Local 333, United Marine Division, N.M.U.

LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE, DIVISION, N.M.U. • 331 All our employees are free to become; remain, or refrain from becoming or re- maining members of any labor organization. LAMAR CREAMERY COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- . (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-In the event any of the above-named employees are prseently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States we will notify them of their right to full rein- statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. - • This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if ithey have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. • Local 333, United Marine Division , National- Maritime Union, AFL-CIO and Sea-Land Service, Inc. ; Case No. 24-CC-90._ Au- gust 17, 1964 - 'r • - DECISION AND ORDER On April 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent- filed 'exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. - Pursuant to the provisions of -Section- 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers'in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Local 1 There is no contention that the masters, mates, and engineers employed by Lighterage, whom the Respondent sought to represent, are not employees as defined in the Act 148 NLRB No. 33. 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 333, United Marine Division,. National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer on January 7 and 8, 1964, in Santurce , Puerto Rico, on the amended complaint of the General Counsel,' and the answer of Local 333, United Marine Division , NMU-AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent.. Litigated and presented for decision is the question whether the Respondent , in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , induced and encouraged employees of Sea-Land Service, Inc., herein called Sea-Land , to engage in a strike or to refuse to perform services, and threatened, coerced, and restrained Sea-Land , with an object of forcing or re- quiring Sea-Land to cease doing business with Porto Rico Lighterage Company, herein called Lighterage , and with the further object of forcing or requiring Lighterage to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the representative of Lighterage's employees , although the Respondent was not their duly certified representative. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument . Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED Porto Rico Lighterage Company, Inc., is a Puerto Rican corporation with offices and pier facilities at Puerta de Tierra , San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is engaged in the business of providing tugboat docking and undocking services to shipping companies operating at the ports of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands , Santo Domingo, and other parts of North and South America. It also acts as shipping agent to unload vessels at said ports. For the foregoing services rendered to shipping companies engaged in in- terstate and foreign commerce, Lighterage annually receives revenue in excess of $100,000. ` Sea-Land Service, Inc., is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of trans- porting cargo by ship between the States of the United States and the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico. It has offices, pier, and warehouse facilities at Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico. From these operations it annually derives revenue in excess of $1 million. The Respondent admits, and I find, that Lighterage and Sea-Land are, and have been at all times material herein , engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8 (b) (4) of the Act, and that it will effectuate statutory policies to assert jurisdiction in this case. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section , 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts The relevant facts are undisputed and are as follows: In September 1963,2 the Re- spondent sought recognition and bargaining rights from Lighterage , as the exclusive 'The charge in Case No 24-CC-90 was filed on Noyember 14, 1963, and a copy was served on the Respondent Local 333 the same day In addition , an amended charge was filed and a copy was served on that Respondent on November 29, 1963 At the hearing, the General Counsel moved to sever Case No 24-ACC-91 , In which Local 1575, ILA-AFL-CIO , is the Respondent , from the instant proceeding with which it was previously consolidated , for the purpose of enabling Local 1575 to enter into a settlement agreement of. the charges against it. The General Counsel also moved to adjourn in- definitely the hearing in the severed Case No. 24-CC-91 pending Board approval of the settlement agreement Both motions were granted and the title of the present proceeding Is accordingly amended , as shown above , to reflect the severance z Unless otherwise indicated , all pertinent events occurred in 1963 LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, N.M.U. 333 representative of the masters, mates , and engineers aboard its tugboats . Lighterage declined this request and, as a consequence, the Respondent called a strike and began picketing Lighterage's pier and business facilities at Puerta de Tierra, San Juan. Picketing was still in progress' when this case was heard: -Admittedly, the Respond- ent, at the time of the events herein, was -not certified by the National Labor Rela- tions Board as the representative of Lighterage 's masters, mates, and engineers. Since its activities at Lighterage were evidently ineffectual, the Respondent pro- ceeded to establish picket lines at the operations of Sea-Land, one of its customers which regularly utilizes its'tugboat services to dock and undock Sea-Land vessels at Sea-Land's pier facilities in San Juan Harbor, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico. Sea- Land's installation is about 5 or 6 miles across the bay from Lighterage's location. In addition to berthing accommodations for its vessels at the piers, which extend for some 1,800 feet,3. Sea-Land has warehouse and terminal facilities adjacent to, and somewhat removed inland from; these piers. On October 8, the Respondent started to picket Sea-Land's operations at its only three entrances, later to be described, during the following dates and approximate times: October 8, 3.45 p.m. to October 9, 3'45 p.m.; October 22, 6:15 a.m. to October 23, 6:45 p.m.; November 12, 6.15 a m. to November 13, 6:45 'a.m.; and November 15, 6 45 p in. to November 19, 4 p.m. On the latter date, picketing was discontinued when the United States District Court of Puerto Rico issued a temporary restraining order. The various signs carried by the pickets bore the legends indi- cated below, some in Spanish and others in English. Information. Ship docked' by strike-breaking officers of Porto Rico Light- erage..UMD-NMU Local 333. Puerto Rican seamen defend their jobs. - Captains, pilots, engineers demand their rights, Local 333 UMD-NMU. Porto Rico Lighterage Company enslaves captains, pilots, engineers, Local 333 UMD-NMU. - While the record is not entirely clear, it appears that after the first day of picketing the signs that were displayed plainly identified Lighterage as the primary employer with whom the Respondent'had its labor dispute. However, at least on the first day, some signs were not so informative. The evidence also shows that picketing was not limited to the times when a Lighterage tugboat was docking or undocking a Sea-Land vessel. Specifically, the Respondent picketed Sea-Land's facilities on October 9 and 23, and November 17 and 19, even though Sea-Land did not utilize any Lighterage tugboat services on those days. Moreover, on the occasions when a Lighterage tugboat did assist a Sea-Land vessel to dock or undock, picketing continued without interruption, even though the tugboat had departed after spending only 8 to 10 minutes in the waters adjacent to the piers, which was all that performance of such services usually entailed? Concerning the location of the picketing, the Respondent stationed pickets on ports authority property outside the only three entrances to Sea-Land's facilities. However, these entrances are not close by the piers where Sea-Land vessels are customarily berthed for loading and unloading cargo. Thus, one entrance is situated near shed A, which is used by trucks and customers entering to pick up cargo and is roughly 1,200 to 1,300 feet distant from the berthing piers. The second entrance is located at the end of Sea-Land's temporary trucking terminal, and is about one-half to three-fourths of a mile away from the piers. This entrance is used by truckers to pick up or deliver freight at this terminal or to pick up trailers of cargo at the temporary marshaling area. It is also used by customers to take delivery of auto- mobiles on an area adjacent to the marshaling yard. The third entrance is located at Bayamon Road and is more than a mile away from the piers. The entrance is also used by truckers and customers to pick up or deposit cargo. It is un- disputed that from none of these entrances are the piers visible, nor could Light- erage or other tugs be seen docking or undocking Sea-Land vessels,5 although un- doubtedly there are other areas from which these operations could be observed. Significantly, there is no evidence that the Respondent made any effort while picket- ing to ascertain whether a Lighterage tugboat was performing services at Sea-Land's piers at any particular time. In addition, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Respondent ever attempted to picket a Lighterage tugboat from the pier 3 Sea-Land enjoys preferential use of piers B and C covering some 1 200 feet. 4 The entire procedure of the tugboat meeting a Sea-Land vessel at the mouth of the San Juan Harbor, guiding it to its berth, and releasing it there, normally takes from 45 to 60 minutes 5 Between these entrances and the piers are various buildings which obscure view of the pier area. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the immediate vicinity of the tugboat engaged in assisting a Sea-Land vessel or that the Respondent ever requested , permission of Sea-Land to enter , upon its pier facilities to picket in an area closer to the Lighterage tugboat. Because of the picketing,6 Sea-Land was unable to secure on these occasions stevedores to load or unload its vessels or work in its warehouses . Local 1575, ILA-AFL-CIO, which enjoyed an exclusive hiring arrangement with Sea-Land,7 refused to honor requisitions for stevedores submitted by Sea-Land or to direct stevedores to cross a picket line to shape up or report for work . Local 1575 also put Sea-Land on notice that it had no intention of supplying the Company with labor as long as the picket lines remained there. Indeed , on October 9, Guillermo Ortiz, president of Local 1575, arranged a meeting between Frank A. Bailey, manager of Sea-Land's Puerto Rican operations , and the Respondent's representa- tives, Willard Quick, its secretary-treasurer , Robert White, another union officer, and William Hannon , its attorney, to discuss the picketing at Sea-Land 's facilities. At this meeting, the Respondent's representatives warned Bailey that they would keep the pickets there until Sea-Land discontinued using Lighterage 's tugboat serv- ices. Ortiz, who also was present , reiterated his earlier expressed intention to withhold referring stevedores until the picket lines were removed. As indicated above, the picket lines were actually removed on November 19 when the United States District Court for Puerto Rico issued a temporary restrain- ing order . Apparently, Sea-Land has had no stevedore problem since that time. B. Concluding findings The statutory language in Section 8(b) (4), as it is relevant here, forbids a labor organization or its agents- - (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to . transport, or otherwise handle . . . any goods . . . or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case an object thereof is: (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease . . . doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization ' as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 ... . The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated these provisions of the Act. In support of his contention , he urges that the record establishes that, in furtherance of its primary labor dispute with Lighterage , the Respondent, individ- ually and in concert with Local 1575 , picketed the facilities of Sea-Land , concededly a neutral employer, in complete disregard of the Moore Dry Dock 8 and Washington Coca Cola 9 requirements, for objectives proscribed by clause (B) of Section 8(b)(4). The Respondent, on the other hand, denies that any unfair labor practice was proved . It directs its argument solely to the asserted insufficiency of competent evidence to establish that it engaged in concerted action with Local 1575. From this asserted failure of proof , it urges that it was not responsible for Local 1575's con- duct and therefore its picketing activities at Sea-Land must be found to be "informa- tional" and privileged. From what has been said earlier in this Decision , there can be little question that the Respondent's objective in picketing Sea-Land's facilities was to compel Sea-Land to cease using Lighterage's tugboat services . Indeed, on October 9, a day after picketing started there, the Respondent 's representatives bluntly warned Sea-Land's Manager Bailey that it intended to persist in such activities until Sea-Land discon- 9 Stevedores customarily used two of the picketed entrances-the ones at Bayamon Road and the temporary truck terminal-when they entered to shape up or report for work. 4 At the time of the events herein, Local 1575 was party to a collective -bargaining agree- ment with Sea-Land covering the terms and conditions of employment of stevedores. The governing practice for recruiting stevedores was for Sea -Land to submit a gang order to Local 1575 which, after signing it, referred stevedores to Sea -Land facilities where they shaped up. 8 Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549. 9 Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67, IBT (Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc.), 107 NLRB 299, 303 LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, N.M.U. 335 tinued employing Lighterage tugboats. Equally clear is,the Respondent's other ob- jective to secure recognition and bargaining rights from Lighterage as the exclusive representative of its masters, mates, and engineers, even though, concededly, the Respondent was not the duly certified representative of such employees. I find that the Respondent sought to achieve this dual objective by picketing Sea- Land's facilities in order to enlist the support of Sea-Land's employees to refuse to perform services and thereby put pressure on Sea-Land to terminate its business dealings with Lighterage until Lighterage yielded to its demands. Significantly, the picketing actually had its desired effect in inducing Sea-Land's stevedores to with- hold their services from their employer,10 although it is settled law that the Act does not require that a union's activities be successful to warrant an unfair labor practice finding.li For this latter reason, the fact that Sea-Land's other employees were not similarly induced cannot detract from the illegality of the Respondent's conduct. Moreover, I find that the picketing in question and the threat to continue that ac- tivity were also designed to put direct pressure on Sea-Land to cease doing business with Lighterage. - I agree with the General Counsel that the protection afforded picketing in the ambulatory or common situs type of case under Moore Dry Dock principles is plainly unavailable to the Respondent. The undeniable fact is that the Respondent deliber- ately ignored the limitations Moore Dry Dock imposed on such picketing. As is well known, Moore Dry Dock standards 12 were developed to effect an accommoda- tion between a union's right to picket the site of its labor dispute with a primary employer and the right of a secondary employer to be free from involvement in a controversy in which he is not immediately concerned. It was the Board's con- sidered judgment, later approved by the courts, that picketing in such circumstances could legally be justified and privileged as primary action only if it is conducted in a manner which would not unnecessarily implicate neutral employers. And this is the uniform thread running through the standards adopted by the Board. In the present case, I find that the Respondent's picketing fell far short of the accepted standards of primary action. It neither restricted its picketing to the oc- casions when a Lighterage tugboat was near Sea-Land's piers assisting a Sea-Land vessel to dock or undock, nor did the Respondent confine its picketing to places on the pier reasonably close to the location of a Lighterage tugboat while it was engaged in performing such services for Sea-Land. Rather revealing that the Respondent was not particularly interested in so limiting its picketing is its failure to request per- mission from Sea-Land to enter its facilities to picket close to a Lighterage tugboat while it was at or near the pier.13 Furthermore, there is some evidence that at least on the first day of the picketing some of the signs carried by the pickets did not clearly disclose that the dispute was with Lighterage and not with Sea-Land. Finally, in accordance with the ruling of a majority of the Board in Plauche Elec- tric 14 which modified the Washington Coca Cola doctrine, I find that the fact that Lighterage, the primary employer, had a permanent place of business where the Re- spondent was able to-and, in fact did, adequately, although not successfully- picket and publicize its dispute, also suggests the unlawful secondary nature of the Respondent's picketing activities at Sea-Land's premises. As it is clear that the Respondent's picketing at Sea-Land's facilities was to attain proscribed objectives, certainly there can be no basis at this late date for the argu- ment advanced by the Respondent that the picketing was informational only.15 Ac- 10 As stevedores are regularly employed by Sea-Land pursuant to a contractual hiring arrangement with Local 1575, it is clear that, for the purposes of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act at least, they are employees of Sea-Land. United Marine Division, Local 333, ILA (Ind.) (New York Shipping Association), 107 NLRB 686, 709. " Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (J. J. White Ready Mix Concrete Corp.), 141 NLRB 424, 439, and cases there cited. "These standards are as follows: (1) The picketing must be strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises ; (2) at the time of the picketing the primary employer must be engaged in its normal business at the situs ; (3) the picketing must be limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs ; and (4) the picketing must clearly disclose that the dispute is with the primary employer. 13 Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc, supra, p 439, footnote 26 "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc ), 135 NLRB 250; Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc., supra, p. 438. Is International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 v. N L R.B. (Samuel Langer), 341 U.S. 694. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cordingly, I conclude that the Respondent , in violation -of Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) of the Act, induced and encouraged employees-of Sea-Land in the course. of their employment to refuse to perform services , and threatened, 'coerced, and restrained Sea-Land, with an object of forcing Sea-Land to cease doing business with Lighterage and with a further object of forcing Lighterage to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the representative of Lighterage's masters, mates, and en- gineers, even though the Respondent was not certified as the representative of such employees. As the order I hereafter recommend to remedy the unfair labor prac- tice thus found would, in any event, be the same, I find it unnecessary to determine whether the Respondent acted in concert with Local 1575 as to make it independently liable for the latter's conduct. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Companies described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and territories of the United States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and its free flow. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and'upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Lighterage and Sea-Land are employers engaged in commerce and in an indus- try affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. * The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging the employees of Sea-Land to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services, and by threatening , coercing, and restraining Sea-Land, with an object of forcing or requir- ing Sea-Land to cease utilizing the tugboat services of Lighterage or doing business with that Company, and with a further object of forcing or requiring Lighterage to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative' of ^ Lighterage's masters, mates, and engineers aboard its tugboats, although the Respondent was not certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that the Respondent, Local 333, United Marine Division, NMU-AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist, by picketing, threats to picket, or other activities, from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Sea-Land Service, Inc., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services ; or from threatening, coercing, or restraining Sea-Land Service , Inc., where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Sea-Land Service, Inc., to cease using the tugboat services of Porto Rico Lighterage Company, Inc., or otherwise doing business with that Company, or where an object thereof is to force or require Porto Rico Lighterage Company, Inc., to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of the said Company's masters, mates,'and engineers aboard its tugboats, unless the Respondent has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, N M U 337 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted in Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 24 for posting by Sea-Land Service, Inc , and Porto Rico Lighterage Com- pany, Inc , at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted, if the Companies are willing to do so (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 17 30 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shill be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the Nsords "a Decision and Order" '' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, NMU-AFL- CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC, AND PORTO RICO LIGHTERAGE COMPANY, INC Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 WE WILL NOT, by picketing, threats to picket, or other activities, induce or encourage any individual employed by Sea-Land Service, Inc , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Sea- Land Service, Inc , where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Sea-Land Service, Inc , to cease using the tugboat services of Porto Rico Light- erage Company, Inc, or otherwise doing business with that Company, or where an object thereof is to force or require Porto Rico Lighterage Company, Inc, to recognize or bargain with Local 333, United Marine Division, NMU-AFL- CIO, as the representative of the said Company's masters, mates, and engineers aboard its tugboats, unless the said Union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees under the pro- visions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended LOCAL 333, UNITED MARINE DIVISION, NMU-AFL-CIO, Labor Organization Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, P 0 Box 11007, Fernandez Juncos Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00910, Telephone No 724-7171, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions 760-577-65-vol 148-28