Seafarers' Int'l Union of North America, Etc.

SEAFARERS' INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 207 recommend hiring and discharge. We find that she is a supervisor and exclude her. K. Morini, L. Cavalli, L. Croft, and D. Salcedo are secretaries to the Employer's vice president-treasurer, the office manager, the store manager and assistant store manager, and the vice president of Hotel Supply, respectively. Although these employees have access to the minutes of directors' meetings or to personnel and other files, there is no evidence that they act in a confidential capacity to any person who formulates, determines, and effectuates the Employer's labor relations policies. We find that they are not confidential employees and shall include them in the unit.? Accordingly, we find that all office clerical employees at the offices of Dohrmann Commercial Company and Dohrmann Hotel Supply Co., at 972 and 984 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, exclud- ing confidential secretaries, salesmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 7 Arden Farms, et al, 117 NLRB 318, 320, The B F Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724 Seafarers' International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor and Inland Waterways Division, AFL- CIO and Superior Derrick Corporation. Case No. 15-CC-71. April 13, 1960 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On November 12, 1958, the Board issued its Decision and Order' herein, finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. With respect to certain other unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint, the Board dismissed. On January 21, 1960, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Board's finding of a violation but reversed that part of the Board's Decision and Order dismissing certain allegations of the complaint and remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with the court's opinion? In its original decision, a majority of the Board participating therein found that the Respondent's picketing at the Dumaine Street wharf violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. However, with respect to Respondent's picketing at the Gretna Street wharf, a 1122 NLRB 52. ' Superior Derrick Corporation v N L R B., 273 F. 2d 891 (C A 5). ,127 NLRB No. 11. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD majority of the Board found that, as the employees of Southern Pacific Railroad Company were the only secondary employees who were allegedly induced to cease work, and as such railroad employees were not "employees" within the meaning of the Act, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act with respect to that incident. The court found, however, that the railroad em- ployees came within the purview of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and that, by the conduct of its pickets at the Gretna Street wharf, the Respondent induced such employees not to perform services for their employer under such circumstances as to constitute a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.' In conformance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Board now finds that the Respond- ent's picketing at and near the Gretna Street wharf induced and encouraged the employees of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to engage in a concerted refusal to perform any services with an object of forcing their employer to cease doing business with Superior Derrick Corporation, and with an object of forcing Superior Derrick to recognize the Respondent as the representative of its employees, although the Respondent was not the representative certified by the Board under Section 9 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. AMENDED ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board's original Order herein be amended to read as follows : Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Seafarers' Inter- national Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor and Inland Waterways Division, AFL-CIO, its officers, representa- tives, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Texia Stevedoring, Inc., and the Southern Pacific 8 With respect to the question of whether railroad employees are "employees" within the meaning of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Chairman Leedom and Member Fanning, with due deference to the opinion of the court Hof appeals herein, adhere to their view as expressed in Lumber & Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2409 ( Great Northern Railway Co .), 126 NLRB 57, footnote 3. Moreover, Member Fanning, in respectful disagreement with the court, would not find that Respondent's conduct at the Gretna wharf constituted unlawful inducement within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A ) and (B ) of the Act for the reasons set forth in his separate dissenting and concurring opinion in the original decision in this case. Members Rodgers and Jenkins, for reasons indicated in their respective dissents in Paper Makers Importing Co., Inc ., et at., 116 NLRB 267, and American Coal Shipping, Inc., et at., 124 NLRB 1079, are in agreement with the view of the court herein. Member Jenkins did not participate in the original decision in this case and joins herein solely to reiterate his views as expressed in his dissenting opinion in the American Coal Shipping case. SEAFARERS' INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC. 209 Railroad Company or any other employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or other person to cease doing business with Superior Derrick Corporation or to force or require Superior Derrick Corporation to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its employees, unless the Respondent has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of Act : (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls in New Orleans, Louisiana, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the said Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 con- secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto for posting at the premises of Superior Derrick Corporation, Texla Stevedoring, Inc., and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in places where notices to their employees are customarily posted, if they are willing to do so. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Sup- plemental Decision and Order. + In the event that this Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC AND GULF DISTRICT, HARBOR AND INLAND WATERWAYS DIvISION, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF TEXLA STEVEDORING, INC., SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND SUPERIOR DERRICK CORPORATION Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: 560940-61-vol 127-15 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Texla Stevedoring, Inc., or of Southern Pacific Railroad Com- pany, or any other employer, to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or other person to cease doing business with Superior Derrick Cor- poration or to force or require Superior Derrick Coporation to recognize or bargain with Seafarers' International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor and Inland Waterways Division, AFL-CIO, as the collective bargaining rep- resentative of any of Superior's employees, unless we are certified as such representative under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC AND GULF DISTRICT, HARBOR AND INLAND WATERWAYS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------- ------ By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 349 and Frank Schafer, Inc. Case No. AO-8. April 14, 1960 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed by Frank Schafer, Inc., herein called the Employer, pursuant to Section 102.98 of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, praying for an advisory opinion by the Board as to whether it would assert jurisdiction over "the labor controversy" described therein. A. It appears from said petition that : 1. The Employer, a Florida corporation, is an electrical contractor with its principal place of business in Miami, Dade County, Florida. It is engaged in different areas in Dade County, Florida, on several electrical contracting jobs. One of said jobs is "the new 7-Up bottling plant." "Commerce data based on [the Employer's] 1959 Federal income tax return" discloses the following : 127 NLRB No. 34.