Natl. Maritime Union

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO and Overseas Carriers Corporation. Case 20-CP-277 January 24, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 26, 1968, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 General Counsel filed the brief he had previously submitted to the Trial Examiner. Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 33(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of ,the Trial Examiner with one modification.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'The Trial Examiner's inadvertent error in stating that title to the Horace Luckenbach passed to Overseas Tramps is hereby corrected to find that title passed to Overseas Carriers Corporation. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID KARASICK, Trial Examiner This proceeding under 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, was heard at San Francisco, California, on May 22, 23, and 24, 1968, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, dated April 12, 1968, as amended at the hearing, was based upon a charge filed on February 16, 1968, by Overseas Carriers Corporation, herein called the Charging Party or Overseas Carriers, and alleged that National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, had engaged in unfair labdr practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. On the entire record' in the case, including the able and helpful briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the Respondent, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER Overseas Carriers, a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in interstate and foreign waterborne shipping operations. During the past year, Overseas Carriers received more than $1,000,000 for its services in transporting cargo between ports in different states of the United States and between United States ports and ports of foreign countries. I find that, at all times material herein, Overseas Carriers has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the NMU or the Respondent, and Seafarers International Union of North America, herein called the SIU, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED A. The Issues 1. Whether the NMU violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act by picketing the SS Overseas Horace commencing on February 15, 1968, and the SS Overseas Lena commencing on April 1, 1968. 2. Whether the foregoing vessels are to be considered as accretions to a fleetwide unit covering the unlicensed crews on ships owned by Overseas Carriers as a result of the purchase of those vessels by Overseas Carriers in December 1967 and their transfer of title on or about February 15, 1968, and April 1, 1968. 3. Whether Overseas Carriers, as the result of being party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the SIU covering unlicensed crew members on its vessels, was entitled to recognize the SIU, rather than the NMU, as the collective-bargaining representative of the unlicensed crew on the SS Overseas Horace and the SS Overseas Lena. B. The Facts 1. Introduction This case arose as the result of picketing by the NMU of two ships, the SS Overseas Horace from February 15 to April 3, 1968, and the SS Overseas Lena from April I 'The unopposed, posthearing motions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party to correct certain portions of the transcript are hereby granted 174 NLRB No. 36 NATL. MARITIME UNION 217 to 3, 1968. Essentially, the validity of the picketing depends upon the legal effect to be given the sale and transfer of title to the vessels in question. The sale, and the events which led to it, occurred in a setting of . complicated corporate transactions. Primarily involved in these transactions were the MOC Group of seven individuals who own all or controlling interest in 13 American corporations, in addition to other interests in foreign corporations which are not involved in this proceeding; Maritime Overseas Corporation, a corporation formed in January 1953 by the MOC Group for the purpose of acting as agent to manage and operate vessels owned by various MOC corporations; and Luckenbach Steamship Company. These were the three original entities principally involved beginning in 1961. But as time went on and further transactions occurred, other corporations were formed. To assist in identifying the various entities involved in this case, their names and the abbreviations used to distinguish them hereafter are set forth in the margin below.' Maritime Overseas is solely a service organization which manages ships but owns no vessels or stock in any shipping corporation. At present, the 13 corporations in the MOC Group share offices with Maritime Overseas and use its clerical staff. The individual corporations comprising the MOC Group employ the members of the crews aboard the vessels which they own, but have no shoreside employees except their officers and directors. Those companies of the MOC Group which own ships use their vessels in world-wide tramp service. The American Merchant Marine consists of two main segments, one of which consists of "liner" vessels which are common carriers. The second segment of the industry consists of tramp ships which are not common carriers and which operate under various forms of charter. Such arrangements are known as time charters in which a vessel is used by the chartering party for a designated period of time at a specified rate computed on a daily or monthly basis; and voyage charters in which case the chartering party has use of the vessel to move a designated cargo from a port in one country to a port in another country regardless of the period of time involved. Under either of these two forms of charter, the charterer has use of the vessel but the owner of the ship is responsible for its operation and provides necessary repairs and supplies and furnishes the crews. In addition, there are bareboat charters where the chartering party hires an empty vessel. In such a case, the charterer secures the crews and supplies and is responsible for repairs to the same extent as though he were the owner. The MOC Group has always chartered its vessels either on a time or voyage, but never on a bareboat, basis. °Luckenbach Steamship Company (Luckenbach Steamship); Luckenbach Overseas Corporation (formed in 1961) (Luckenbach Overseas); MOC Group, (the seven investors) (MOC Group); Maritime Overseas Corporation, the operating agent, (Maritime Overseas ), Overseas Carriers Corporation (Overseas Carriers ); Overseas Tramp Ships , Inc„ formerly Luckenbach Overseas Corporation, (Overseas Tramps). In addition to the foregoing , reference will hereafter be made to American Merchant Marine Institute, herein called AMMI, American Maritime Association, herein called AMA, SS Horace Luckenbach (now Overseas Horace ); and SS Lena Luckenbach, (now Overseas Lena) (The foregoing designations have been adopted from the General Counsel's brief.) 2. The Luckenbach Shipping Interests Until recent years, Luckenbach Steamship sailed vessels in the American Merchant Marine for over a century. Until 1961, the company operated a liner type service between ports on the Pacific Coast of the United States, via the Panama Canal to North Atlantic ports.' In the operation of its vessels after 1937 or 1938, Luckenbach Steamship had been party to successive collective-bargaining agreements with the NMU. These agreements were negotiated on an industrywide basis with the AMMI, an employer-association, of which Luckenbach Steamship was a member. In 1959, the Luckenbach Steamship fleet consisted of 17 vessels. In that year the estate of Commodore Edgar Luckenbach, the second generation head of the company, was settled and an $8 million inheritance tax obligation was owed to the Government. At that time, Luckenbach Steamship sold nine of its vessels to satisfy the tax obligations of the estate. As a result of the sale of these nine vessels, it' reduced its service in the intercoastal trade from a weekly to a fortnightly schedule. In 1960, as a result of large losses in the intercoastal trade due to the competition of railroads and the increased cost of operations, the company found it necessary to sell two more of its ships. Subsequent efforts to modernize its fleet and institute a containership program failed. At this point, the company began to phase out its intercoastal service, put its ships off shore on charter voyages and close up many facilities located on both coasts of the United States. The Luckenbach fleet dwindled to five ships, one of which was placed on the market late in 1960 through A. L. Burbank & Company, a ship broker in New York City, who introduced the company to the MOC Group. 3. Negotiations between Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group; formation of Luckenbach Overseas and Overseas Carriers The negotiations which followed were carried on over a period of several weeks. Instead of culminating in the sale of a single vessel, Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group agreed to engage in the steamship business as a joint venture. On March 15, 1961, the two entities entered into a contract which provided, inter alia, for the following. (1) The formation of two corporations, Luckenbach Overseas Corporation, herein called Luckenbach Overseas, and Overseas Carriers Corporation, herein called Overseas Carriers. Stock of each of the two new corporations to be divided equally between Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group, each holding 50%, and each empowered to elect half of the board of directors in each of the new corporations. (2) The three officers of Luckenbach Overseas to be the president, executive vice-president, and secretary of Luckenbach Steamship. The officers of Overseas Carriers to be three of the MOC Group principals. (c) Overseas Carriers to purchase one ship from Luckenbach Steamship, the SS Robert Luckenbach, to be renamed Overseas Rose. Overseas Carriers to purchase three additional ships from the MOC Group, the latter three vessels to be named or renamed the Overseas Eva, the Overseas Joyce, and the Overseas 3A liner operation is a regularly scheduled service on stated days of the week to regularly scheduled ports. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rebecca. Luckenbach Overseas to purchase the four remaining ships owned by Luckenbach Steamship. (d) Luckenbach Overseas and Overseas Carriers to appoint Maritime Overseas as managing agent for all ships owned by each of the two corporations for an average fee of $2000 per month per ship plus a stipulated brokerage fee based on charter earnings. The provisions of this contract were fully carried out by each of the parties. When the SS Robert Luckenbach was sold to Overseas Carriers by Luckenbach Steamship, its unlicensed crew, which was composed of members of the NMU, was replaced by an SIU crew. No protest was made by the NMU on that occasion. From 1961 to 1967, Luckenbach Overseas and Overseas Carriers operated separate corporations. Luckenbach Overseas maintained its offices in the building occupied by Luckenbach Steamship; its officers were all officers of Luckenbach Steamship; and the Luckenbach house flag, stack mark, and bow emblem remained on the ships owned by Luckenbach Overseas. Collective-bargaining agreements were signed by Luckenbach Overseas with the NMU as well as with other unions representing maritime employees such as the Masters, Mates and Pilots, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; and the American Radio Operators Association. During this period, from 1961 to 1967, the collective-bargaining agreements to which the NMU and Luckenbach Overseas were parties, had been negotiated on behalf of Luckenbach Overseas by the AMMI and were signed by officers of Luckenbach Overseas. The MOC Group took no part in the negotiation of these contracts. The officers and employees of Luckenbach Overseas and the crew members on board Luckenbach Overseas ships were all on the payroll of Luckenbach Overseas Tax reports covering wages for the unlicensed crew members showed the employer to be Maritime Overseas as agent for Luckenbach Overseas. On the other hand, Overseas Carriers was an affiliate of the MOC Group and its officers remained MOC Group principals; the MOC house flag, stack mark and bow emblems were placed on Overseas Carriers' ships, including the vessel formerly owned by Luckenbach Steamship; its officers were located in the Maritime Overseas Building where it maintained its corporate records and shared the clerical staff, telephone and office staff of Maritime Overseas. On March 21, 1961, Overseas Carriers, following the practice which had been followed by other MOC Group corporations, recognized the SIU as the bargaining representative of all unlicensed personnel aboard its ships and on that date entered into a collective-bargaming agreement with the SIU. According to the terms of that contract, Overseas Carriers agreed to secure all unlicensed personnel through the hiring halls of the SIU. Thereafter, Overseas Carriers entered into successive collective-bargaining agreements with the SIU, all of which were negotiated on its behalf by the AMA, of which Overseas Carriers was a member, and all of which were signed by officers of Overseas Carriers. These contracts were identical to those signed by other MOC Group companies The officers and employees of Overseas Carriers, other than the crew members on board its ships, were all on the payroll of Maritime Overseas, as were other MOC Group companies. During this period. from 1961 to 1967, unlike Luckenbach Overseas which operated the four vessels it owned without attempting to expand its activities by additional ships, Overseas Carriers expanded its operations to include the sale of three ships, the purchase of a number of other ships, the creation of two subsidiaries, and the construction of another vessel. As previously noted, Overseas Carriers and Luckenbach Overseas entered into an agency agreement with Maritime Overseas. By the terms of this agreement, Maritime Overseas, as an agent, was to operate the vessels owned by each of the two companies and provide chartering and accounting services Maritime Overseas was empowered to carry out the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements covering the unlicensed personnel of each of the two corporations.' As previously noted, the contracts between Overseas Carriers and the SIU, which were signed by officers of Overseas Carriers, had been negotiated on behalf of that company by the AMA, while the contracts between Luckenbach Overseas and the NMU which had been signed by officers of Luckenbach Overseas were negotiated on behalf of that company by the AMMI and were signed by officers of Luckenbach Overseas. The basic labor policies of Luckenbach Overseas, on the one hand, and of Overseas Carriers on the other hand, were determined in each instance by each of those companies separately rather than by Maritime Overseas, which, through its port captain or other representatives, merely carried out the policies so determined in each instance. From 1961 to 1967, Luckenbach Steamship expanded its shoreside enterprises which included building terminals, operating general agencies, and increasing its stevedoring services. By the latter part of 1967, Luckenbach Steamship's operations in this area required additional working capital. The company was also faced at this time with an outstanding claim due the City of New York and payment of a note held by a New York City bank. 4. The 1967 Transactions Between Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group In late 1967, Luckenbach offered to sell 20 percent of the 50 percent of its holdings in both Luckenbach Overseas and Overseas Carriers. Two MOC Group corporations (Ocean Clippers, Inc. and Intercontinental Carriers, Inc.) offered to purchase this stock at a total price of $400,000 and agreements to that effect were entered into by the parties on December 7, 1967. By the terms of these agreements, Luckenbach Steamship received $400,000 in promisory notes which it discounted for cash and deposited to its account. As a result of this sale, the MOC Group now held 60 percent of the stock in Overseas Carriers and in Luckenbach Overseas and Luckenbach Steamship held the remaining 40 percent in each of those two corporations. On December 21, 1967, the four officers of Luckenbach Overseas, all of whom had been identified with Luckenbach Steamship, resigned and were succeeded by four officers associated with the MOC Group; two MOC Group principals were added to the board of directors, thus increasing the board from six to eight members; and the' name of the corporation was changed from Luckenbach Overseas to Overseas Tramp Ships, Inc., herein called Overseas Tramps. Thereupon, the newly named corporation moved its office to the offices of 'The managing agreement provides that Maritime Overseas is responsible for the "execution of all labor agreements." The evidence indicates that the term "execution" as used in the agreement was intended to, and did in fact, refer to the implementation of the terms of the collective-bargaining contracts between Luckenbach Steamship and the NMU and Overseas Carriers and the SIU rather than the negotiation and signing of such contracts by the principals in each instance. NATL. MARITIME UNION Maritime Overseas. Later, but effective as of December 21, 1967, Luckenbach Steamship canceled a $9,000,000 excess "umbrella" insurance policy. This policy had protected Luckenbach Steamship and its affiliated companies during the period between 1961 and 1967 and had covered the four vessels owned by Luckenbach Overseas. It was canceled because the underwriter's requirement of 50 percent control of an affiliate no longer existed. At the same time, the workman's compensation insurance policy which had covered the corporate officers of Luckenbach Overseas was canceled because the officers were no longer employees of that corporation. Following this transaction, and also on December 21, 1967, Luckenbach Overseas sold the four ships it then owned to Overseas Carriers in exchange for 10,000 shares, or 80 percent of the latter's stock. The shares of stock were deposited with an escrow agent to deliver upon receipt of an executed copy of the bill of sale and a certificate of delivery of the vessels which the parties agreed would be made to Overseas Carriers between February 1 and May 31, 1968. An explanation of the purpose of this sale was given by Milton Kliger, one of the principals of the MOC Group and treasurer of Overseas Carriers, who testified without contradiction that the four ships owned by Luckenbach Overseas were fully depreciated, which meant that any earnings of those vessels would be exposed to taxes; that Overseas Carriers, through subsidiary corporations, owned other vessels in which there was a great deal of depreciation; that Overseas Carriers could therefore be placed in a position to file consolidated tax reports as provided for in the Internal Revenue Code and take advantage of the depreciation of the ships which it already owned to offset the future earnings of the four Luckenbach Overseas vessels; that to qualify as a subsidiary to file such a consolidated tax return, Overseas Carriers exchanged 80 percent of its stock for the four Luckenbach Overseas vessels, which meant that Luckenbach Overseas would no longer own any ships but instead would own 80 percent of the stock of Overseas Carriers which in turn owned 100 percent of its two subsidiaries, thus creating four companies in a consolidating group; and finally that Overseas Carriers required the earnings of the four additional ships in question for the construction of new vessels and otherwise to further its own business purposes. As a result of these two transactions: first, the sale on December 7 by Luckenbach Steamship of 20 percent of its holdings in Luckenbach Overseas and in Overseas Carriers to the two MOC Group corporations (Ocean Clippers, Inc. and Intercontinental Carriers, Inc.); and second, the sale on December 21 by Luckenbach Overseas of its four vessels to Overseas Carriers, the interest of Luckenbach Steamship in Overseas Carriers and in Luckenbach Overseas (now Overseas Tramps) was reduced in each instance from 50 percent to 40 percent and Luckenbach Steamship became a minority shareholder in each of the two corporations.' By acquiring the four vessels from Luckenbach Overseas, Overseas Carriers then owned six ships. 'Stated in other terms , 60 percent of the shares of Overseas Tramps was held by the MOC Group and 40 percent by Luckenbach Steamship Overseas Tramps, in turn, owned 80 percent of the shares of Overseas Carriers Of the remaining 20 percent of the shares of Overseas Carriers, 8 percent was owned by Luckenbach Steamship (40 percent of 20 percent) and 12 percent by the MOC Group (60 percent of 20 percent). 2.19 5. Picketing of the SS Overseas Horace and the SS Overseas Lena As each of the four vessels which had been sold arrived in port, a bill of sale and certificate of ownership was executed and title then passed to Overseas Carriers. Upon delivery, the name of each vessel was changed , the MOC house flag replaced the Luckenbach flag and the MOC insignia was painted on the bow and other parts of each vessel.' The Horace Luckenbach arrived in San Francisco on February 5, 1968. The crew signed off foreign articles and was paid from funds of Luckenbach Overseas. On February 6, the crew was put on port payroll. On February 13, title to the ship passed to Overseas Tramps. On the morning of February 13, the master of the vessel posted the following notice on the ship' s bulletin board and on the mess hall tables: NOTICE TO ALL HANDS: This vessel is sold . All crew members will be paid off through Tuesday , February 13, 1968 at 0830 hours today. All crew members will please remove all their personal belongings and vacate the vessel immediately after receiving their wages. /s/ C. W. Hodson, Master The NMU crewmembers refused, however, to accept their wages and would not leave the ship. On the same day, NMU Patrolman Richard Hughes told Captain Diaz, port captain or field representative from Maritime Overseas: "We are going to stay aboard this vessel come hell or high water, and we are going to disregard the captain's and your orders to get off the vessel." Also on the same day, NMU Field Patrolman Woodie Nayer called Diaz and said: "What the hell are you doing, selling this ship or something? You can't do this. We have an agreement with Mr. Luckenbach that he has to keep an NMU crew." On February 14, NMU Patrolman Bill Userlich told Diaz: "Captain, you are in trouble. If we lose in court, we are going to put a picketline around the main gate, and you are going to lose, and we are going to man this ship when it sails."' The NMU crew members remained on board the ship until February 15, when they left the vessel following an order issued by a United States District Court in a possessory libel action filed by Overseas Carriers to regain possession of the ship. As noted above, Overseas Carriers was party to a contract with the SIU, covering unlicensed crewmembers aboard its ship. This contract contained an exclusive hiring hall provision. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Overseas Carriers replaced the NMU crew with an SIU crew which had been hired through the SIU hiring hall. The vessel at this time was at the Bethlehem 'After their arrival in San Francisco , all four vessels were delivered on the following dates and their names changed as shown below- Vessel Date of Delivery New Name Horace Luckenbach 2/13/67 Overseas Horace Lena Luckenbach 4/ 1/68 Overseas Lena Edgar Luckenbach 4/19/68 Overseas Edgar Audrey Luckenbach 4/29/68 Overseas Audrey 'The foregoing findings regarding the statements made by Hughes, Nayer and Userlich are based upon the undenied testimony of Diaz 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shipyard undergoing repairs. When the SIU crew boarded the vessel, the NMU set up a picketline outside the gates of the shipyard The picket signs read as follows National Maritime Union Protests Lockout of Unlicensed Crew of S.S. OVERSEAS HORACE (ex S.S. HORACE LUCKENBACH). We have no dispute with any other employers on this site. On March 30, 1968, the SS Lena Luckenbach arrived in San Francisco. On April 1, title to the vessel was transferred from Luckenbach Overseas to Overseas Carriers and the name of the vessel was changed from the Lena Luckenbach to the Overseas Lena. On the same date, the Respondent picketed the Overseas Lena with signs bearing a legend identical with that used in the picketing of the Overseas Horace. Picketing of both ships ceased after a Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Federal District Court on April 3, 1968, and a Temporary Injunction, under Section 10 of the Act, on April 25, 1968 8 James Martin, vice president of the Respondent, testified that the NMU had decided to picket the Overseas Horace and the Overseas Lena in protest against the lockout and firing of the NMU crews; that the Respondent believed that it was entitled to continued recognition as the bargaining representative for the unlicensed crew; and that the only thing the Respondent wanted was to keep an NMU crew aboard the vessels under NMU contract.' On February 13, 1968, at 12:14 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Edgar F. Luckenbach, Jr., president of Luckenbach Overseas, sent a telegram to Joseph Curran, president of 'the NMU, advising Curran that Luckenbach Overseas had sold its four vessels. At 2:26 p.m. on the same date, Curran sent a telegram to Luckenbach saying that Curran had been advised by one of his officials that Luckenbach had entered into an agreement to transfer its four ships; that no notice of any kind had been given to the NMU prior to that day; that the unilateral action of Luckenbach Overseas was a breach of its collective-bargaining agreement with the NMU and violated the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act which required an employer to negotiate with a union prior to transferring all or a portion of its operations to another company. The telegram requested that Luckenbach Overseas meet with the NMU and discuss the matter before the transfer was completed. At 6:16 p.m., Luckenbach again wired Curran, stating, in response to the latter's telegram that afternoon, that discussion of the matter would serve no purpose since title to the SS Horace Luckenbach had passed that morning. On the following day, February 14, 1968, Curran again sent a telegram to Luckenbach Overseas stating that the first telegram which the company had sent had indicated that it had sold all four vessels in its fleet but its second telegram only referred to the sale of the Horace Luckenbach; that there was no apparent reason why the company could not meet with the NMU to discuss the 'No picketing occurred with respect to the Overseas Edgar or the Overseas Audrey. 'While the unlicensed crew members aboard the ships who were members of the NMU were replaced by other personnel who were members of the SIU, the licensed officers who were represented by other unions (Masters, Mates & Pilots Union, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; and American Radio Operators Association) remained aboard the vessels after title was transferred since Overseas Carriers had collective-bargaining agreements with each of those unions for supplying officers within their respective jurisdictions. three vessels whose title had not yet passed. Curran again requested that Luckenbach Overseas meet with the NMU to bargain about the proposed transfer of title of the ships as well as any possible effects the transaction might have on the unlicensed crewmembers. Thereafter, Luckenbach agreed to meet with the NMU and such a meeting was held on February 27, which was attended by representatives of both parties. The NMU representatives at this meeting stated that their purpose was to get the NMU members back on the four Luckenbach ships and further stated that the remaining three vessels had not yet arrived and that they were going to make certain that the crews on those ships remained on them.'" In the meantime, on February 13, Curran sent a telegram to Overseas Carriers stating that the NMU had been advised that title to the four Luckenbach Overseas vessels was being transferred to Overseas Carriers; that the Union had a collective-bargaining agreement with Luckenbach Overseas covering these vessels, that the NMU demanded that Overseas Carriers, as a successor employer, meet with the NMU to discuss fulfilling its obligations under the collective-bargaining agreement "and to discuss conditions of employment affecting your unlicensed crew members." On the same date, in response to this telegram, Overseas Carriers wired the NMU that it declined to meet with that Union because of its contract with the SIU. On February 14, the NMU filed an unfair labor practice charge with Region 2 of the Board against Luckenbach Overseas, Overseas Carriers and Maritime Overseas, alleging that these companies had refused to bargain in good faith with the NMU. This charge was dismissed by the Regional Director on April 1, 1968. The NMU appealed the dismissal, and the appeal was denied by the General Counsel on May 16, 1968. On April 4, 1968, the NMU filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to Section 301 of the Act, seeking a declaratory judgment that Overseas Carriers, Luckenbach Overseas and Maritime Overseas were required to recognize and bargain with the NMU as collective-bargaining agent for the unlicensed crew members aboard the vessels in question. The record does not show the results of that litigation. 6 Summary and Concluding Findings As the Respondent correctly points out, the General Counsel must establish the existence of three basic facts in order to prove a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. These are: (1) that the picketing was for the purpose of securing recognition; (2) that the employer was lawfully recognizing another union; and (3) that a question "The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Robert J Tarr, executive vice president of Luckenbach Steamship James J. Martin, vice president of the NMU , who was present at this meeting denied that he had stated at that time that the crews of the three ships whose title had not yet passed were not going to be discharged or that he heard any other NMU representative make such a statement during that meeting Martin did not testify as to what, specifically, was said at the meeting in question and it well may be that the statement was made as Tarr testified but was not heard by Martin at the time. In any event, support for Tarr's testimony in this regard is to be found in the fact that the statement was in keeping and consistent with other actions and statements made by NMU representatives throughout the period of the controversy in question following the time the NMU learned that Luckenbach Overseas had sold, or was about to sell, the four vessels. NATL. MARITIME UNION concerning representation could not properly be raised at the time the picketing occurred." With regard to the first of these questions, the NMU at the hearing denied that its picketing had recognition as an object. In its brief, while not conceding that fact, the Respondent states that it "now relies entirely on its contention that it was entitled to recognition as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the unlicensed crewmembers employed aboard the vessels which were the subject of the disputed picketing." Therefore, the Respondent argues, the employer could not lawfully recognize any other labor organization and the picketing was justified. Though not conceded by the Respondent, the evidence is clear that the picketing of the Overseas Horace and the Overseas Lena had as an object, in each instance, the continued recognition of the NMU as the collective-bargaining agent of the unlicensed crews aboard those vessels The statements made by its agents, the declarations contained in its communications, the allegations made in the litigation it instituted in regard to this matter, are consistent with, and support, such a conclusion. Thus, in the period of 2 days between the time title to the Overseas Horace passed to Overseas Carriers and the time picketing began, agents of the NMU stated that the unlicensed crew would stay aboard the vessel come hell or high water; that Luckenbach had to keep an NMU crew; and that the NMU was going to put a picketline around the gate and would man the Horace when it sailed. These statements accord with the testimony of James J. Martin, the Respondent's vice president, to the effect that the Respondent was insisting that the unlicensed crews aboard the vessels sail under an NMU contract. In addition, the telegram dispatched to Overseas Carriers by NMU immediately preceding the picketing requested that Overseas Carriers recognize and bargain with the Respondent. Likewise, the charges filed with the Board and the complaint filed in the- United States District Court by the Respondent alleged that Overseas Carriers had refused to recognize and bargain with the NMU. The next question to be considered is whether the employer in this case was lawfully entitled to recognize the SIU rather than the NMU In that regard, it is the theory of the General Counsel and the Charging Party that Overseas Carriers was justified in recognizing the SIU and that the picketing by the NMU was unlawful because, upon transfer of title to the vessels in question, the ships became a part of the fleet of the MOC Group by a process of accretion. The Respondent, however, contests this conclusion. Instead, it argues that the MOC Group was the employer of the unlicensed crew aboard the vessels in question both before and after they were transferred; that no transfer from one employer to another therefore occurred; and that since the ships remained in the same operation before and after the transfer, there was no integration into the MOC Group fleet and the vessels did not "accrete" to a new bargaining unit. From this, the Respondent argues that it was entitled to continued recognition as the bargaining agent of the members of the unlicensed crew aboard the ships in question. Moreover, the Respondent argues, even if Overseas Carriers is to be considered as a new and separate owner and employer following its acquisition of the vessels, the principle that the ships became part of the MOC Group fleet is not applicable because Overseas Carriers stood in the position of a "N.L.R B v. Local 3, IBEW [Darby Electric Corp 1, 362 F 2d 232 221 successor employer and therefore was obligated to bargain with the Respondent rather than with the SIU. Both the General Counsel and the Charging Party, on the one hand, and the Respondent on the other, primarily rely for support of their respective positions upon the Board's decision in Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc, 139 NLRB 796. The pertinent language of the decision in that case, from which each of the parties here draw comfort, is as follows- As a general proposition we agree with the Petitioner's contention that units of seagoing personnel should be fleetwide in scope. Thus, as the record shows in the instant case; the Company bargains for a fleetwide unit on the Pacific coast, and, with the exception of the seven former Robin ships, it bargains for a fleetwide unit on the Atlantic and gulf coasts. Such units also conform to the pattern presently prevailing in the maritime industry. Moreover, there are obvious advantages in such a single unit. the elimination of interunion rivalry with respect to similar employees of the same employer and a consequent diminution of conflicts which may bring on work stoppages, and the facilitation of transfers of personnel between ships of the same employer and of ships between different shipowners. But these reasons for finding a fleetwide unit appropriate may be overborne in a particular case by special circumstances which indicate the injustice or the unsuitability of applying the general rule. We believe that the present is such a case. We are not confronted in this proceeding with a question of representation relating to employees on ships newly transferred from one shipowner to another. The transfer of the Robin Line ships to the Employer took place 5 years ago. At that time, in a Board proceeding involving a determination as to which union was entitled to represent the unlicensed seamen on the newly transferred ships, Petitioner contended, as it does here, that a separate unit of the former Robin Line ship employees was not appropriate, that the transferred ships and employees were an accretion to its existing unit. The Board rejected this contention and directed self-determination elections among the unlicensed personnel on each of the transferred Robin Line ships. The SIU won the elections on seven of the eight ships and was certified by the Board as the statutory representative of the employees on these ships. Since the certification the SIU has represented and made collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer for the employees in its certified unit. For 5 years, therefore, the Employer and both unions have lived with this particular bargaining pattern of a separate seven-ship unit previously established by the Board, and having adjusted to it, they have invested it with a validity based on bargaining history which the Petitioner has not shown sufficiently compelling reasons to override. There is no change in the composition of this unit which might otherwise have called for a reevaluation of the Board determination heretofore made. We note in this connection also that the Employer, which is the party normally expected to be most inconvenienced by the separate seven-ship unit, did not file the present petition which seeks to abolish this unit, and did not appeal from the Regional Director's dismissal of the same. Moreover, David L. Cole, the highly experienced arbitrator under the AFL-CIO no-raiding agreement, has issued a determination and report finding that in filing the 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD instant petition the Petitioner is in violation of that agreement. Evidently the arbitrator did not consider the existing two bargaining units among the Employer's unlicensed seamen an insuperable obstacle to effective collective bargaining. In view of the above, particularly the Board's previous determination and the bargaining history based thereon, we find that the Petitioner's proposed unit is not appropriate. A caveat, however, is in order. The present decision is not to be construed as indicating that in the future the transfer of a ship from one owner to another will necessarily preserve the existing bargaining unit or the status of the incumbent union. The present decision rests on the special facts of this case. It is not a precedent for situations which may be entirely different. Based upon the foregoing decision, the General Counsel and the Charging Party argue that the present case is one in which the general rule enunciated by the Board in the Moore-McCormack case should prevail, while the Respondent contends that special circumstances exist in this case which demonstrate that application of the doctrine of accretion would be unwarranted. As noted above, between 1961 and 1967, Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group were engaged in a joint venture in which Luckenbach Overseas operated the four vessels in question and Overseas Carriers operated four other vessels. Luckenbach Steamship and the MOC Group each owned 50 percent of the stock issued by Luckenbach Overseas and by Overseas Carriers and each appointed an equal number to the board of directors of each of the two corporations. The officers of Luckenbach Overseas, however, were appointed by Luckenbach Steamship, while the officers of Overseas Carriers were appointed by the MOC Group. Maritime Overseas, a separate corporation of the MOC Group, acted as the managing agent for the vessels both of Luckenbach Overseas and of Overseas Carriers during this period. Based on these facts, the Respondent argues that the MOC Group was in effective control of the operations of Luckenbach Overseas and, therefore, was the employer of the unlicensed crews of the vessels of that company. The Respondent argues that this is true because any actions taken by the officers of Luckenbach Overseas "could not receive the approval of the Board of Directors or Stockholders if the MOC interests disapproved since the Luckenbach Steamship interests did not control a majority interest." The interests of the MOC Group and Luckenbach Steamship were co-equal and therefore neither controlled a majority interest insofar as stock ownership on the board of directors of Luckenbach Overseas were concerned. But the officers of the latter corporation were the appointees of Luckenbach Steamship and to that extent the determination of policy rested with Luckenbach, rather than MOC, interests. And while Maritime Overseas, one of the MOC corporations, acted as managing agent for the vessels of Luckenbach Overseas as well as those of other companies, final authority for what was done rested with Luckenbach Overseas as the principal. In this same connection, the Respondent asserts that the interests of Luckenbach Steamship depended upon Maritime Overseas as managing agent to provide charter arrangements and to carry out the "execution of all labor agreements." The quoted clause appears in the agreement entered into between Luckenbach Overseas and Maritime Overseas. That agreement also contained a clause empowering Maritime Overseas to appoint unlicensed personnel. The record shows, however, that the word "execution" as used in that agreement was not intended, and did not in fact empower, Maritime Overseas to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement with the NMU covering unlicensed personnel during the period from 1961 to 1967. Such collective-bargaining contracts with the NMU were negotiated on behalf of Luckenbach Overseas by the AMMI and were signed by officers of Luckenbach Overseas., Neither Maritime Overseas nor any other representative of the MOC Group played any part in the negotiations of these agreements. And while the port captain or agent of Maritime Overseas handled local grievances or minor matters concerning labor relations involving the unlicensed crews aboard the vessels of Luckenbach Overseas, basically labor relations policy remained in the control of, and was exercised by, the officers of the latter corporation i i The authority of Maritime Overseas to appoint unlicensed crews aboard the vessels of Luckenbach Overseas meant that, in conformity with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements, it called upon the hiring hall to furnish crew members as required. Not only the officers and employees of Luckenbach Overseas but the crew members on board the four vessels were all paid by that corporation and Maritime Overseas acted only as an agent on behalf of Luckenbach Overseas as the principal. From the foregoing facts and on the record as a whole, I cannot find that the MOC Group alone, or through Maritime Overseas, exercised control or possessed sufficient control of the unlicensed crew members aboard the four Luckenbach Overseas vessels prior to their transfer to justify the finding that the MOC Group alone, or together with Maritime Overseas, constituted the employer of such crew members I thus cannot find, as the Respondent urges, that the employer, both before and after the transfer in question, was the MOC Group. As a further factor to be considered in its contention that no accretion occurred in this case, the Respondent "In arriving at the foregoing finding, I have considered certain evidence introduced by the Respondent in support of its assertion that the MOC Group is to be considered as the actual employer This evidence consists of three certificates of discharge and pay envelopes of unlicensed crewmen aboard the Horace Luckenbach during the period in question, a copy of the shipping articles of the same vessel, and a memorandum agreement, dated November 13, 1965, between the NMU and "Maritime Overseas Transportation Corporation" The certificates of discharge lists "Maritime Overseas Corp." in a space provided for the name of the employer But the envelopes in which the certificates in each case were enclosed contained the printed notation "Maritime Overseas Corporation , Agents " The shipping articles note the name of Maritime Overseas Corporation as the "operating company on this voyage" of the Horace Luckenbach The Respondent, however, offered no evidence to show that the term "operating company" is to be regarded as synonymous with that of owner of the vessel or employer of its unlicensed crew As for the memorandum agreement of November 13, 1965, the undisputed evidence shows that it was signed by a member of the staff of Maritime Overseas on behalf of Luckenbach Overseas during a weekend when officers of the latter corporation were unavailable following a dispute which had arisen with the NMU regarding war bonus payments for the India-Pakistan war zone Such payments had been the subject of an agreement arrived at a short time before between the AMMI, which represented Luckenbach Overseas, and the NMU and was subsequently ratified by Luckenbach Overseas Delay in sailing of the vessel on that occasion amounted to losses of $4,000 per day I assume that the "Maritime Overseas Transportation Corporation" referred to in the document is merely a misnomer for the full name of Maritime Overseas But even if that were so, I do not regard the signing of the agreement under the emergency conditions then existing as proof that Maritime Overseas was empowered to act in general in establishing basic labor relations policies for Luckenbach Overseas NATL. MARITIME UNION 223 argues in its brief that the four vessels "were not absorbed into an integrated unit like the other Overseas Carriers vessels," that instead, they "remained on time charter under the management, as before, of Maritime Overseas." It is true that each of the vessels continued to operate under the time charter arrangement which had preceded the actual sale and delivery, and in this sense there was a continuity of operations. But it is also true that a change had occurred. A new owner took over the vessels. When title to each of the vessels passed, the name, the house flag and the emblem on its stack and bow were changed in a manner which would identify it as a vessel within the MOC fleet. These changes had more significance than merely "the lowering and raising of a flag and some change in paint," as the Respondent asserts in its brief. The prefix "Overseas" which in this case was adopted as part of the new name assigned to each of the four ships uniformly appears on all vessels owned by the MOC Group. In the liner service type of operation, a fleet normally consists of vessels owned by one corporation. But in the tramp shipping industry it is customary to have a group of corporations owning one or more vessels, and a fleet would be recognized as all of the ships owned by the various corporations under common ownership and control. In accordance with the custom in the industry, the seller assigned to the buyer the charter for which each vessel was fixed and secured the consent for such assignment from the charterer. In addition, the agreement of sale in this case provided that the buyer was to receive the proceeds and assume the cost of the operation of each vessel beginning January 1, 1968, irrespective of the time each vessel was assigned or delivered to the buyer. With the passage of title, it is customary for the new owner to assume the responsibility, not only of providing the stores and supplies required for each ship but also of furnishing the crews. And the new owner in this case was party to a contract with the SIU governing unlicensed crew personnel. In light of these facts, it is difficult to see what more could have been done to absorb the four vessels into an integrated unit with the other ships of Overseas Carriers which constituted part of the MOC fleet. Nor can I agree with the Respondent's position that each of the four vessels were "self-contained operations"" with regard to Overseas Carriers' other vessels. The Respondent insists that since each of the four vessels remained on charter, it was the charterer who determined what cargo would be loaded and at what ports the ships would touch and therefore there was no unified fleet operation since there was no deploying of ships for the purpose of gaining economic or other advantage. While that is true, it is also true that future charter arrangements, following expiration of the current charters, may well be affected by the fact that the ships will be deployed as part of an MOC fleet comprising some 11 additional vessels rather than a fleet consisting only of the four ships. On that basis alone, it would seem likely that some economic or other advantage might well lie. "This phrase is derived from the finding of the Board in Beacon Photo Service, Inc, 163 NLRB No. 98, which the Respondent cites in support of its position In that case , an employer who operated one plant acquired a second plant some 25 miles away. The Board held that the new plant did not constitute an accretion to the existing contract unit comprising the old plant but instead found that each plant was a self-contained operation This conclusion was reached on the basis of a showing that each had its own plant manager and supervisors ; kept its own bank account, payroll accounts and records; and handled its own purchasing and billing In addition, there was no interchange of personnel, or, for the most part, of work, between the two plants Beyond the fact that the decision in that No serious argument is advanced, and the record does not support, a contention that the sale of the vessels in question was not bona fide or that it was impelled by other than legitimate economic considerations. But the Respondent further asserts that, even if Overseas Carriers was a new owner and employer, it was nevertheless required to recognize and bargain with the Respondent. This argument is predicated on the theory that there was a continuity of the employment enterprise and that Overseas Carriers was a successor to Luckenbach Overseas What has already been said is also an answer to this argument, to the extent that it relies on a finding that the vessels did not become an integrated part of the MOC fleet because they remained on time charter and were therefore subject to routing and cargo directions by the charterer. This is not a case where there was merely a change in ownership of the employment enterprise." All vessels of the MOC fleet are employed on either a time or voyage charter basis. If Respondent's argument were to be followed to its logical conclusion, it would mean that each vessel would be considered as a self-contained operation and each would therefore be considered as a separate bargaining unit. I do not believe that this would reflect either the intention of the parties or the bargaining position assumed either by the NMU or the SIU in this case. The record here shows that the NMU bargained with Luckenbach Overseas for a period of some 6 years for a fleetwide unit of the ships which it owned through 196711 and tnat the SIU bargained with the MOC Group on a similar basis for a period of some 15 years. The events in this proceeding make evident the validity of the Board's observation in the Moore-McCormack case, supra, that "elimination of interunion rivalry with respect to similar employees of the same employer and a consequent diminution of conflicts which may bring on work stoppages" is one of the considerations pointing to the advantage of a fleetwide unit.- For the foregoing reasons I believe that Overseas Carriers lawfully recognized the SIU as the bargaining representative of the unlicensed crew members aboard the two vessels in question at the time title to the ships passed to that employer. case did not involve the maritime industry , the record in this case shows that the bank accounts, payroll accounts and records and the purchasing and billing of each of the four vessels here in question were items which were not handled by them separately but were centrally managed and controlled for them by Maritime Overseas as managing agent "Cf. Cruse Motors, Inc , 105 NLRB 242 "Article I, section I, of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect at the time of the transfer of the four vessels provided , in pertinent part, as follows Section 1 Collective Bargaining Agent The Company in entering into this agreement hereby recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining agent for the Unlicensed Personnel employed on board all vessels of the Company where the Company has recognized the Union as such agent The Company also recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining agent for the Unlicensed Personnel employed by the Company on board all United States -flag ocean-going vessels including but not limited to passenger , freighter dry cargo, tanker and bulk carrier which it owns and operates as bareboat charterer or as General Agent of the United States or which it may hereafter acquire as additions to or as replacements of the aforesaid vessels now operated by it. "And in giving recognition to such considerations, the Board was following a principle adverted to later by the Supreme Court in Wiley v Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 549 (1964) where the Court stated the requirement "that the rightful prerogative of owners independently to arrange their business and even eliminate themselves as employers be balanced by some protection to the employees from a sudden change in the employment relationship " 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With regard to the final question to be answered in this case, the Respondent, during oral argument at the close of the hearing, for the first time asserted that the picketing in which it had engaged was justified because, at the time it occurred, a question concerning representation appropriately could have been raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. This contention is based on the fact that the collective-bargaining agreement entered into between Overseas Carriers and the SIU contained an original termination date of June 15, 1968, but was extended in September 1967, by agreement of the parties, until June 15, 1969. The Respondent argues that, under the Board's contract bar rules, a change in the termination date of the contract constituted a premature extension as a result of which a question concerning representation could have been raised in the 60 to 90-day period prior to the termination of the original agreement, which in this instance would be from March 15 to April 15, 1968. The Respondent picketed the Overseas Horace from February 15 to April 3, 1968. Thus, even if a premature extension had occurred, the picketing which took place prior to March 15 was clearly during a period when a question concerning representation could not appropriately be raised and to that extent the picketing of that vessel was not warranted. The picketing of the Overseas Lena, which occurred between April 1 and April 3, 1968, was likewise not justified since the Respondent did not represent any of the employees aboard the vessels of the MOC fleet which constituted an appropriate unit and, therefore, it could not raise a question concerning representation based upon a bare claim to recognition. Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. Nor could it raise such a question limited to the unlicensed crewmembers aboard either of the two separate vessels since such units were not appropriate. In any event, the provisions of the Recommended Order in this case would remain unaffected whether or not the Respondent's picketing of the Overseas Lena, as well as that of the Overseas Horace, were to be regarded as violative of the Act. The problem posed in this case is a difficult and a vexing one. The series of intricate corporate transactions which occurred were dictated by financial necessity and economic advantage to the employers. There is no showing that any of these actions were based upon antiunion motivations or considerations. The NMU has been justly concerned in protecting such rights as the unlicensed crewmembers may have had under the collective-bargaining agreement to which it was a party. The issue in this case does not directly involve that question. It well may be that other rights under the arbitration provisions of the contract are available to the Respondent, irrespective of such proceedings as have been pursued before this Board or in other litigation." For the foregoing reasons and on the record as a whole, I find that the picketing of the SS Overseas Horace from February 15 to April 3, 1968, and of the SS Overseas Lena from April 1 to April 3, 1968, violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of Overseas Carriers, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to "See, e g , Luckenbach Overseas Corporation v Curran , 398 F.2d 403 (C.A 2, 1968). trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it shall be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Overseas Carriers is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The NMU and SIU are labor organizations within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. 3. By picketing the SS Overseas Horace and the SS Overseas Lena, with an object of forcing or requiring Overseas Carriers to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees, who comprised the unlicensed crews aboard each of those vessels and with a further object of forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative, at a time when Overseas Carriers had lawfully recognized the SLU as the collective-bargaining representative of such employees, and a question concerning representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, it is recommended that the Respondent, National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, its representatives, officers, successors, assigns, and agents shall- 1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to picket the SS Overseas Horace, the SS Overseas Lena, or any other vessels of Overseas Carriers, or any other employer, under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employer to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as a collective-bargaining representative of the unlicensed crewmembers aboard its vessels, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices, meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, NATL. MARITIME UNION including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Forthwith mail to the aforesaid Regional Director for Region 20, signed copies of said notices for posting by Overseas Carriers, if it be willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order shall be enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the said Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 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: 225 WE WILL NOT, under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket, the SS Overseas Horace, the SS Overseas Lena, or any other vessel of Overseas Carriers, or any other employer, where an object thereof is to force or require Overseas Carriers, or any other employer, to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of the unlicensed crew members aboard such vessel or vessels, or forcing or requiring such employees to accept or select the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative. Dated By NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335. l