Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast

In the Matter Of WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST, WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, WATER- FRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON, WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS OF PORTLAND, BRADY-HAMILTON STEVEDORES, INC., ET AL., EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, C. 1. O., PETITIONER Case No. 00-R-1690.-Decided September 28, 19.46 Mr. Thomas J. Davis, Jr., for the Board. Brobeck, Phleger c6 Harrison, by Mr. Richard Ernst, of San Fran- cisco, Calif., for the Coast Association and the California Association, Northern Division; and, in association with Paul, Hastings & Edmonds, by Mr. Lee G. Paul, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the California Association, Southern Division. Krause and Evans, by Mr. Gunther F. Krause, of Portland, Oreg., for certain companies,, and, in association with Mr. Richard Ernst, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Portland Association. Mr. Edward G. Dobrin, of Seattle, Wash., and Mr. Richard Ernst, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Washington Association. Lillick, Geary, Olson cPc Charles, by Mr. Harold S. Dobbs, of San Francisco, Calif., for E. K. Wood Lumber Company. Gladstein, Anderson, Resner, Sawyer do Edises, by Messrs. Richard Gladstein, Norman Leonard, and Herbert Resner, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Michael P. Johnson, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Petitioner. Bassett c€ Geisness, by Mr. John Geisness, of Seattle, Wash., for the ILA, Local 38-36, and the ILA, Local 38-78A. Mr. Seymour Cohen, of counsel to the Board. I Albina Dock Company ; Balfour, Guthrie & Company ; Brady-Hamilton Stevedores, Inc. ; Bulk Carrier Corporation ; Clark Wilson Terminals, Inc. ; Coastwise Line ; Columbia Basin Terminals ; Columbia River Stevedore Company ; Independent Stevedore Company ; Inter- state Terminals ; W. J. Jones & Son ; Liddell & Clark ; Linnton Terminals ; Longview Steve- doring Company ; Lower Columbia Stevedoring Company ; J. J. Moore & Company, Inc. ; Nor Pao Shipping Company ; Paclflc -Atlantic Steamship Company ; Portland Stevedoring Company ; States Steamship Company ; West Oregon Terminals. 71 N L. R. B , No. 15 121 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San Francisco, California, from June 18 to 25, 1946, and at Seattle, Wash- ington, on June 27, 1946, before Joseph C. Wells, hearing officer. During the course of the hearing, motions for dismissal of the petition were made as follows. (1) by the Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast, herein called the Coast Association, on the grounds that it does not bargain collectively with respect to employees of the type here sought to be represented, either on its own behalf or on behalf of others, and that it does not employ such employees; (2) by the Waterfront Employers Association of California and the Waterfront Employers of Washington, herein called the California Association and the Washington Association, respectively, on the ground that there was no showing of a request to bargain with those associations or their refusal to do so; (3) in behalf of all of the companies named in the petition on the ground that there has been no showing that they were requested to bargain on a coast-wide unit basis or that they have re- fused so to bargain; and. (4) by E. K. Wood Lumber Company on the grounds that it is not a member of any of the associations named and that it does not employ employees of the type here sought to be repre- sented. The hearing officer referred these motions to the Board. For reasons stated hereinafter, all motions to dismiss are hereby denied, except the motion made by E. K. Wood Lumber Company which we grant, inasmuch as Petitioner does not contest the validity of the asser- tions of that company. The hearing officer denied motions made by the regional employer associations that the proceeding be severed and that independent and separate hearings be held in the four bargaining areas. We have reviewed these rulings and find that they, as well as the other rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing, are free from prejudicial error. They are Hereby affirmed. Oral argument was heard before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 22, 1946. The alleged denial of due process The Coast Association contends that the companies and employer associations named in the petition have been denied due process of law in this proceeding in that : (1) timely notice was not given prior to the hearing; (2) the notice of hearing was not adequate in that there was WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 123 no precise statement of the issues involved; (3) the Board's refusal to hold separate hearings in each of the four areas denied the parties a proper hearing; and (4) there was an improper joinder of parties. Similar contentions were raised in dlatter o l Waterfront Employers Association o l the Pacific Coact, et al., Case No. 20-R-1615 (71 N. L. R. B. S0), issued this day, herein called the Walking Boss case. The employer associations, Petitioner, and many of the companies herein were also parties to that case,' and we found there, as we do here, that these contentions are uu ithout merit. An amended petition was filed with the Board on June 3, 1946, in which Petitioner clearly set forth the classifications of employees which it sought to represent and the individual employers of such employees, the alleged appro- priate bargaining unit in terms of the membership of the four employer associations, and the reasons why it deemed a coast-wide unit to be appropriate, alleging also that the Coast Association is an employer within the meunng of the Act. Notice of hearing on this petition was issued June 7, 1946, setting the hearing date as of June 18, 1946. Thereafter the hearing was held in San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washnigtori, as indicated above. The Trial Examiner's denial of the motions for separate hearings was made with the understanding that, if in the course of the hearing it became evident that an undue hardship would be imposed on any of the witnesses to require their appearance at the place where the hearing was then being conducted, adjournment to other localities to hear their testimony would be made. The record does not show that the convenience of the parties or their witnesses required hearings to be held elsewhere than in San Francisco and Seattle. Nor does the record support the contention that there has been an improper joinder of parties. As will appear hereinafter, the com- panies which hire checkers, the classification of employees here sought to be represented, are members of and are represented by the regional employer associations m bargaining with such employees, and the regional associations in turn are members of and act through the Coast Association, so that all the associations may be found to fall within the definition of "employer" under the Act. From these facts, and upon the entire record, we believe that the parties were properly joined, that they were given timely and ade- quate notice of the issues in this proceeding, that they at all times fully understood those issues, and that full and adequate opportunity was afforded them to participate in the hearing and to call witnesses and present competent evidence. We find, therefore, that the conduct 2 By stipulation of the parties, all of the record and exhibits in the Walking Boss case, except that relating to commeice, ,oeie mcoiporated into the record of the instant proceeding. 124 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of this proceeding has in no way been prejudicial to the rights of any of the parties, nor has it denied them due process of law. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast is an em- ployer association composed, directly or indirectly, of all shipping, stevedore, and terminal companies operating in the States of Califor- nia, Washington, and Oregon, which employ checkers and which are presently being represented by the California Association, Northern or Southern Divisions,3 the Washington Association, or the Waterfront Employers of Portland, herein called Portland Association, in collec- tive bargaining with respect to such employees. At the hearing, the following written stipulation was entered into by and between the California Association, Southern Division, and the Board : That if a competent witness were called by the petitioner in this matter, he would testify as follows : 1. That the Waterfront Employers Association of California, Southern Division represents its members doing business in the Southern California area as their duly designated and author- ized collective bargaining representative, in dealing with Local 1-63 of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, the collective bargaining representative of ship clerks in the South California area; 2. That the members represented by the Waterfront Employ- ers Association of California, Southern Division in the matter covered by paragraph 1 above are engaged in transportation or activities necessary thereto of water-borne cargoes being trans- ported by the Army, the Navy, the Administrator, War Shipping Administration, or certain private carriers, and that such water- borne cargo is mostly owned by the United States, although some of such cargo is owned by private persons. 3. That more than 50 percent of the said cargo at the time it is loaded, unloaded or handled is in the course of being trans- ported by the Army, the Navy, the Administrator, War Shipping Administration, or certain private carriers, between states of the United States, or the United States and foreign countries, or be- tween the United States and non-contiguous territories or posses- 8 For certain administrative and bargaining purposes, the California Association is sub- divided into the Northern Division and the Southern Division, according to the geographi- cal location of the offices of the members of the Association WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 125 sions of the United States; that in conjunction with the loading, unloading, 'handling and transporting of said cargo, the mem- bers represented employ ship clerks, checkers and supervisors at the time said cargo is being loaded, unloaded, or handled. It is further stipulated that the foregoing testimony may be deemed evidence to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if such testimony were given by a witness in this proceeding. Similar stipulations were entered into with the Board by the Washington Association and the Portland Association but were per- mitted by the hearing officer to be withdrawn upon his reversal of a previous ruling granting a continuance of this proceeding, the con- tinuance apparently having been a condition under which the stipula- tions were made. From our commerce determinations in the Walking Boss and other cases,4 as well as from certain evidence introduced into the record,-' we find that all companies which are members of the California Associa- tion, Northern Division, the Washington Association, and the Port- land Association, and which employ checkers, as well as all companies which are members of the California Association, Southern Division, and which employ checkers," are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent certain employees of the companies herein concerned.7 International Longshoremen's Association, Local 38-36, herein called the ILA, Local 38-36, is a labor organization, affiliated with the ' Matter of Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, et al., 7 N. L. R. B. 1002, and 32 N. L. it. B. 668. This evidence consists of several copies of the "Pacific Shipper," a weekly compendium of Pacific Coast shipping, and a copy of "The Guide," a daily shipping paper, both being publications generally in use in the shipping industry for the information they contain thiough advertisements and other means as to shipping and terminal companies and their operations, sailing _schedules, etc Objection was made by the employer associations that many of the companies holding themselves out to be engaged in inter-coastal and foreign shipping operations were so engaged as agents for the war Shipping Administration.' That this objection is without merit for the purpose of showing that the companies themselves are not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, see our opinion in the walking Boss case. i These companies are covered by the stipulation mentioned above i The Coast Association contends that Petitioner has discriminated on the basis of race, creed, political and economic beliefs , and past work history with respect to union member- ship and work opportunities afforded the checkers. No convincing evidence showing such discrimination was introduced or offered to be introduced. Petitioner 's constitution and bylaws contain no basis for a charge of such discrimination . Moreover, there is no showing that it will not accord equal representation to all employees in any unit found appropriate See Matter of Larais & Brother Compan y, Inc., 62 N L. R B 1075 For similar reasons, we flnd Petitioner's contention that the ILA, Local 38-36, discriminates on the basis of race with respect to union membership to lie without merit. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent certain em- ployees of the,companies herein concerned.s III. TITE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Coast Association contends that, the Board is without juris- diction in this proceeding because no question concerning represen- tation has arisen, inasmuch as demand for recognition and bargaiung has been made by Petitioner only upon the several employer associa- tions and not upon the ,individual companies, and demand upon the companies cannot be inferred from the mere existence of this pro- ceeding.') Similar contentions were considered by us in the Walking Boss case where we found them, as we do here, to be without merit. The Coast Association, the Washington Association, and the ILA, Local 38-36, contend that the contract presently in effect in the Wash- ington area covering checkers bars a present, deternlnultion of repre- sentatives. This bargaining agreement between the ILA, Local 38-36, and the Washington Association fixes September 30, 1946, as its ex- piration date, subject to being renewed if notice to the contrary is not given by either party at least 60 days prior to that date. But the amended petition herein was filed on June 3, 1946. In view of the timely filing of the amended petition and the aunlversary date of the contract we find, as we did under similar clrcunlstances in the Walking Boss case, that the Washington agreement is not a bar to a determina- tion of representatives at this time.70 "At the heaiing, the Trial Examiner granted the motion to infeivrn e made by the ILA, Local 38-36, and the ILA, Local 38-78A, on their claim of interest in the proceeding by virtue of then collective bargaining agreements with the Washington and Portland Asso- ciations, respectively, coveiing certain of the checkers In the biIi fs and at the oral argu- ment before the Board, however, inteivention-in behalf of the ILA, Local 3S-78A, was in effect abandoned, in the light of the consent election held in the Portia ni area, refeiied to hereafter, in which the checkers selected Petitioner's local in that aica as their baigain- mg representatrie On FebruaiN 11, 1946, it letter signed by Petitioner and several of its locals was ad- diessed to the president of the Coast association alleging that the s,gn.afories represented the vast ma,loi rty of checkers on the Pacific Coast and requesting negotiations for a coast- wide agreement On February 19, 1946, Petitioner addressed identical telegrams to all the employer associations stating that it represented a majority of the checkers employed bi- members of the ianous waterfront employees' associatiou5 on the Pacific Coast and that a petition was being filed with the Board that day to obtain cottification Petitioner in its telegianis also requested the associaticns to bargain collectiveli with it on behalf of the employees named No written replies to any of the bargaining demands were received HoiNever Petitioner was informed verbally by the president of the Coast Association and by an officer of the Califoinia Association that they would not bargain on a coast-wide basis until Petitioner was certified by the Board in it coast-wide unit An iigieenient covering the checker, in the Oregon ;lea ii is also urged as a hat at the hearing, but this position is, in effect, abandoned in the briefs filed firth the Iioaid due to the results of the consent alection in that aiea ieterred to in footnote 8 Pursuant to the election (Case No 19-R-1757), Petitioner s local was, on Tuli 16, 1946, designated by the Regional iirectoi for the Nineteenth Region as the bargaining represeatafive of the Oregon clieckei5 The local is now considered to be a paiti to tlie contract We find no merit in the fuithet contention of the Coast Association that the designation of Pet ifiouci's local as the baigaining iepresentatne in the Oregon area is a bar to the pnescnt pioceediug, in which a different unit is sought, inasmuch as the unit agieed upon by the panties to the consent election is not, undei the circumstances, binding upon the Board See 'Hatter of ilu117ui-Rockimail Corporation, 5 N L It 13 206, 210, Matter of elrnioui it Company, 5 N 1, It B 535, 538 WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 127 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employers, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE IETER\IINAIION OF 1IEP1IESENTATIVES Po.sitio9l ' 0/ the Parties Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all workers employed as super- cargoes, supervisors, clerks, and checkers, herein referred to as check- ers, who work in the Pacific Coast port of the United States for the companies which are members of one or more of the following employer associations: Coast Association, California Association, Washington Association, alnd Portlauid Association'ti In effect, Petitioner seeks to combine in a single coast-wide unit the checkers presently being bar- gained for in four separate area tulits.l-' Iii opposing this mlit, tile Washington Association and the ILA, Local 38-36, contend that only a unit limited to the Washington area is appropriate, while the Coast Association contends that only individual employer units may be found appropriate by the Board, and that, although the companies have voluntarily bargained on an area-wide basis, the Board does not have the power to find any nnlltiple-employer units appropriate. A. The statics of checkers and their work in the industry Generally speaking, checkers are clerical employees who are con- cerned with the inventory, receipt, stowage, and delivery of ships' cargo to or from marine terminals. From 10 percent to 25 percent of the checkers are so-called "steady" employees who work for par- ticular individual companies; the remainder are dispatched on a rota- tion basis -Front lining halls which are jointly operated by the local checkers' unions and the regional employer associations in the various areas. There is a further division into "hourly" and "monthly" checkers, the hourly checkers working and being paid by the hour and the nlontlnly checkers being paid by the month, irrespective of "Appendix 1: of the aingnled petition further designates the classifications included within the teini "checkers " as follows clerks or checkers , supervisors , super-supervisors, supercargoes , receiving clerks, deliver, clerks, spotters , sorters, weighers, stowage clerks, plan cam ks, r ar clerks, dock permit cler ks book men-r ecci wg and dehvermg, chief dellvei y clerks, chief receiving clerks, chief car clerks , chief book mien , inventory cleiks, floor run- ners, chief i inners , cai runners , cooper s, and hatch -watchmen Mahe lustor, of collect u, bamgaiiiing concerning clreckers, as hereafter discussed, has developed in four areas These are the areas of Northern California , Southeiii California, Washington, and Oregon Prior to 1943, bargaining in each of these areas was conducted between the respective regional employer associations then in existence and the local checkers' unions Although in 1943, as explained in the walking Boss case , the AVater- iront Employers Association of San Francisco ( which covered Northern California) and the Waterfront Employers Association of Southern California combined to form the Cali- fornia Association , bargaining with the clreckers is still separately carried on in California oi, the basis of the Norther n and Southern areas a 7177 t4-47-vol 71-10 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whether or not they work a specified number of hours. Monthly checkers are initially dispatched through the hiring hall as daily or hourly checkers and are then subsequently hired on a monthly basis. Both hourly and monthly checkers have a maximum number of hours which they may work per month before being required to return to the hiring hall; however, if all other checkers have worked the maxi- mum number of hours allowed and are thus unavailable for dispatch- ing by the hall, work is permitted beyond the maximum time limit. The rotation system of dispatching checkers results in their frequent interchange among the companies operating in a particular area. Interchange of checkers between the different areas does occur, but such instances are only occasional and infrequent. Wage rates for checkers are uniform throughout all the areas except in Northern California where, since 1940, the checkers have received 5 cents per hour less than the rate being paid in the other three areas. However, a vacation provision is included in the bargaining agreement covering the checkers in Northern California, whereas the agreements in the other areas contain no vacation provisions . Wage payments to the checkers are made through central pay offices which are oper- ated by the regional employer associations and are located in each of the four areas. Checker working conditions are also substantially uniform along the entire Pacific Coast. It was stipulated at the hearing that longshoremen do the physical work and that the checkers do the clerical work in connection with the handling of water-borne cargo on the docks, and that the two types of workers are component parts , and complement each other in the proper operation , of the shipping industry. From the foregoing facts, we believe, and find, that the checkers on the Pacific Coast constitute a single, well-defined, cohesive group with substantially uniform wages and working conditions, and that they have mutual interests and problems. B. The history of organization and collective bargaining with respect to employees other than checkers in the industry The history of organization and collective bargaining for rank and file longshoremen, carloaders and dock workers, ship, dock, and walk- ing bosses, and certain miscellaneous groups of employees who work on the Pacific Coast for companies which are members of one or more of the employer associations has been discussed in some detail in the Walking Boss case. We shall not repeat that history here, but we note that it discloses a definite pattern of organization and actual collective bargaining for such employees on an area-wide, or, as in the case of the rank and file longshoremen, a coast-wide, uiultnple- WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 129 employer basis. Also in the Walking Boss case, we found that it was feasible for ship, dock, and walking bosses to be bargained for in a single coast-wide unit, although no final unit determination was made. C. The history of organisation and collective bargaining with respect to checkers Widespread organization of the checkers along the Pacific Coast was commenced in the latter part of 1933,13 a number of local checkers' unions being chartered by the ILA to form part of its Pacific Coast District 38. In a number of the smaller ports, the checkers became members of the longshore locals. All participated in the coast-wide strike in 1934. Shortly after the strike was terminated, a number of the checkers' locals in the four areas obtained collective bargaining agreements with individual companies. In 1935 and 1936 these locals successfully negotiated agreements with each of the regional em- ployer associations on an area-wide basis, and it is on this basis that bargaining for checkers has continued until the present time. 14 At first, separate agreements for hourly and monthly checkers were con- cluded, but since 1940, except in the Washington and Oregon areas, single agreements covering both have been executed. From the record, it appears that at the time of the hearing the Portland local (presently affiliated with Petitioner) was also demanding a single agreement. From August 1936 to February 1937, extensive negotiations were carried on between ILA District 38 on behalf of all of its affiliated checkers' locals and the so-called "Coast Committee for the Ship- owners" for the purpose of entering into a coast-wide collective bar- gaining agreement for checkers. Numerous proposals and counter- proposals were offered, but the parties were unable to agree and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the coast-wide strike of 1936-37, it was decided to resume bargaining negotiations on an area basis. Later in 1937, when District 38 took a referendum ballot on the question of CIO affiliation, as referred to in the Walking Boss case, and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of such affiliation, the checkers' locals in Portland and Seattle nevertheless voted to remain affiliated with the ILA.13 Thereafter, negotiations for a coast-wide agreement covering checkers were never resumed. As stated above, however, bargaining on an area-wide basis has continued to the present clay. 1s The ILA, Local 38-36, was organized in 1917 and has bargained with employers in the Washington area continuously since 1918 14 Hueneme , San Diego , Stockton , and Eureka, all minor California ports, are not covered by the area agreements. ^ The checkers ' locals in San Pedro , San Francisco , and Stockton , all in the State of Califoi nma . voted to affiliate with the CIO The checkers' local in Portland has since similarly changed its affiliation , as demonstrated by the recent consent election in that area hereinbefore referred to. 0 130 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD D. The employer associations as "employers" of checkers In the Walking Boss case there is recorded in some detail portions of the constitution and bylaws of the Coast Association, whicli show that the Coast Association is empowered to represent its members in matters concerning longshore work and other employments ashore at Pacific Coast ports, and specifically to "fix, establish and maintain on behalf of its members policies" relating to such labor and to represent its members in "the negotiation, execution and perform- ance of contracts . . . with groups or associations of longshore- men and other shore employees governing wages, hours and conditions of such employment." Such action taken by the Coast Association on behalf of its members is binding upon the members. Further evidence discussed there shows that the regional associations and their members, either by provision of association bylaws or by virtue of them membership in the Coast Association, are bound by the policies and agreements established or entered into by the Coast Association in behalf of its members, and that the regional associations themselves may bind their members to contracts entered into in their behalf by the associations. As discussed above, collective bargainm(, between the regional asso- ciations and the local checkers' unions has existed for some time in the four areas. There has been no formal collective bargaining respecting checkers by the Coast Association on a coast-wide basis. Notwith• standing this fact, the record shows that the Coast Association in reality formulates and substantially controls labor policy relating to checkers throughout the Pacific Coast. This conclusion is supported by the following evidence : (1) The February 1941 survey, referrecl to in the Walking Boss case, which was made by a Coast Association committee of wages paid in all Pacific port areas to the various classes of port labor other than the longshoremen covered by the coast-wide longshore agreement in- cluded a section on checkers. In this section of the survey, the Wash- ington Association is "requested" to submit to the other regional asso- ciations, before discussing it in any manner whatever with the checkers employed by its members, a draft of its recommendations as to wage increases for the checkers. Specific recommendations are oracle in the report as to what wage rates the Washington Association should negotiate. Such negotiations were soon thereafter entered into, for by letter dated May 2, 1941, copies of which were submitted to other re- associations, the Washington Association reported to the Coast Association on a conference regarding "checker negotiations," enclos- ing the wage recommendations of a United States Department of Labor Conciliator who participated in the conference. The letter stated that the Board of Trustees of the Washington Association was about to 0 WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 131 consider the conciliator's proposal , and that this board would submit its recommendations by teletype to the Coast Association . "This is sent to you in advance," the letter concluded , "so that you may have time to give it some thought and consideration ." The recommenda- tions of the Washington Association 's Board-of Trustees were later considered by the Coast Association, as evidenced by the "Docket" for a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Coast Association, dated May 9 , 1941, which stated the purposes of the meeting to be, among others , "To go thoroughly into the recommendations of the Washington Association on Wage increases to foremen and checkers," and "to consider the repercussions on the other ports ." There is no evidence as to the nature of the iiegotnatioins thereafter , but a supple- mental bargaining agreement of July 8, 1941 , between the Washington Association and the ILA, Local 38-36, reflected slightly lower rates for hourly checkers and slightly higher increases for monthly checkers than those contained in the conciliator's proposal. (2) A letter introduced into evidence at the hearing shows that as early as 1940 the Coast Association was deternunmg labor policy for the regional associations as regards wages, hours, and working condi- tions for the checkers employed by the nneiiibers of the several associa- tions. This letter , written on August 16 , by the Coast Association to the Washington Association , copies of which were submitted to the other regional associations , was entitled "Checker Negotiations" and began as follows : This is an attempt to summarize what was the agreeirwnt on policy o f the Coast Board, and the understanding in detail reached yes- terday by representatives of the Ports. [Italics added.] Thereafter the letter gave an account of the decision by the Coast Association Board of Directors that, (a ) the managers of the regional associations were to meet with the labor relations committee of the checkers' union in their respective regions and attempt to renew the then existing contracts for a designated term ; (b) no changes were to be made in the agreements other than those set out in the letter; (c) "the Districts ( regions ) [were] authorized to agree with the Checker members of the Labor Relations Committee that in the event of wage adjustments in related employments which affect[ed] them or their employment negotiations for an adjustment in their wages [were to] be started promptly without the formality of'notice as per contract"; ( d) a recommendation was made that companies in all regions put as many checkers as "practicable " on a monthly basis; and (e) if it so desired , the Washington Association was to make an alternative offer in its contract negotiations with the checkers, but it was instructed to notify the other associations which of the offers it decided to make, and, if that offer were rejected,.to confer with the 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other associations before acting further. The letter then continued with some so-called "further notes of understanding" on specific terms relating to wages and hours for checkers, a statement that the offer to the checkers was not mandatory if any port did not wish to make it, and concluded with the following paragraphs : The care which all of the Port Associations are giving in this matter is based upon the need, always with us, of maintaining parity as closely as practicable. It is further borne in mind that the two groups, ILWU and ILA are of course rivals and are likely to be playing the employers off one against the other. Voluntary endorsement by any of the Port Associations or the Coast of that principle (extending vacations to casual checkers) ... would be a serious handicap in the opposition of all of, the Associations to the Union's demands for vacations for casual longshoremen. (3) Testimony introduced into the record by stipulation of all the parties, concerning negotiations in May 1946 between the Portland Association and the local checkers' union for a new bargaining agree- ment, shows that (a) the Portland Association submitted to the Coast Association for approval a tentative agreement which it had reached with the local; (b) when the Coast Association did not approve, the Portland Association refused to enter into the proposed agreement; and (c) the Portland Association did not enter into any agreement with the checkers' local until certain provisions "recommended" by the Coast Association were incorporated into it, and it had been approved by the Coast Association. (4) The testimony of Russell Ferguson, manager of the Portland Association, quoted at length in the Walking Boss case, discloses a practice of "clearing" all contracts dealing with employee wages and working conditions, including agreements covering checkers, among all the regional associations and the Coast Association. We conclude from the foregoing facts an-1 the entire record that the activities of the several regional associations and the Coast Association in behalf of their members with respect to checkers are such as to bring them within the Act's definition of "employer" of those employees 16 E. The power of the Board to find multiple-employer units appro- priate and the exercise of that power The Coast Association contends that the Board has no authority to find appropriate a unit broader than that composed of the employees 21 See the cases on this point cited in the walking Boss case. WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 133 of an individual direct employer. For the reasons stated in our deci- sion in the Walking Boss case, we find this contention to be without merit. Moreover, we believe that we may properly exercise the power to find appropriate a multiple-employer unit or units under the cir- cumstances of this case, despite the Coast Association's opposition, inasmuch as the elements warranting its exercise, as outlined in the Walking Boss case, are present here. We have noted heretofore the long history of collective bargaining relating to checkers in each of the four areas and have shown that the terms of that bargaining, so far as concerns the employers, were formulated and placed into effect by the Coast Association and the several regional associations on a coast-wide basis, in behalf of all the companies on the Pacific Coast who were members on one or more of the associations and directly employed checkers. Furthermore, the state of organization of the checkers and the employer associations and the history of bargaining on a multiple-employer basis make it abundantly clear that adequate machinery exists for the conduct of bargaining on a multiple-employer basis. F. The scope of the multiple-employer unit or units a. General The history of collective bargaining concerning checkers clearly demonstrates the appropriateness of placing them in a multiple-em- ployer unit or units for the purposes of collective bargaining instead of in individual company groupings. We believe, moreover, that the circumstances revealed in the record and discussed above indicate the feasibility of including them in a single multiple-employer unit, coast- wide in scope and coextensive with the membership of the several employer associations. The factors supporting this position are : - (a) The checkers employed along the entire Pacific Coast form a well-defined cohesive group with substantially uniform wages and working conditions and have mutual interests and problems. (b) A coast-wide unit of the rank and file longshoremen, whose work is closely related to that performed by the checkers, has been found appropriate by the Board, and the longshoremen have con- ducted their bargaining on that basis. Moreover, we found in the Walking Boss case that a coast-wide bargaining unit of the walking bosses who supervise the rank and file longshoremen is also feasible. (c) The state of organization of the checkers indicates their ability and desire to function on a coast-wide basis. Thus Petitioner, having organized checkers employed throughout the Pacific Coast, although with less success in Washington than in the other regions, here seeks to represent them on a coast-wide basis. Furthermore, checker mem- 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hers of Petitioner participated in a coast-wide conference which Peti- tioner called in San Francisco, California, in December 1945, and there drafted, and subsequently presented to the Coast Association, a proposed coast-wide bargaining agreement for checkers. (d) The organization into employer associations of the companies which employ checkers indicates the ability of those companies to function on a coast-wide basis. The companies concerned herein which employ checkers are members of the Coast Association, either through their membership in the regional associations or directly. As shown in the Walking Boss case, the Coast Association is empowered to establish labor policies for "longshore work and other employments ashore" and to represent its members in collective bargaining with groups of "other shore employees." Such action by the Coast Associa- tion is binding upon its members. Similarly, the regional associations may act for and bind their members in negotiations concerning check- ers, and, through their practice of clearing matters among themselves, as well as through the Coast Association, in effect achieve such action on a coast-wide basis. (e) The Coast Association determines labor policies relating to checkers throughout the Pacific Coast for all its members which employ such employees. As -found above, the Coast Association, by such activities, and the regional associations, by their activities respecting checkers on behalf of their member companies which are located along the entire Pacific Coast, fall within the Act's definition of employer of such labor. (f) The history of collective bargaining concerning checkers shows that, as a practical matter, the companies and employer associations have regarded and treated all such employees throughout the Pacific Coast substantially as a single group. b. The 1ashington Association companies But we are of the opinion that a separate unit of checkers employed in the Washington area by the companies which are members of the Washington Association may also be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In support of this view, we note the following : (a) The checkers employed in the Washington area by themselves form a well-defined cohesive group with uniform wages and working conditions. (b) Checkers in Washington have been organized by the ILA, Local 38-36, on an area basis, and this union desires to represent them on such a basis. (c) The organization into the Washington Association of the Wash- ington companies which employ checkers indicates the ability of these companies to act on a regional basis. WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 135 (d) The Washington Association is an employer within the meaning of the Act of its members' checkers. (e) Since 1918, except for the period from 1920 to 1934 during which it bargained with individual companies, the ILA, Local 38-36, has had collective bargaining agreements covering the checkers employed by companies in the Washington area, and it has been recognized in these agreements as the bargaining representative of these employees. In the foregoing circumstances, we normally Would establish two separate voting groups-one comprised of the checkers employed in the Washington area, and the other consisting of the checkers in the Oregon, Northern California, and Southern California areas-ii l order to ascertain the desires of these employees as reflected by the results of separate elections in the two voting groups. And our unit deter= mination would depend in part upon the employees' desires. If the employees in the two voting groups, voting separately, selected Pe- titioner, they would be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a single appropriate unit But it appears unnecessary here to direct an election in a separate voting group of the checkers in the Oregon. Northern California, and Southern California areas. Petitioner is now recognized as having majority status in each of these areas. Thus, it would seem that its majority status in the three areas combined is not questioned. We shall, therefore, direct an election only in a vot- ing group of checkers employed in the Washington area. Should these employees designate Petitioner as their bargaining representa- tive, they Will be taken to have indicated a desire to be bargained for as part of a -unit of all checkers employed along the entire Pacific Coast by members of one or more of the employer associations. In the event they select the ILA, Local 38-36, as their bargaining agent, however, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among the employees in the voting group described below who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction : All supercargoes, supervisors, clerks, and checkers employed in the State of Washington, exclusive of the Columbia River ports, by the companies named in the Appendix annexed hereto, which are members of one or both of the following associations: Waterfront Employers of Washington and Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast.17 . 17 It is intended to include all members of these associations which employ checkers in the State of Washington, exclusive of the Columbia River ports, and not only those members listed in the Appendix 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employers involved herein, including the companies listed in the Appendix annexed hereto, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty ( 30) days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56; of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV, above, who 'r ere employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls , but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether the employees desire to be represented by Inter- national Longshoremen 's Association (AFL), or by International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union ( CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi- cation of representatives filed herein by International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is dismissed as to the E. K. Wood Lumber Company. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS , JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Election, and Order. APPENDIX Ainsworth & Dunn Dock Co., Pier 14, Seattle, Washington Alaska Steamship Company, Pier 2, Seattle , Washington American Foreign Steamship Co., c/o Matthewson Shipping Co., White Bldg., Seattle, Washington American Hawaiian S. S. Co., Seattle, Washington American Mail Line, Ltd., 759 Stuart Bldg., Seattle, Washington Ames Terminal Company, 3200-26th Avenue, S. W., Seattle, Washington Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co., 425 Howe Street , Vancouver, B. C. WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 137 Arlington Dock Company, Pier 5, Seattle, Washington Baker Dock Company, P. 0. Box 1483, Tacoma, Washington Bellingham Contr. & Steve. Co., 800 State Street, Bellingham, Washington Blue Funnel Line, c/o Dodwell & Company, Exchange Bldg., Seattle, Washington Blue Star Line, Inc., Northern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Border Line Navigation Co., Coleman Building, Seattle, Washington California Eastern Line, 1010 Washington, Vancouver, Washington Canadian Transport Co., Ltd., 832 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B. C. City Dock Company, Pier 7, Seattle, Washington Coastal Steamship Company, 1220 St. Paul Avenue, Tacoma, Washington - Deming, Roberg & Williams, 109 W. Magnolia Street, Bellingham, Washington Dodwell & Company, Ltd., Exchange Building, Seattle, Washington East Waterway Dock & Whse. Co., Box 98, Seattle, Washington Elliot Bay Service Company, Pier 41, Seattle, Washington Everett Stevedoring Company, Inc., Pier 1, Everett, Washington Fruit Express Line, Skinner Building, Seattle, Washington Girwood Shipping Company, Northern, Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Grace Lines, Inc., Seattle, Washington Grays Harbor Steve. Co., Aberdeen, Washington Great Northern By. Co., Smith Cove, Seattle, Washington Griffiths & Sprague Steve. Company, Coleman Building, Seattle, Washington Intercoastal Packing Company, Stacy & E. Waterway, Seattle, Washington International Shipping Co., Northern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington The Jordan Company, Canadian National Dock, Seattle, Washington J. Lauritzen Line, c/o Girwood Shipping Company, 1001 Northern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Longview Stevedoring Company, Mill Site, Longview, Washington Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Company, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash- ington H. E. Mansfield, Inc., Anacortes, Washington Matson Terminals, Inc., Union Pacific Dock, Seattle, Washington McCormick Steamship Company, Seattle, Washington Newsprint Service Company, Pier 63, Seattle, Washington Northern Stevedores, Inc., Coleman Building, Seattle, Washington Northland Transportation Co., Pier 5, Seattle, Washington 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Olympic Steamship Company, Inc. (Consolidated-Olympic SS Co.), Smith Tower, Seattle, Washington Olympic Peninsula Steve. Co., c/o Rothschild-International, North- ern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Olympia Stevedoring Company, Olympia, Washington Olympic Stevedore Co., Inc., Smith Tower, Seattle, Washington Puget Sound Steve. Co., Canadian National Dock, Seattle, Wash- ington Querin Steve. & Terminal Co., Pier 56, Seattle, Washington Rothschild-International Steve. Co., Northern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Salmon Terminals, Inc., Pier 40, Seattle, Washington Santa Anna Steamship Company, 519 Coleman Building, Seattle, Washington Seaboard Stevedoring Corp. of Wn., Hanford Street Dock. Seattle, Washington Shaffer Terminals, Inc., P. O. Box 1157. Tacoma, Washington Shepard Steamship Company, 1411 4th Avenue Bldg., Seattle, Wash- ington Steamers Service Company, 6002 E. Marginal Way, Seattle, Wash- ington Tait Stevedoring Co., Northern Life Tower, Seattle, Washington Thomas & Dear, Inc., c/o Sperry Flour Company, Waterfront, Ta- coma, Washington Twin Harbor Steve. Co., Hoquiam, Washington Paul Unoff, Agrt. Canadian Trans. Co., Ltd., Exchange Building, Seattle, Washington United Oceania Transport Co., Ltd., 1629 Exchange Building, Seat- tle, Washington Vancouver Stevedoring Company, Vancouver, Washington Washington Steve. Company, 1315 Alaska Building, Seattle, Wash- ington Frank Waterhouse & Co. of Canada, Ltd., Exchange Building, Se- attle, Washington Western Stevedore Company, 96 Columbia Street, Seattle, Wash- ington Willapa Harbor Steve. Co., Raymond, Washington