Seas Shipping Co.

In the Matter of SEAS SHIPPING COMPANY and NATIONAL. MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 33, Case No. 8.109.Decided December 4, 1936 Water Transportation Industry-Investigation of Representatives : contro- versy concerning representation of employees-rival organizations ; substantial doubt as to majority status--question affecting commerce : confusion and unrest among employees-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : community of interest ; craft ; established labor organizations in industry ; licensed personnel ; occupational differences-Representattve3 : proof of choice : statement designat- ing-Certification of Representatives : after investigation but without election. Mr. David A. Mo.scovitz for the Board. Mr. Frank V. Barns, of New York City, for the Company. Mr. Edward P. Trainer, of New York City, for National Marine- Engineers' Beneficial Association. Mr. Herbert G. DeVarco, of New York City, for United Licensed Officers of the United States of America. Mr. William Gallagher, of New York City, for International Uniolu of Operating Engineers. Mary Lemon Schleifer, of counsel to the Board_ DECISION STATEMENT OF CASE On September 28,1936, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Asso- ciation, Local No. 33, hereinafter referred to as M. E. B. A., filed a. petition with the Acting Regional Director for the Second Region alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of the licensed marine engineers employed by Seas. Shipping Company, New York, New York, and requesting an inves- tigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter re- ferred to as the Act. The National Labor Relations Board, herein- after referred to as the Board, on October 5, 1936, authorized the Acting Regional Director for the Second Region to conduct an inves- tigation, and to provide for a hearing jointly with a hearing on the petition filed by M. E. B. A. concerning the representation of engi- neers employed by Grace Line, Inc.' On October 6, 1936, the Acting In the Matter of Grace L,ne, Inc and Panama Mail Steamship company and National Dianne Engineers' Beneficial Association, Local No 33, Case No R-110, decided November 13, 1936 (supra, p. 369). 398 DECTSIONgY-"AND ORDERS ' • ' 9S' Regional Director issued notice of a joint hearing to be held in New York City on October 13, 1935. Copies of the notice of hearing were duly served on Seas Shipping Company, hereinafter called the Com- pany, M. E. B. A. and on United Licensed Officers of the Untied States of America, hereinafter referred to as U. L. 0., and Inter- -national Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 3,2 hereinafter referred to as I. U. O. E., two labor organizations which had been -named in the petition as purporting to represent the engineers. Pursuant to the notice, a joint hearing Was held in New York City on October 13, 1936, before Charles A. Wood, the Trial Examiner -duly designated by the Board. All who were served with notice were -represented at the hearing. On November 5, 1936, the Board, having found the evidence intro- duced at the first hearing to be inadequate, issued notice of a further hearing to be held in New York City on November 12, 1936. The notice of hearing limited the evidence to be introduced to matters relating to the determination of what specific persons are employed as engineers by the Company and any further evidence of the desire of these engineers to have one or the other of the labor organizations represent them. Copies of the notice of hearing and of an order adjourning the hearing, subsequently issued by the Board, were duly .served on all parties. Pursuant to the notice of adjournment, a hearing was held in New York City on November 1b, 1936, before Walter Wilbur, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, at which all of the parties were represented. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iners on objections to the admission of evidence made by representa- tives of the various parties and finds that no prejudicial errors were -committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the evidence adduced at the hearings and from the entire record now before it, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE COMPANY Seas Shipping Company, New York, New York, is a New York 'corporation engaged in the business of operating four vessels plying between the United States and Africa. These vessels are used prin- cipally for the transportation of freight, though they also carry occasional passengers. New York City is the home port of the ves- sels. They also receive and discharge cargo at the ports of Phila- Erroneously referred to at the hearing as National Association of Operating Engineers. 400 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD delphia, Pennsylvania and Baltimore, Maryland in the United States. In Africa the vessels call at ports from Cape Town to Beira in South Africa and up the east coast of Africa to Mombasa, A chief and three assistant engineers, all required by law to be- licensed, are employed on each of the four vessels. We find that the Company is eiigaged in transportation and coin-- merce between the States and between the United States and foreign- t,ountries, and that the marine engineers employed by the Company are directly engaged in such transportation and commerce. II. THE UNIONS INVOLVED Al. E. B. A. is a labor organization whose membership is confined, to licensed marine engineers. U. L. O. is a labor organization whose membership includes both licensed marine engineers and licensed deck officers. The membership of I. U. O. E., which is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, in- cludes all those engaged in the operation of steam boilers, stationary, marine, Diesel, portable, hoisting, and electrical engines, gas engines, internal combustion engines, or any machine that develops power. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION M. E. B. A., U. L. O. and I. U. O. E. all claim members among the engineers employed by the Company. Frank V. Barns, counsel for, the Company, who also appeared as a witness, testified that it had come to the attention of the Company that various labor organiza- tions were seeking to represent the engineers and that he believed an election for the purpose of determining which organization was entitled to represent them would settle the matter. Representatives of M. E. B. A. and of I. U. O. E. testified that the question of repre- sentation which had arisen had caused unrest among the engineers employed by the Company. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of the licensed marine engineers employed by the Company and that this. question tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT M. E. B. A. and I. U. O. E. contend that the licensed engineers constitute an appropriate unit. U. L. 0., as in other cases which have come before the Board involving licensed maritime personnel, insists that the entire licensed personnel, including licensed deck officers and licensed engineers, constitute an appropriate unit. There were no facts developed at the hearings in this case which indicate that the situation is in any wise different from that existing in other DECISIONS AND ORDERS 401 cases where we found the licensed engineers alone to be an appro- priate unit.3 For the reasons stated in those cases, we find that the licensed chief and assistant engineers employed by the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment. V. CERTIFICATION M. E. B. A. has submitted in evidence cards received from nine engineers authorizing M. E. B. A. to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the second hearing, the Company's payroll was checked against ship's articles procured from the United States Shipping Board, by which check it was shown that these nine engineers are presently employed on the vessels operated by the Company. Four of these cards were mailed to M. E. B. A. on Sep- tember 12, 1936, two on October 24, 1936, and three on November 14, 1936. Eight of the nine cards were signed by the engineers, while the name on one was typewritten. Neither U. L. O'. nor I. U. O. E. made- any attempt at the hearing or otherwise to attack the authenticity of any of the authorizations, or to show that any one of the nine engi- neers who had authorized M. E. B. A. to represent them had indi- cated in any other way that he did not desire to have M. E. B. A. represent him, or that he desired either of the other organizations- to represent,him. The nine authorizations submitted by M. E. B. A. must therefore be accepted as evidence that nine of the 16 engineers- employed by the Company have designated M. E. B. A.- as their representative. M., E. B. A., having been designated by a• majority of the licensed engineers employed by the Company as their repre- sentative, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act; the exclusive rep- resentative of all of the licensed engineers for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, and we will so certify. Trainer, representing ,M. E. B. A.; testified .that two .other engi-- neers employed by the- Company are members of M. E. B. A., Local No. 5. He based this conclusion on 'statements made to .him by engi- neers who had recently been employed ,on -the- ship' with these men that they had seen their membership cards. However, since the nine engineers who signed authorizations constitute a majority of the 16 engineers employed by the Company, it is unnecessary for us to deter- mine whether such evidence is sufficient proof of the desire of these two engineers to have M. E. B. A. represent them. ° See In the Matter of Panama Rail Road Company and Marine Engineers' Benefciat Association, Case No R-10S , decided October 21. 1936 ( supra, p. 290), and cases cited therein. 402 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board 'makes the following conclusions of law: 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the licensed chief and assistant engineers employed by Seas Shipping Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The licensed chief and assistant engineers employed by Seas Shipping Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. 3. National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, having been designated by a majority of the licensed chief and assistant engineers employed by Seas Shipping Company as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representative of all such engineers for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,and other conditions of employment. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association has been designated by a majority of the licensed chief and assistant engineers employed by Seas Shipping Company, New York, New York, as their representative for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with Seas Shipping Company, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association is the exclusive representative of all such engineers for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment 4nd other conditions of employment.