Pickands Mather & Co.

128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Interlake Steamship Co., a Division of Pickands Mather & Co. and Seafarers' International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Great Lakes Seamen, Local 5000, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor. Case 8-RC-6789 August 15, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On February 5, 1969, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision on Review, Order, and Direction of New Runoff Election in the above-entitled proceedings reversing the Regional Director's Third Supplemental Decision insofar as he overruled the Intervenor's objection No. 1. On February 20, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision, asserting that it was never notified by the Board that the Intervenor's request for review of the Regional Director's Third Supplemental Decision had been granted, and advancing a number of substantive grounds for its request for reconsideration of the Board's decision to sustain objection No. 1. The Intervenor filed a reply to the motion addressed to the Employer's arguments on the merits. The Board on March 28, by telegraphic order granted the Employer's motion, with leave to the parties to file supplemental briefs in support of their positions.' Thereafter the Employer filed a timely supplemental brief setting forth its arguments and requesting that the matter be considered by the full Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the Employer's arguments in its motion and its supplemental brief,' and the Intervenor's reply to the motion, and hereby affirms its Decision on Review, with the following additional findings and conclusions: In our Decision on Review, we found that the Employer's denial of reasonable means of access by the Intervenor to employees on board ship at times when their ships were at major Great Lakes ports rendered a fair election impossible, and that, in view of the Employer's denials of the Intervenor's requests therefor made first in 1966 and again in its current organizational drive in June 1967, a new In granting the motion, the Board took cognizance of its inadvertent administrative error in failing to serve the Employer with a copy of its telegraphic order granting the Intervenor' s request for review of the Regional Director's Third Supplemental Decision 'As we see no compelling reasons therefor, the Employer's request for full Board disposition of issues under reconsideration is hereby denied See Enterprise Industrial Piping Company, 118 NLRB 1. request made during the period between the original and the runoff elections would have been futile. We therefore directed a new runoff election and concluded that a current eligibility payroll period should be used inasmuch as a long period of time had elapsed since the June 25, 1967, eligibility payroll date used for the first runoff election. In its motion and its supplemental brief the Employer disputes these findings and conclusions. It contends that its policy of nonaccess is completely reasonable and is not detrimental to union organization: that the hazards present on the docks and on the ships would require the Employer and the companies controlling the docks to accept additional responsibility for the safety of organizers; that an organizer coming aboard ship to seek out off-duty employees would inevitably cause inconvenience and interference with men actually working; that the most practical place for organizers to solicit off-duty employees which the organizers do use, is the dock gate; that the votes cast for both the Petitioner and the Intervenor in the first election which led to the runoff show that they were able to reach the eligible voters without difficulty; and that the unreasonableness of the Intervenor's request for access, in reality seeking the Employer's active assistance in its organizational efforts, is underscored by the additional facts that during the pendency of these proceedings another union succeeded in organizing some of the Employer's shipboard personnel without boarding passes and, to the best of the Employer's knowledge and belief, all other organizing of Great Lakes bulk fleets occurred without the aid of boarding passes. The Intervenor, in its reply to the Employer's motion, asserts that efforts to solicit employees at the dock gates would not be a satisfactory alternative to shipboard visits because of numerous realistic problems, including (1) the circumstance that sailors at that juncture are in a hurry to keep a scheduled visit into town, (2) the difficulty of identifying bargaining unit employees, and (3) the unfeasibility of this location for substantive discussion concerning a serious subject matter. As to the Employer's concern for safety and financial liability the Intervenor states that the representatives for whom it sought boarding passes are all former sailors having considerable experience with shipping operations, that they are insured against all hazards relating to their functions when boarding ships, and that they currently engage in shipboard visits in the course of servicing numerous collective-bargaining agreements. For the reasons expressed in our Decision on Review, we find no merit in the above arguments of the Employer. We are not persuaded it has shown that detriment to its shipping operations would result from elimination of its "no-access" rule sufficient to outweigh the rights of its employees to learn the advantages of self-organization. As indicated in our Decision on Review, the Intervenor, when it requested access for its organizers 178 NLRB No. 20 THE INTERSTATE STEAMSHIP CO. 129 specifically expressed willingness to arrange "mutually acceptable times and places for such shipboard visits to insure that they will not interfere with the efficiency or safety of the shipping operation ." In the light of this offer , the Employer's expressed fears of the consequences of permitting access for organizational purposes seem unwarranted. The Employer contends further that, in. the circumstances, a renewal 'by) the intervenor of its request for access to shipboard employees would not have been futile and , therefore; its failure to make such request during the critical period before the runoff election renders untimely the objection based on the Employer' s no-access policy. It argues that the Intervenor , at the time it made its request on June 12, 1967, had no interest, as far as the Employer then knew , in the petition herein which was filed on June 7, 1967, and that the Employer's reply, dated June 20, 1967, the same date as the hearing held herein when the Intervenor first made its interest known, was not in the context of any known special reason for varying its longstanding policy. The Intervenor counters that the Employer learned of its interest in the proceeding in time to revise its reply to the request for access and that, in any event, the Employer' s reply merely reiterated its previous policy pronouncement of August 14, 1966, when it denied access to the Intervenor in the context of an earlier preelection campaign. We find no merit in these contentions of the Employer and reaffirm our previous finding that a renewal by the Intervenor of its request for access would have been futile . We note that the Intervenor's request itself specifically stated that it was made for the purpose of enabling it "to communicate directly with the crew members in support of [its] organizational efforts", and that the Employer in its reply stated that its policy "does not .)ermit any solicitor aboard ships for personal contact with the crew , regardless of his mission." (Emphasis supplied.) The Employer contends , finally, that as the original eligibility date used for the election in 1967 was appropriate for the runoff conducted in 1968, there is no basis for assuming that it is inappropriate for a new runoff in 1969 , and that, if the Board views a current eligibility date as appropriate for a new runoff because of the lapse of time and employee turnover from season to season, then a current showing of interest should be required . We find no merit in these contentions. It appears that the Intervenor and the Employer agreed , following normal Board practice where runoff elections are required , to use the original June 25, 1967, eligibility date for the runoff election held on May 20, 1968. In any event, no request was made for an exception to the normal practice by reason of the lapse of time since the original election or the seasonality of the Employer ' s shipping operations . The Employer' s argument that the June 25, 1967, eligibility date should be used for the new runoff election merely because it was agreed to for the first runoff is therefore not persuasive. We reaffirm our conclusion that because of the long period of time which has now passed since June 25, 1967, and the likelihood of substantial turnover in unit personnel, a current eligibility payroll period will provide a more representative vote for unit employees. We also reject the alternative argument that a 30 percent showing of interest should be required among current unit employees. Our practice is not to require a current showing where an election has been set aside because of meritorious objections.