designatedl'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 ' and engine personnel thereon, 'Interferes' with 'the rights of-these employees to bargain 'collectively through `their duly chosen representatives concerning grievances; it 'is •essential'to give consideration t6-the operations of the respondent's 'tankers ' and 'to the collective bargaining pro- cedure in dealing with grievances in ' the tanker and' shipping industry. The respondent operates six oceangoing tankers which ply ',between -Pacific .Coast' ports, ,including Seattle, Washington , Portland, 'Oregon, -San"Francisco, California , and' the Los Angeles , California ' a"rea '( Long Beach, Wilmington, San Pedro, and Terminal Island )"aihd offshore and foreign ports. The loading and' discharging terminals in the Pacific Coast ports ' are in ' most instances located 'in the ,bay areas- some distances from the 'shipping districts , requiring' a round trip of from 1 hour to' 3' hours 'to the Union's office . Coast-wise trips, require , several ' days each way, and off-shore and foreign trips require substan- tially longer periods. ' Respondent's tankers spend approximately 30 hours dis- charging cargo and4 ' approximately ' 14 Hours in' loading a cargo:' The usual ,tanker crew on respondent 's vessels 'comprises 38 men, 27 of them unlicensed personnel distributed as, follo w s,: 11 in the deck 'department, 9 in the engine department, and 8 in the steward's department. "Watches" are maintained for .,certain seamen , while the tankers 'are in port, while certain other seamen work on : miscellaneous ,jobs such as loading stores , painting and minor repairs. Watches are 4 hour ' shifts with 8' hours off duty between 'shifts. Approxi- mately 1/3 of the unlicensed ' deck and' engine personnel , excepting wipers in the engine room, are on duty at all times.' The seamen working ' on the miscel- laneous, jobs work, at irregular ,hours, depending upon the "extra" work to be performed ,; the ,steward ' hours of work in port, is determined" largely'by the -number of seamen who eat their meals - on the tankers. Stewards may enjoy i 5 The term "access" in the shipping industry means the boarding of vessels ,by union representatives, in order to ascertain whether or not seamen on board have grievances, to determine the validity of the alleged grievances, and to settle those possible of settle- ment with the proper officials on board' the vessels. e The Sailors Union of 'the Pacific and 'the, Seafarers' International Union were, cer- tified by the Board on September 23,. 1942, as the 'exclusive representatives, ,respectively, of the unlicensed''deck and, unlicensed engine personnel on respondent's, tankers' 7 "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 indicate the elapsed time spent at the dock or discharging or loading a cargo. On occasion tankers without docking discharge and load cargoes, either into lighters or from submarine outlets. 0 1 RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION 599' 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 prepare 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 mis- cellaneous 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 per- sonnel 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 ports 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 165 unlicensed seamen and as is usual in the shipping industry, there is a large turnover among this personnel. - , 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 beards the vessel in order to ascertain whether or not the crew 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.10 The patrolman functions as follows : He boards the vessel immediately after it is moored to the dock, proceeds to the crew's quarters and confers'with the ship's delegate representing the department (deck, engine, and steward), who relates to the patrolman the various grievances, if any, concerning food, living condi- tions, or overtime pay which have arisen during the voyage.'1 The patrolman then interviews the allegedly aggrieved seaman and decides whether the griev- ance is meritorious, using as a guide his long experience and intimate knowledge of the nature of seaman'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 ad- justment, 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 adjustment of griev- ances, which necessitates access, the seamen have complete opportunity to e At times the respondent employs "work parties" to pei form the miscellaneous jobs on the tankers but when as now under war time conditions extra men are not available, the Captain delegates ' a part of the crew to perform this work. ' In some ports known as a "shore delegate."' i° The record shows that patrolmen are assigned to certain ports and where the perfoimance of a patrolman 's duty requires more than one in a port , each is assigned to handle all 'the vessels of certain companies thus limiting access to one patrolman. 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 with the proper officials, who have the requisite authority , to settle them. The balance of the grievances uuhich are of a major nature are referred to the Union Port Committee , and such grievances con- stitute as a rule matters affecting the general standards to be applied to the crew as a whole, 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD confer with their duly designated representatives who are well equipped bS training and experience's to assess their grievances, and who are specialized liegotiators.18' ° 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'guaranteed 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 rep- resentatives of the unlicensed deck and engine personnel, for the purpose of obtaining access to its tankers, under the circumstances of this ease, interfered with, restrained. and coerced these employees in the exercise of their rights to obtain the aid of their chosen representatives. It is unnecessary hereto again state the details, hereinbefore related, which make 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 prevent the unlicensed deck and engine personnel on respondent's tankers from participation in the exercise of their rights to "mutual aid or protection" through representd- tives chosen by them. Moreover, the denial of access, interferes with the aid and. protection the seamen receive through burial and insurance benefits, of special importance during the war, an incident to their membership" in the Unions, because of their inability to visit the Unions' headquarters to pay cur- rent dues." " ` The respondent by not permitting access to the Unions' representatives to aid the unlicensed deck and engine' personnel at their request, is exercising, sa Patrolmen must have had, before selection to their positions, 3 years actual sea service. 13 The refusal to issue passes to the Unions' representatives prevents the most effec- tive sort of collective action by the seamen See N. L. R. B. V. Cities Servsce 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 at 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 hours for work and shore leave are different and, in the short time the vessel is in port, it is impossible for Union representatives to assemble the un- licensed personnel either on shore or on shipboard to discuss grievances or invests= gate conditions. Therefore, the Union must have the members of the crew readily accessible in order to work,to any real advantage. Moreover, the complaints fre- quently relate to conditions on and even of the vessel itself It may be true that maniy, 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 con- sequences 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 without visiting the slip and seeing the conditions under winch work is done and of which criticism is made. The collection of dues and the distribution of the Unions' newspaper has been and now is'considered by the Paciflc` 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 these representatives who engage in such activities. RICHFIELD " OIL CORPORATION- 601 'domination and control" over the efforts of those 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 pro- hibitions of the Act. But Congress did not exclude the respondent's tankers from the , operation of the Act , by implication or otherwise. Congress has de- clared that "the policy of the United States" shall be•to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce "by protecting the exercise by workers of full free- dom of association , self-organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing , for the purpose of mutual aid or protection." The undersigned finds that the denial of right of access to respondent's tankers, by the chosen representatives of the unlicensed deck and engine personnel pre- vents these seamen from exercising their . rights to collective bargaining and to other mutual aid or protection." I 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 and engine personnel for the purpose of access to its tankers, but asserts in its answer that the policy of refusing to grant passes to anyone was adopted for the sole purpose of -promoting the War effort, by reducing the "grave, unreasonable and wholly unnecessary hazards" incident to non-employees boarding the tankers , and by complying with the war time security orders, ,rules, and regulations of "Captain of the Port", the "War Shipping Administration" and a -"Statement of Policy" issued by the "War Shipping Administration." Although the respondent considers that the presence of the duly authorized representatives of the unlicensed desk and engine personnel , would increase the hazards to which the tankers -ire normally exposed, it has not seen fit to exclude laundry agents, extra work parties, not members of the crew and in most instances "picked up", and several employees of the respondent whose presence on the tankers are not essential. In fact the record does not indicate that any individuals 3s While the respondent does not clearly assert that other methods , than access, are available to the unlicensed deck and engine personnel to exercise their rights under Section 7, the record suggests the possibility of the seamen visiting union headquarters or of conferring with their repiesentatives on shore where reports would be made of the grievances ' The Court in the Cities Service Case, referring to alternative grievance procedures stated Respondents suggest that the so-called ship 's, committee consisting of three mem- bers of the crew chosen by the seamen can 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' tile Union may then take 'up with the respondent'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 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 work is on land . ' The suggestion that the Union representa- tives can be stationed on the dock, there investigate complaints by' meeting members of the crew us they come off the ship and after thus learning the facts from seamen can then bargain with respondents' 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 nien 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 with the ships ' officers of matters requiring explanation . See N. L. R. B. V. Cities Service Oil Co., 122 P. (2d) (C. C. A. 2). ,602- DECISIONS OF: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD formerly permitted access have been denied that right except' the Union's repre- sentatives. At the present it is the almost universal practice of the shipping industry on tlie•West Coast to grant access to the duly authorized representatives of their seamen, whether or not such right•is provided for in collective bargaining contracts. Access during the War has been granted to representatives to board all types of vessels, including oil tankers, and ships `whose entire cargoes, include explo`sives'and war supplies, as well as troops. .Frequently tlie,oicials of Shipping companies and the military or naval authorities have requested 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're- spondeut is `practically alone' in its fear of increased hazards from the presence of seamen's representatives on board vessels.18 The contention of the respondent that to grant access to the duly authorized representatives of the seamen would violate the war time security, orders, rules or regulations'of the "Captain of the Port" (Coast Guard), the "War Shipping Administration" or any other Governmental agenley 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 and engine personnel with the, proper identification and authority to enter restricted areas, and to board tankers and vessels, including respondent's tankers, providing respondent issues its passes to the representatives. The War Shipping Administration,in a "State- ment of Policy" agreed to by the Unions, has stabilized for,the duration, collective bargaining contracts' which contain provisions. for passes for authorized repre- sentatives of seamen, thus affording access The undersigned does not believe that these contentions of the respondent are valid reasons for denying access.18 k C. Concluding Findings in' conclusion, the undersigned, finds that respondent's unlicensed deck and engine ,personnei are in port for a short time with very little time ashore ; that tanker terminals are usually located in port areas inaccessible to union head- quarters ; 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 and engine personnel the opportunity to bargain collectively, concerning their, grievances; that the refusal of respondent to issue passes to the duly authorized representatives of its-unlicensed deck and engine 16 The Unions' representatives who board tankers are men who are thoroughly familiar with conditions prevailing on such 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 due to the War 11 The respondent's allegation in its answer that the "visitors to piers and vessels should be limited to cases of absolute necessity," (Security Orders of the War Shipping Administration) and the prohibition of crews' mass meetings, crews' committee meetings, and other similar meetings aboard ships" (Statement of Policy, War Shipping Administra- tion) does not refer to the duly authorized representatives of unlicensed deck and engine personnel, having access to transact biisiness in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The respondent's admission that no official of any governmental agency has so interpreted these provisions and practices of the shipping industry on the Pacific Coast, would indi- cate that there is no basis for such position. 18 The undersigned has given consideration to, the various war-time safety laws and the duties and obligations of the Master on respondent's tankers and finds that neither the laws nor the duties of the Master in any :way are at variance with the rights of the unlicensed deck and engine personnel to exercise their privileges under the Act. RICHFIELD OIL CORPO'RNTION 603 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 lone been in use in the West Coast shipping industry ; that with access these representatives may investigate 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 essential for mutual protection ; that without access, the respondent 's unlicensed deck and engine personnel , would be denied the benefits of essential rights, con-' ferred 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 record, and the undersigned ,finds that the respondent by refusing to grant passes to the duly designated representatives of its unlicensed deck and engine personnel in order that such representatives might confer with and aid such personnel on board respondent's tankers, has interfered with, restrained , and coerced , and by continuing such refusal is interfering with, restraining , and coercing its unlicensed deck and engine personnel in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and is thereby violatingSection 8 (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCID The activities' of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,,and substantial relation to trade, traffic,' and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V: THE REMEDY t • Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist' therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed-to effectuate the policies of, the Act. The undersigned having found that the respondent has interfered with, re= strained and coerced its unlicensed deck and engine personnel in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 by refusing to issue passes to its oil tankers to representatives of the Sailors Union of the Pacific and Seafarers' International Union of Noith America, the duly designated collective bargaining representatives of the respondent's unlicensed deck and engine personnel in order to make effective the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, and' thereby to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent issue passes to•the unlicensed deck and engine personnels' duly designated representatives of the Sailors Union of the Pacific and the Seafarers"International Union of North, America, in order that they may board the respondent's oil tankers and confer 'with and -aid: the unlicensed deck and engine.personnel thereon. , The respondent contends that if it grants passes to the Unions herein involved, It will alsa have to grant passes to all unions who demand'such passes,, to board its vessels, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination. Since the instant case does not involve any union jurisdictional problem and the, question of discrimina- tion is not now before the undersigned -for decision, he does not decide it. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned makes the following : , 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONOLusIONs OF LAw 1. -Sailors Union of the Pacific , ,a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America is a'labor ,organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. , 2. Seafarers' International Engine Division , a division of Seafarers ' Inter-' national Union of North America, is a labor organization within the meaning of, Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. - 3. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees .;in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the respondent has engaged-in- and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (1) of the Act. ,4. The , aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing 'findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the respondent , Richfield Oil Corporation, 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 and Sea; farers' . International Engine Division , a division of Seafarers'- International Union of North America, in order that such representatives may go aboard the respondent's vessels and confer with and aid the unlicensed deck and engine personnel thereon ; (b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization , to form, join, - or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted-activities for-the purpose of collective bargaining 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 and Seafarers' International Engine Division , a division of Seafarers ' International, Union of North America , to go aboard its vessels to confer with and aid the unlicensed deck and engine personnel; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places on 'its vessels for, a period of,at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting notices to the un- licensed deck and engine personnel , stating : ( 1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 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 receipt of the Intermediate Report what steps the respond- ent has taken to comply herewith: It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director 'in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, 'the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring- the respondent to take the action aforesaid. RIORFIELD OIL CORPORATION 605 As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and -Regulations, file with the-Board, Shoreham Building, Wash- ington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relicts upon, together with the original and four' copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire. permission to argue orally before the'Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Dated March 27, 1943. JAMES B. BATTEN,' Trial Examiner.