General Petroleum Corp. of California

In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM' CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and SAkORS UNION OF THE PACIFIC, A. F. L. In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and PACIFIC DIST. SEAFARERS' INTL. ENGINE DIVISION, AFFIL. SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION' OF NORTI1 AMERICA, In the Matter of GENERAL'PETROLEUM'CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and PACIFIC DISTRICT SEAFARERS' INTL. STEWARDS Div. AFFIL. SEAFARERS' INTL. UNION, OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL - Cases Nos. C-2570, C-2571 and C-0572, respectively.-Decided May 8, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On March 30, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent, General Petroleum Corporation of, California, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and tike certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a brief in, support thereof.-- The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except 1 _ as hereinafter modified: 1. The Trial Examiner has referred to the prevailing practice under which unions having access to vessels collect dues and distribute the Organizations' trade papers to their members. We find that it is neces- sary to the mutual aid and protection of union members that they be enabled thereby to pay their union dues and receive their union trade papers onboard the respondent's vessels, and that these activities are I See our decision in Richfield Oil Corporation and Sailors Union of the Pacific, A. F. L., etc, Cases Nos. C-2568, 2569. 49 N. L. R. B., No. 87. 606 - GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORAT'ON OF CALIFORNIA 607, included within the necessary and appropriate scope, of concerted activities as an incident to which we. shall order passes to be issued. We emphasize in this connection, however, that we do not intend, to require ,the respondent to, permit the, passes to be used for the solicita- tion of membership. 2. We shall order the respondent to issue passes to the.Unions•;for the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and presenta'- tio'n of 'grievances, and for other mutual aid and protection of the employees represented by the Unions, including the collection of, dues and distribution of trade papers to union members, and providing, that the respondent is not requited to -issue passes for the solicitation, of membership. Upon consideration of the various wartime security laws and regulations applicable to the instant case, 'and which the Trial -Examiner also has considered, we find that our order; as described, does not require any conduct which is in derogation of such laws and regulations, or which would endanger the safety of the respondent's vessels or adversely affect discipline, on board these vessels.2. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10, (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, General Petroleum Corpora- tion of California, Los Angeles, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to grant passes to representatives of the Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America; Pacific, District, Seafarers'- International Engine Division, Seafarers' International Union of North America; and Pacific Dis- trict, Seafarers' International Stewards Division, Seafarers' Iirter- national'Union of North America, in order' that such representatives may go aboard the respondent's vessels for the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and presentation of grievances, and for other mutual aid and protection of the employees represented by these Unions, including the collection of dues and distribution of trade papers to union members, provided, however, that the respondent is not required, to issue passes for the solicitation of membership; (b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and ' See Matter of The Texas Company, Marine Division and National Maritime Union, Port Ai thur Branch, 42 N. L. R B. 593, 604-607. 608 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATION'S BOARD to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or' protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Take the- following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act : - _ ` (a) Grant passes to the duly authorized representatives of -the Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division-of Seafarers' International Union of-North America; 'Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, Seafarers' International Union of North America; and Pacific District, Seafarers' International Stewards Division, Sea- farers' International Union of North America; to go aboard its vessels for - the purposes of collective bargaining, for the discussion and presentation of grievances,"and: for other' mutual aid and protection of the employees represented by the Unions, including the collection of dues and distribution of trade papers to union members, provided, however,, that the respondent is not required to issue passes for ',the solicitation of` membership; • ` (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places on its vessels; for it period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel, stating : (1')' that the respondent will not engage in the'conduct from which it is ordered to cease-and desist,, in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) ; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative 'action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)" hereof-' (c) Notify the Regional Director for' the Twenty-first Region, in - writing within ten (10) 'days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. -INTERMEDIATE REPORT - Messrs.,Charles M. Ryan and Thomas C. Moore, for the Board Messrs. D. W. Woods and J. L. Goddard, of Los Angeles, California, for the respondent. Messrs.-Harry Liidenberg and William Gries, ' of San Francisco , for the Unions: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Sea- farers' International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, by Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, a divi- sion of Seafarers' International Union of North America, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, and Pacific District, Seafarers' International Stewards Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America, affiliated with the.American Federation of Labor, herein called the'Unions, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its consolidated com- GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATON OF CALIFORNIA 609 plaint'. dated February 22, 1943 against the General. Petroleum Corporation of .California, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint alleged in substance that the respondent on or about October, 1942 and at all times thereafter refused to permit the duly authorized representatives of the Unions to go abroad the respondent's Pacific, Coast oil tankers, thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of, the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charges accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the charging Unions. - - In its answers the respondent admitted refusing passes to the duly authorized representatives of -the Unions but denied the alleged unfair labor practices and interposed, several affirmative defenses to the allegations of the unfair labor practices. . Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on March 8, 1943, at Los Angeles, California, before James C. Batten, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and, the Unions by their representatives.' All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing the' respondent's motion to amend the answer was granted without objection on the part of the Board and the Unions 2 At the conclusion'of the hearing a motion to conform the pleadings to` the proof as to minor details was granted without objection. - At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent and the 'repre- sentative for the Unions, Harry Lundeberg, argued orally. The undersigned advised all parties that they might file briefs provided such briefs were sub- mitted 'within five days from the close of the hearing Briefs were.filed by the Board, the respondent and the Unions. ' - From' the entire record thus made and from the undersigned's observation of the witnesses,`the undersigned makes in addition to the above the follow,ng: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF, THE RESPONDENT, General Petroleum Corporation of California is a Delaware corporation with its, principal place of business at Los Angeles, California. The respondent operates ocean-going oil tankers which transport its petroleum products between the various ports of the Pacific Coast and offshore ports. The respondent is an integrated corporation engaged in all branches of the petroleum business from production through to marketing, including the transportation by various means of oil and oil-products. Of its total sales annually, valued in excess of $50,000,- .1 The Board on February 23, 1943, pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (b) of the Rules and Regulations , as amended , ordered the consolidation of the cases herein. 2The motion to amend referred to the respondent's second separate and afflimative answer ,to' the complaint by 'striking "Case No XXI-C-1101" and substituting therefor "XX-C-1101' ;' and striking "Sailors Union of the Pacific, A. F. of L, Pacific District ; Seafarers' International Steward Division,' A. F. of L," and substituting therefor "Na- tional Maritime Union " Board's counsel stated that Case No. "XX-C-1101" is also known as Case No "XX-C-2011." 610 DECISIONS O'F NATIONAL ^LABORR RELATIONS BOARD 000, 39 percent in volume were shipped to points outside the 'State of California The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. - i 11. THE - ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED _ Sailors Union,of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America-is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership the unlicensed personnel,, employed in the deck department on the respondent's tankers. Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, a division of Sea- farers' International Union of, North America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits'to membership the unlicensed personnel employed in the engine department on the respondent's tankers. Pacific District, Seafarers' International Steward Division, a division of Sea- farers' International Union of North America is a labor organization affiliated with 'the American, Federati on of Labor. It admits to membership the unlicensed personnel in the steward department on the respondent's tankers. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issue and the contention of the parties The complaint alleges and the respondent admits that the Unions are and have been at all times material herein the exclusive representatives of the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel on board the, respon dent's tankers 3 and that the Unions were refused by the respondent, passes for the purpose of access by their duly authorized representatives to go aboard the tankers. The sole question in the case is whether, as the complaint alleges, such refusal to grant access by the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced and,is interfer- ing,with, restraining and coercing the respondent's unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel in their exercise of the, rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act thereby violating Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Board contends under, the circumstances of the operations of the respond- ent, hereinafter related, a denial of passes to the Unions' duly authorized repre- sentatives interferes with the right of the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel to bargain collectively with, representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. , The Unions contend that. since the' dates upon which the Unions were certi- fied as the collective bargaining representatives for the unlicensed deck,, engine, and steward personnel on respondent's tankers, they have sought passes for their representatives through direct negotiations for the purpose of settling griev- ances on board the 'tankers. The Unions state that the refusal of access to respondent's tankers denies to the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward per- sonnel, who are unable to adequately adjust grievances, the right to have their own chosen representatives negotiate adjustments for them. The respondent asserts that the cancellation of all existing passes on or about December 7, 1941 including the passes theretofore issued to representa- tives of the Unions, and the denial of passes thereafter to its tankers are not The, Sailors Union,of the Pacific ; the Engine Division, and the Stewards Division, affili- ated with the Seafarers' International Union of North America were certified by the Board respectively on September 26, 1942, as the exclusive repiesentatives of the unlicensed deck, unlicensed engine, and unlicensed,stewards personnel on the respondent's tankers. - GENERAL, PETROLEUM COR'PORATON OF CALIFORNIA ^ 611 interference within the meaning of Section 8 (1) ^ of the Act ; 4 that the cancella- tion and denial of passes were precautionary measures to safeguard its tankers and personnel from unnecessary hazards and a reasonable and prudent exercise of its judgment in the course -of its business -of operating tankers ; 'that the respondent has been for many months past and is now operating its tankers' as an agents for 'the "War Shipping Administration" and 'that the, tankers are operated under the rules and regulations of this agency of the United States Government; ; that the requirements of the "War- Shipping Administra- tion" and of the- war effort make it necessary that 'all' cargoes' be handled with dispatch and so it is necessary and prudent for the respondent to refuse access to its tankers of all - persons who would interfere, with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of its tankers ; that to require the respondent -to grant passes to representatives of the Unions would force it to grant passes- to representatives of all unions desirous of coming on board its tankers in order to avoid charges of discrimination ; and finally that for several weeks prior to January 5, 1943 respondent and the Unions were engaged in, negotia- tions for an agreement including a provision relating to the terms and condi- tions under which passes might be issued to representatives of the Unions and that the agreement upon which the parties could not agree has now been submitted to the National War Labor Board." 1 B. Interference with the,exercise of the rights guaranteed in'Section 7 of the Act. 1. The necessity for the right of access ° In the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 the Act provides that "Employees shall have the right to . . . bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of collective bargaining +:. Since it is obvious, that grievances concern "conditions of work" within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act, they are proper subjects for collective bargaining. It follows that Section 7 guarantees employees the right to bar- gain collectively concerning grievances. The 'Unions herein are the collec- tive bargaining representatives of all the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel employed on the respondent's tankers. Therefore any interference by the,, respondent with these employees' rights to bargain collectively' con- 4 The respondent's contention that the Regional Director's (Twenty -first Region) re- fusal on February 20, 1942 to issue a complaint upon a charge by the National' âlaritime Union, that respondent bad' denied passes for access by representatives of that organiza- tion was a bar to ' the present proceeding is without mei it,' either upon the theory of estoppel or res judicata . It is noted that, National Maritime Union was not the certified representative of the respondent's unlicensed seamen. 5 This war-time arrangement does not affect the respondent 's control over the hire and tenure of'its seamen or their conditions of employment . The iespondent operates its tankers as usual, except for certain security restrictions promulgated by governmental agencies. . 6 The respondent does not allege that pendency of this matter before the war Labor Boaid is a bar to this proceeding although the matter is set up in the ansiuer` as a "separate affirmative answer to the complaint herein." Under ' the Act the Board is granted exclusive power to prevent any peison from engaging in specified unfair labor practices affecting commerce See 49 Stat 449, Section 10 (a). - 4 The term "access " in the shipping industry means the boarding of vessels) by union representatives , in order to ascertain whether or not seamen onboard have grievances, to determine the validity of the ' alleged grievances , and to ' settle ' those possible of settle- nient'with the propei officials on board the vessels. ' 5 31 647-4 3-vol 49-40 612 DECISIONS OF' ,NATIONAL LABOR,' RELATIONS BOARD N 4 cerning grievances through their duly designated representatives , the Unions, is proscribed by Section 8 (1) of the Act: ' In order, to, determine whether or , not' denial of passes to .the representatives of,,the Unions for , the purpose of obtaining access to respondent 's tankers to confer with ,the unlicensed deck,, engine, and steward , personnel thereon, interferes with , the,rights of these seamen to bargain ,collectively through their duly chosen - representatives concerning grievances , it is essential to give con- sideration to the operations of the respondent 's tankers and-to the collective bargaining procedure in ;dealing with grievances in the tanker and shipping industry . , ^ ` _ , The respondent operates three ocean -going tankers which ply between Pacific coast ports, including Seattle, Washington,, Portland, =Oregon , -San Francisco, California ,' and the Los ' Angeles, California, and off-shore . and foreign ports. The loading and .discharging terminals in the Pacific coast ports are, in most instances located h a the bay areas some distances fipm the shipping districts, requiring a round ' trip of from 1 hour;,to 3 hours to the Unions' office. , Coast- wise trips require 3 to 15 days each way, and offshore and foreign trips , require substantially longer, periods. , Respondent's tankers spend approximately 30 hours ,in port when discharging and approximately 24 -hours in port when ,load-' ing.8 The usual tanker crew on respondent 's vessels comprises 30 unlicensed personnel distributed as follows : 12 in the deck department , 10 in the engine department ,, and 8 in •thesteward's department. "Watches" are maintained for certain of theunlicensed deck and engine personnel while the tankers are in port, while certain other seamen work on- relief jobs such as loading stores, and other miscellaneous work ' "Watches ' are- 4-hour shifts with 8 hours off duty between shifts; Approximately 1/3 of the unlicensed deck and engine personnel are on duty at all times . The seamen working on the miscellaneous jobs work at irregular 'hours depending upon the "extra" work to' be per- formed ; " the stewards" hours of work in 'port, is determined largely by the number of seamen who eat their meal's on the tankers. `Stewards may enjoy shore leave only after meals have been served ; unlicensed deck and ' engine personnel, who stand watch cannot be absent from the tanker for more than 8 hours, including the time required by them to piepare for their departure 'and' return and they` cannot all leave the: tanker simultaneously since their -watches terminate at different times ; those of the seamen who are working on miscel- laneous jobs , because of the short time the ' tankers are at dock , cannot leave the tanker until their work is completed ° Although some of ' the tanker personnel have,, families and homes in various ports , while employed on the tankers - their homes are actually on the vessels , for, it is on board that they eat, sleep, and'?work. Moreover, 'even those who have, homes . can. only visit them when "the tankers happen to arrive in those poits in which 'the homes are located, and then only during the time normally allotted by the regular schedules of the tankers . The respondent employs approximately 90 unlicensed seamen. The union representative in the shipping industry on the Pacific coast who has access , to vessels is known as a "patrolman."" When the vessel "docks" the patrolman ,boards the vessel in , order to, ascertain whether or not the crew X 8 "Port time" as distinguished from discharging, and loading time is 'calculated from the moment,the tanker arrives in the harbor until it leaves the harbor ; it does not in- dicate the elapsed time spent at,the dock or discharging or loading a cargo. e At times the respondent employs "relief workers" to perform the miscellaneous lobs on the tankers but when as now under war time conditions extra men are not available, the crew performs this work. " 10 In some ports known as a "shore delegate." r GENERAL 'PETROLEUM CORPORATON OP' CALIFORNIA 613 on board have grievances If so, the patrolman investigates and determines the validity of the alleged grievances 'and then proceeds to settle those possible of settlement with the master, mate, or the proper official on board the vessel. The patrolmen are experienced seamen and negotiators, whose jurisdiction includes all of the tankers which arrive in the port in which they are on duty.' The patrolman function's'as follows: He boards the vessel: immediately after it is moored 'to'the dock, proceeds to the crews' quarters and confers with the ship's delegate representing the department (deck, engine, and isteward)' who relates to the patrolman 'the various grievances, if any, concerning food, living conditions, or overtime pay which have arisen during the voyage" The patrol- man then interviews the allegedly aggrieved seaman and decides whether the grievance is meritorious, using as a guide his long experience and intimate knowledge of the nature of seamen's grievances, their attitude toward such grievances, and the problems of the shipping industry. In most instances before deciding the merits of the grievances, the patrolman interviews others interested in its adjustment, including the master or other official aboard. If he decides it is a valid grievance the patrolman then attempts settlement with the master or proper official aboard the vessel. If these negotiations -fail, the patrolman refers the grievance, to the Union Port Committee on shore, who proceed to discuss the grievance with' the respondent's shore officials. It is apparent that under this collective bargaining' procedure providing for the prompt adjust- ment of grievances, which necessitates 'access, the seamen have complete op- portunity to confer with their duly designated representatives who are, _well equipped by training and experience" to 'assess their grievances, and, who are specialized negotiators." • 11 Patrolmen are assigned to certain ports and where the performance 'of a patrolman's duty requires more than one in a port, each is assigned to handle all the vessels of cer- tain companies thus lmnti ng•access to one patrolman. , 1' Grievances usually involve one or more of these basic conditions of work. The record indicates that approximately 90 percent of the grievances reported are disposed of on board the vessel after access by the patrolman in conference «ith the proper officials, who have the requisite authority to settle them. The balance of the grievances which are of a major nature are refeiied to the Union Port Committee; such grievances constitute as a rule matters affecting the general standards to be applied to the crew as a whole. 11 Patrolmen must have had, before selection to their' positions, 3 years , actual sea service 11 ' 14 The refusal to issue passes to the Union's representatives prevents the most effec- tive sort of collective action by the seamen , See INT. L. B. B. v. Cities Service Oil Co., 122 F (2d) 149 (C. C A 2) where the Second Circuit, per Augustus N. Hand, J., said : Ships, and particularly these oil tankers, which ordinarily remain in port for a day only, afford less opportunity for investigation of labor conditions than do fac- tories where the employees go home every afternoon and have the evenings at their disposal. There is no cessation of work rat the end of each day for seamen on a tanker A large number of them are on watch, others, are loading, or discharging cargo : their houis for work. and shore leave are different and, in the short time the vessel is in poet, it is impossible for Union representatives to assemble the unlicensed personnel either on shore or on shipboard to discuss grievances or investigate con- ditions. Therefore, the Union must have the members of the crew readily accessible in order to work to any real advantage. Moreover, the complaints frequently ielate to conditions on and even of the vessel itself It may be true that many, or even most, grievances are settled on the ship by the ship's committee without the intervention of the Union, but one of the prime objects of the Union is to afford the seamen advisors, and negotiators who are not continually' under the-eye of the master and inclined through fear of untoward consequences to defer, to his demands. Its advice as to major differences would naturally be needed and in many cases it cannot advise the personnel wisely with- out visiting the ship and seeing the conditions under which work is done and of which criticism is made. 614- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By Section , 7 of the Act, "employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, ,join, , or assist labor organizations . . . for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection." Interference, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of their rights is also proscribed by Section 8 (1), of the Act . The rights thus guaran- teed to employees against impairment by the . employer include, full freedom to the employees, upon request , to receive aid, advice , and information from their chosen representatives . The issue , presented by-the "mutual aid or protection" clause of the Act, is whether the respondent 's denial of passes to the chosen representatives of the unlicensed deck,lengine, and steward personnel , for the purpose of obtaining access to its tankers , under the' circumstances of this case, interfered with, restrained , and coerced these employees in the exercise of their right to obtain . the aid of their chosen representatives. It is unnecessary here to again state the details, hereinbefore related, which snake ineffective collective bargaining through chosen representatives, where there is a denial of the right of access, except to note that substantially all of the factors making prohibitive effective bargaining procedure also prevents the unlicensed deck, engine , and steward personnel on respondent 's tankers from participation in the exercise of their rights to "mutual aid, or protection" through representatives chosen by them' Moreover, the denial of access inter- feres with the aid and protection the seamen receive through burial and insurance benefits, of special , importance during the war, an ' incident to their menibership "in'the'Unions, because, of their -inability to visit the Unions' head- to pay current dues.'b The respondent by not permitting access to the Unions ' representatives to aid the unlicensed deck, engine , and steward personnel at their request , is exercis- ing, "domination and control " over the efforts of these seamen to engage in "mutual aid and'protection" thereby infringing upon Section 8 (1) of the Act. To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to exempt the respondent 's tankers from the prohibitions of the Act. But Congress' did not exclude the respondent's tankers from the operation of the Act, by implication or otherwise. Congress has declared that "the policy of the United States" shall be to remove ob- structions to the free flow of commerce "by protecting the exercise by workers _ bf full freedom of association , self-organization and designation of represent- atives of their own choosing , for the purpose of mutual aid or protection." The undersigned finds that the denial of right of access to the chosen repre- sentatives of the unlicensed- deck, engine, and steward,, personnel prevents these seamen from exercising their rights to collective bargaining and to other mutual aid or protection ie - - - is The collection of dues and the distribution of the Unions ' newspaper has been and now is considered by the Pacific Coast Shippers, who grant access a proper form of aid to be given -by the representatives of 'the 'Unions . The respondent's contention that such representatives should not solicit seamen for membership in the Unions is well taken and such practice if persisted in should be grounds for the revocation of the passes of those representatives who engage in such activities. 16 The respondent asserts that other ' methods , than access , are available, to the un- licensed deck , engine, and steward personnel to exercise their rights under Section 7, and suggests the possibility of the seamen visiting union headquarters or of conferring with their representatives on shore where reports would be made of the grievances. The Court in the Cities 'Service Case , referring to alternative grievance procedure stated : Respondents suggest that the so -called ship's committee consisting of^three meni- beis of the , crew chosen by the seainen ean'present complaints to the ship 's officers and if the grievances are not settled thus , can report in person or mail statements to the Union of matters in dispute which the Union may then take up with the respond- ent's shore officials But negotiations conducted in such a way would be slow and the men would lack the ' advantage ' of having their bargaining agent promptly acquainted with grievances by the seamen themselves and ready at once to "negotiate GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORA'TON OF CALIFORNL 615 2. Respondent's position-relation of the War to the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 - The respondent does not in fact contend- that under peace time conditions it would be justified in refusing passes to the duly authorized representatives of its unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel for the purpose of access to its tankers, but asserts in its answer that the policy of cancelling outstanding passes including those of the Unions and refusing to grant further passes was adopted following the attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor, because of notices received from" shipping and naval authorities on the Pacific Coast to take immediately all necessary precautions to` secure and safeguard ships, 'piere, ivarehouses, terminals and other property, to refuse access to such property to unauthorized persons, and' as agent of the War Shipping Administration in the operation of its tankers to'comply with the requirements of the War Shipping Administration and of the war effort to handle all cargoes with dispatcli. Although the respondent considers that the presence of the duly authorized representatives of the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel would increase the hazards to which the tankers are normally exposed it has *not seen fit to exclude relief work parties, 'not members of the crew, and several employees of the respondent whose presence on the tankers are not essential. At the present it is the almost universal practice of the shipping industry on the West Coast 'to grant access to 'the duly authorized representatives of their seamen whether or not such right is provided for, in collective bargaining con- tracts. 'Access during the 'war has been granted to representatives of unions to board all types of vessels incluchng"tankers and ships whose entire cargo included explosives and war supplies, as well as troops Frequently, the offi- cials of shipping companies and the military or naval authorities have 're- guested-representatives of the seamen to board vessels in order that grievances might be promptly adjusted Thus under war time_ conditions it appears that access is necessary., The respondent is practically alone in its fear of increased hazards from the presence of seaume'n's representatives on board vessel-.1P IThe contention of the' respondent that to grant access to'the duly authorized representatives of the seamen would `result in non-compliance with the war time security, orders, rules,'or regulations'of the "Captain of the Port" (Coastt Guard) the "War Shipping Administration" or any other Governmental agency is without merit. Of utmost significance is the fact that the Navy and the Coast Guard have provided the representatives of the respondent's unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel' with the proper identification and au- ,with the shore, officials Moreover, so far as possible the men themselves should have the privilege of airing their individual complaints to their representatives, just as do employees whose Mork is on land. The sugg'estion' that the Union representa- tives can be stationed'on the dock,'there investigate complaints by meeting members of the crew as they come off the ship-and'after thus learning the facts from seamen can then bargain with respondent' s shore officials , is subject to the objection that the dock is manifestly no place for an adequate discussion of labor grievances. 'Even if, despite the inconvenience, the men were able to visit Union' headquarters for such discussion of, their grievances, they, would not have the presence and backing of experienced bargaining representatives when presenting their claims, to the ships' officers. Nor under such restrictions can there be,adequate discussion by the dele- gate aitlrthe ships' officers of,matters requiring explanation. S7 The Unions' representatives who board tankers are men who are thoroughly familiar with conditions prevailing on sucli vessels, and with safety precautions which must be taken ; more so it would appear, than others who are permitted to board the tankers. All docks, terminals; and vessels are now guarded by military or naval personnel This security measure insures to the respondent the'protection needed, by any increased hazards r d th W to a a . , ue ,616 DECISIONS ,0F ' NATIONAL , LABOR R(ELATION'S, BOARDI - .thority , to enter restricted areas- and • to board tankers and vessels, . includ- ing respondent's tankers, providing respondent issues its passes to the representatives.18 The undersigned' does -not believe , that these contentions ' of • the respondent are,valid reasons for denying access." C. Concluding findings In conclusion, the undersigned finds that respondent's unlicensed deck, en- gine, and'steward personnel are in port for aashort time•with very little time ashore; that tanker terminals are usually located in port areas inaccessible to union headquarters; that collective bargaining procedures for the settlement of grievances which do not involve access are in a practical sense unworkable, and do not afford the respondent's unlicensed deck, engine, and steward per- sonnel the opportunity to bargain collectively concerning their grievances; that the refusal of the respondent to issue passes to the duly authorized repre- sentatives of its unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel for the purpose of access prevents these seamen from receiving aid, advice, and information through their duly chosen representatives; that procedure which involves access, for these purposes is prevalent today, and has long been in use in the west coast shipping industry; that with access these representatives may investi- gate the nature of, assess the value of, and properly present grievances on behalf of these seamen and give to them the aid, advice, and information essen- tial forfmutual,protection ;.that without access,-the; .espondent's unhcensed deck, engine, and steward personnel would be denied the benefits of essential rights, conferred upon them by the Act, providing for collective bargaining and other mutual aid through their duly chosen representatives It is plain from these findings and from the entire recoi d, and- the under- signed finds that the respondent by refusing to grant passes to the duly desig- nated representatives of its unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel in order that such representatives might confer with and aid such personnel oir board respondent's tankers has interfered-with, restrained, and coerced, and by continuing such refusal is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its unli- censed desk, engine, and steward personnel in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in, Section 7 of the Act, and is thereby violating Section 8' (1) of the Act. , IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the-operations of the respondent:<set forth in Section I above, have a close, -intimate, and 'substantial' relation-to trade,' trailic; and 'commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. • I4 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 piohibition of "crews ' mass meetings , crews' committee meetings, and other similar meetings aboard ships" ( Statement of Policy, War Shipping Adminis- tration ) does not refer to the duly authorized representatives of unlicensed deck, engine and steward personnel, having access to transact business, in conformity with the -provi- sions 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 indicate that there is no basis for such a position. - 19 The undersigned has given consideration to the various maritime 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 un- licensed deck, engine , and steward personnel to exercise their privileges under the Act. GENERAL, PETROLEUM CORPORATON OF CALIFORNIA 617 V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent , has'engaged in certain, unfair labor practices , the undersigned will recommend that it cease ' and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its unlicensed deck. engine , and steward personnel in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 by refusing to issue passes to its tankers to 'representatives of the Sailors 'Union of the-Pacific, a division of'Sea- farers' International Union of North America ; Pacific District , Seafarers' Inter- national Engine Division , Seafarers ' International Union of North America; and Pacific District , Seafarers' International Steward Division , Seafarers' 'International Union of North America, the duly designated collective bargain- ing representatives of the respondent 's unlicensed deck, engine , and steward personnel ; in order to make effective the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, and thereby to inmimize 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 , engine, and steward personnel's duly designated representatives of the Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers' International Union of-North America; Pacific District , Seafarers' International Engine Division , Seafarers' International Union of North America ; and Pacific District, Seafarers ' International Steward Division , Seafarers' In- ternational Union of North Aniei•ica, iii order that they, hmay -board, the-respond- ent's tankers and confer with and aid the unlicensed deck, engine, and steward personnel thereon. The respondent contends that if it grants passes to the Unions here involved, 1 , t will also have to grant passes to all unions who demand such passes , to board its tankers 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 enfire record in this proceeding, the undersigned makes the following: Conclusions 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. Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North 'America, is a labor organization, within tli&meaning of'Secfion 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Pacific District, Seafarers' International Steward Division, a division of Seafarers' International Union of North America , is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 4. 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 8 ( 1) of the Act. 5. 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, General Petroleum Corporation of California, and its officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall : 618' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to grant passes to.representatives of the Sailors Union of the Pacific, a division of Seafarers ' International Union of North America ; Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division , Seafarers' International-Union of North America ; and Pacific District , Seafarers' International Steward Division, Seafarers' International Union of North America, in order that such representa- tives may go aboard the respondent 's tankers , and confer with and aid the unlicensed deck, engine and steward personnel thereon ; (b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct intefering with, restraining or -coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to 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 ; Pacific District, Seafarers' International Engine Division , Seafarers' International Union of North America ; and Pacific District , Seafarers' International Steward Division, Seafarers' International Union of North America, to go aboard its tankers-to confer with and aid the unlicensed deck, engine and steward'personnel; (b) Post- immediately inconspicuous places on - its'tankers fora period of at least ' sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of 'posting notices to the unli- censed deck, engine, and steward personnel , stating: ( 1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in 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 re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. ,, 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 recomeudations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. , As provided in Section 33 of Article IT 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, Washington, 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 relies 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. • - r JAMES C. BATTEN, Trial Examiner. ,,Dated March 30,1943.