Intl. Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots

400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, ILA- AFL-CIO; and Union de Trabajadoresde Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO and Marine and Marketing International Corporation. Case 24-CB-781 June 12, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On February 22, 1972, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief and a request for oral argument,' and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondents, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, ILA-AFL-CIO, and Union de Trabaja- dores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon an original charge filed on Setpember 14, 1971, and an amended charge filed on September 20, 1971, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional 1 Par. IV of the complaint alleges that each of the above -named unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec 2 (5) of the Act The Respondents' answer omits any reference whatsoever to par. IV and the said allegations, accordingly, have not been specifically denied . The above Director for Region 24 (Hato Rey, Puerto Rico), issued a complaint on September 20, 1971 , against International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, AFL-CIO, and against Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas , Local 1740, AFL-CIO, alleging that they had restrained and coerced Marine & Marketing International Corporation, herein called the Company, in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The Respondents filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 8 and 9, 1971, in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico , before Trial Examiner Johri P. von Rohr. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs . A brief was received from the General Counsel on January 3, 1972 and anoint brief was received from the Respondents on December 30, 1971 . These have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Marine & Marketing International Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Miami, Florida where it is engaged in the operation of the M/V Floridian, an American flag vessel carrying goods and commodities between Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Since the beginning of its operations on July 30, 1971, the said vessel has transported goods and commodities valued in excess of $50,000 between continental United States and Puerto Rico. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, AFL-CIO, and Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The relevant facts are not in dispute. The M/V Floridian, a container type cargo vessel, has been part of the American merchant marine for approximately 10 years. The owner of this vessel has at all times been Container- ships, Inc. For a number of years prior to about November 1970, the vessel was leased and operated by the South findings that the Respondent unions are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act have therefore been made pursuant to Sec. 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. 197 NLRB No. 69 INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 401 Atlantic & Carribean Steamship Corp., hereinafter called SACAL. At all times while the ship was operated by SACAL, the master and three mates were represented by Respondent, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, hereinafter called MMP, while the unlicensed seamen were represented by the Seafarers International Union, hereinafter called SIU. Each of these labor organizations had collective-bargaining agreements with SACAL while SACAL operated the ship.2 In November 1970, the Floridian was decommissioned and was placed in drydock at Norfolk, Virginia. In approximately March 1971 (while the Floridian was still in drydock), Marine & Marketing International Corporation, the charging party herein, was formed. This company was established for the principal purpose of operating the M/V Floridian on container service between Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. While the exact effective dates of a lease agreement which Marine & Marketing entered into with Containerships, Inc., is not reflected in the record, it is undisputed that Marine & Marketing succeed- ed SACAL as operator of the vessel. The new company took delivery of the ship at Norfolk, Virginia, in mid-luly 1971. Eduardo Garcia is the president and general manager of Marine & Marketing, hereinafter called the Company, and the record is clear that it is he who is principally responsible for running the Company and for making Company policy.3 It is undisputed that from the outset Garcia decided to deal with Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, District 2, a labor organization, herein called MEBA, with the intent of staffing the ship with officers who belonged to that labor organization rather than to deal with MMP and hire MMP officers; it is further undisputed that this decision was motivated by Garcia's feeling that it would be economically more advantageous for the Compa- ny to deal with MEBA than with MMP.4 It was on June 15, 1971, that Marine & Marketing signed a 3-year contract with MEBA, the said contract covering a unit composed of the master, the licensed deck officers, the chief engineers, and the licensed engineering officers. MEBA, following execution of the above contract, presented Garcia with the names of several MEBA captains from whom he could make a selection for hire. After interviewing several captains, Garcia in the latter part of June 1971,5 hired Captain Donald Mappin to act as master of the Floridian. Mappin reported to the ship while it was still in drydock at Norfolk in the early part of July. Garcia authorized Mappin to hire the other ship officers and Mappin shortly thereafter engaged three MEBA mates. On July 13, a representative of MMP, Mr. Pesil, came aboard the Floridian in Norfolk ana asked Garcia when he 2 While the record is not clear whether a different employer preceded SACAL as operator of the ship, the record is clear that the above unions represented the respective units of employees ever since the Floridian commenced operations 3 Garcia, a Cuban exile, was the primary organizer of the Company and a number of other Cuban exiles like himself participated as investors Occupying the position of vice-president and general manager when the Company was first formed, Garcia became president in August 1971 4 Although Garcia gave reasons why he considered it to be more economically advantageous to deal with MEBA rather than with MMP (the validity of which reasons were disputed in testimony proferred by intended to procure officers for the ship. Garcia related the agreement he had entered into with MEBA and advised that he had already hired a captain. During the conversa- tion which followed, Pesil told Garcia, inter a&a, that he was making a big mistake, that MMP was now affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association, (here- inafter called ILA), and that he would be subject to "serious consequences."6 About 10 days later Pesil made a telephone call to Garcia and at this time again asked "when he was going to order the officers for the ship." After some discussion, Garcia finally was advised, on his inquiry, that Captain O'Callaghan, president of MMP, was the head man of the Union. Either that day or the next Garcia went to see O'Callaghan at his New York City headquarters. Garcia explained his contractual agreement with MEBA. O'Callaghan stated that MMP had always supplied the Floridian with officers and that "by tradition those jobs belonged to us." Although nothing was accomplished during this meeting, Garcia testified without contradiction that after some argument O'Callaghan finally stated that they "were going to stop the ship." On completion of repairs, the Floridian departed from Norfolk and arrived at Miami, Florida, about 6:00 p.m. on July 30. It is undisputed that Respondent MMP picketed the ship shortly after it docked at the pier. The pickets included Captain William Travers and three of his mates, all members of MMP and all of whom were the most recent officers aboard the Floridian when it had been operated by SACAL. The legend on the picket signs stated as follows: 7 MV FLORIDIAN UNFAIR TO FRED W. NEUMAN FORMER 3RD MATE MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL ORG. MASTER MATES & PILOTS INT. MARINE DIV. I.L.A. AFL-CIO. The picketing was honored by ILA Longshoremen in Miami, members of an ILA local other than Respondent Local 1740.8 A temporary restraining order was obtained by the Company on the evening of the day when the picketing began. All parties complied with the order and the necessary work was performed. The ship sailed the next day and arrived at its destination, San Juan, on August 3. Colon & Villalon, Inc., a shipping agent and stevedoring' contractor, was under contract with the Company to unload the M/V Floridian at San Juan. In anticipation of the ships arrival, Pedro Villalon, president of the stevedor- ing company, made arrangements with the hiring hall operated by Respondent Local 1740 to have a longshore Respondents) these reasons do not play any part in my decision and hence need no further elaboration I recognize, of course, that Garcia's motivation in hinng MEBA personnel is related to Respondents' defense 5 All dates hereinafter, unless otherwise indicated, refer to the year 1971 6 The uncontroverted and credited testimony of Garcia 7 This sign was tamed by Neuman The other signs stated the names of the respective officers who camed them, but otherwise bore the same legend 8 A delegate of this Florida local told a foreman of Harrington & Company, the employer of the longshoremen , that the longshoremen would observe the picket line. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gang report the next morning Pursuant to this arrange- ment, a crew of longshoremen reported to the terminal on the morning of August 3 to await the arrival of the vessel. The Floridian arrived at the pier about 10:00 a.m. Several of the longshoremen assisted in handling the lines as the ship was being docked, although this was not part of their longshoreman duties. It is undisputed that about the time the ship was being berthed, and before any unloading of the vessel had begun, a group of four MMP pickets appeared inside the terminal. These pickets included the same MMP officers who had picketed the ship in Miami and their picket signs bore substantially the same legend as was displayed in Miami. On the complaint of Pedro Villalon, who was present when this occurred, the police arrived and asked the pickets to leave the terminal facility. The pickets thereupon exited through a terminal gate and stationed themselves immedi- ately outside, a public area.9 Villalon testified -that about this time he was called to his office, located upstairs in the terminal, to take a telephone call. Villalon testified that the speaker said he was calling from the union hall of Respondent Local 1740 and that he wished to speak to Jorge Aponte, the vice president of the local According to the credited and undenied testimony of Villalon, he notified Aponte of the call and Aponte went to the upstairs office to answer it. After taking the call, Villalon observed Aponte go to the pier and speak to the crew of longshoremen who were waiting there. Villalon credibly testified that the longshoremen thereupon depart- ed from the terminal.10 It is undisputed that they did so without having performed any unloading of the ship. Pursuant to an injunction, the picketing of the M/V Floridian finally ceased about September 17, 1971. During the approximate 6-week period while the picketing was in effect, Villalon on two separate occasions requested longshoremen gangs from Respondent Local 1740. Al- though on both occasions the Local accepted the order and dispatched the gang, these employees did not cross the picket line and no unloading of the ship was performed.ii B. Conclusions as to Respondent MMP Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.12 Initially, it is clear and I find that the captain and the three mates employed by the Company were authorized and empowered, as a part of their duties, to adjust 9 The terminal proper is separated from the outside by a fence with two gates 10 Although Captain Robert Lowen, the leader of the pickets, testified that a number of longshoremen preceded the pickets before the pickets exited from the terminal , I credit Villalon's testimony that the longshoremen did not leave the terminal until after Aponte received the telephone call and spoke to them This, as noted, occurred subsequent to the pickets leaving the terminal Aponte was not called to refute the testimony of Villalon, as above related 11 In the early part of this 6-week period, the wording "we have no dispute with any other ship" was added to the legend on the picket sign 12 "Section 8(b)(1)(B) is, to a large degree, the correlative of the Section 7 guarantee to employees of the right 'to bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing,' " Meat Cutters Local 81 v N L R B grievances among the crew members. The latter employees are represented by the Seafarers International Union (SIU) and the Company has had a collective -bargaining agree- ment with SIU at all time material hereto . That this contract contemplates that the captain and the mates participate in the adjustment of grievances is clearly reflected in article II, section 1 , thereof, which provides that the representatives (delegates) of the crew "keep track of all conditions and problems and grievances in their respective departments, and present to their superior officers, on behalf of the Unlicensed Seamen in their Departments, all facts, opinions and circumstances concerning any matter which may require adjustment or improvement " (Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, the record reflects that even during the relatively short time the ship was operated by the Company, Captain Donald Mappin participated in the adjustment of grievances pertaining to such matters as claims for overtime, complaints about meals being served family style as opposed to cafeteria style, and demands for deck cots.13 With respect to the mates, it hardly can be questioned that they also are "supenor officers" and that they are vested with supervisory authonty .14 In this connection, I reject Respondents ' contention that the Company has no power to select the mates and that therefore the mates cannot be deemed to be Company "representatives" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B). Although article II , section 1 , of the MEBA contract appears to permit the Union to assign mates , to employ- ment on the Company's vessels, section 3 of that article gives the Company the right to reject any applicant for employment whom the Company considers disqualified or unsatisfactory for the position, or to discharge any officer who in the opinion of the Company is not satisfactory. Thus, it is clear that the Company at all times retains control of the hiring and discharging of the mates. Secondly, it is also clear, and I find, that Respondent MMP engaged in picketing against the Company and that such picketing constitutes restraint and coercion as envisioned by the statute. International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborer's Union of America, Local 1140 (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541, In. 6, enfd. 285 F.2d 397 (C.A. 8).15 Third, since it is also clear, indeed it is conceded by Respondent, that the object of the picketing was to require the Company to replace the MEBA captain and mates with a captain and mates belonging to MMP, there can be no doubt that Section 8(b)(1)(B) is applicable to the situation at hand, viz, the exercise of coercion (picketing ) to require (Safeway Stores), 458 F 2d 794, In 10 (C A D C) enfg 185 NLRB No 130, decided Jan 25, 1972 13 Credited testimony of Captain Mappin Mappin gave further testimony, which I credit, that when he first reported to the ship in Norfolk, Garcia told him that he was to handle all personnel matters with respect to hiring, firing, or any disputes that would occur on the vessel Additionally, it may be noted that Mappin discharged a crew member for drunkness 14 Maupin testified without contradiction that it is traditional for a captain t. 'delegate certain of his supervisory authority and responsibility to the mates He also testified that one of his mates aboard the Floridian participated in the adjustment of a claim by a crewman 15 See also Laborers, Local 423 (Mansfield Flooring Co ), 195 NLRB No 35 INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 403 the Company to change its selection of individuals whose duties include the adjustments of employee grievances. Respondents defend principally on their assertion that Section 8(b)(1)(B) was not intended to apply "to a union's efforts to regain jobs lost because of a Company's desire to switch from one supervisory union to another because it could thereby effect savings in labor costs ...." I would first note that the foregoing statement in relevant part is not factually correct. Thus, here there was no "switch" by the company (SACAL) who formerly operated the Floridi- an and who at that time was the employer of MMP personnel. Rather, the selection of MEBA personnel was made by Marine & Marketing, an entirely different company and obviously also a new and different employer. In any event, and assuming that Respondent's objective to regain jobs which its members previously held aboard the same vessel was a legitimate union goal, this does not exempt it from conduct proscribed by the Act. Thus, in an analogous situation, Meat Cutters Local 81 v. NL.R.B., supra, wherein the union was found to have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, the union also argued, as apparently do the Respondents here, that its objective was legitimate and its conduct therefore permissible. The Court, however, stated as follows: The Union finally contends that since its action had the objective of preserving bargaining unit work, it was permissible under the Act. However, while it is well recognized that the preservation of unit work is a legitimate union goal, a labor organization is clearly not free to utilize any means it chooses in order to achieve a desired result. Correlative to Respondent's contention that its conduct should be exempted from the proscription of Section 8(b)(1)(B) because of the alleged legitimacy of its objective is its further contention that it did not violate this section of the Act because the conduct "did not stem from any grievance adjusting activity on the part of the Floridian's officers." The short answer to this is that the Board has considered and rejected a similar contention in Internation- al Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local 134, et al (Illinois Bell Telephone Company) 192 NLRB No. 17.16 I deem myself bound by the Board's decision therein. In sum, I find that the conduct of Respondent MMP in picketing the vessel M/V Floridian, under all the circum- stances noted above, restrained and coerced the Company in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, and that Respondent MMP thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.17 16 While the Board majority did not elaborate on the point, it obviously did not agree with the reasoning of the dissenting Board member who in his dissent stated as follows In summary, because the fines involved herein were not imposed upon the supervisors because of the manner in which they performed duties related to their collective-bargaining or grievance-adjustment func- tions, but were imposed because of their violation of an unrelated union rule proscribing members of the union from performing struck work during a strike, I find that the supervisors were not restrained or coerced in the performance of the statutorily protected functions. It follows that the Employer was not restrained or coerced in the selection of representatives to perform such function C. Additional Facts; Conclusions as to Respondent Union de Trabajodores de Mueller y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO A further allegation of the complaint is, in substance, that Respondent ILA Local 1740 "acted in concert" with Respondent MMP and that it also engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Preliminarily, it is to be noted that on March 31, 1971, officials of MMP and the International Longshoremen's Association announced that it was "the unanimous decision of the Executive Board of the International Longshoremen's Association, to issue a charter of affilia- tion of the International Organization of Master, Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO, or the Marine Division of the International Longshoremen's Association." 18 Although the record was not fully developed on the point, it appears that the foregoing decision was subject to ratification by the members of both unions. Captain Robert Lowen testified that a referendum ballot was in the process of being taken, but had not been completed, as of the time of the hearing herein. Turning to the instant dispute, further facts are here in order. It will be recalled that the picketing of the Floridian began at the time it docked on August 3. On August 6, Garcia, the Company's president, met with various officials of the MMP and the ILA at the office of Juan Perez Roa, an International vice president of ILA who is located in Puerto Rico. Included among those present at this meeting were Roa, Villalon, Captain Lowen, and Chu Castro, president of Local 1740.19 The meeting proceeded with Garcia making a plea that the vessel be unloaded, pointing out that the cargo included frozen food which was subject to spoilage. Although various responses were made, it is pertinent here to note only the statements of Vice President Roa. Thus, according to the credited and unrefuted testimony of Garcia, Roa at one point stated that the International in New York was calling the shots, that he had instructions not to discharge the vessel, that the longshoremen would not discharge the ship even if the members were jailed for refusing to comply with any court injunction, and that he [Garcia] had no choice but to capitulate and do business with the Master, Mates and Pilots Union. Garcia testified that at this point Roa turned to Captain Lowen and said, "This is up to you, if you tell us to discharge the ship for Master, Mates and Pilots we will do it because now you know what is happening here." Although some further conversation took place between Garcia and the various union representatives who were present, the meeting terminated without, any agreement being reached. See also Local Union No. 2150 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, (Wisconsin Electric Power Company), 192 NLRB No 16 17 Respondents also assert that legislative history reflects that Congress did not intend Section 8(b)(1)(B) to prohibit the conduct which I have herein found to be unlawful . I find no ment to this contention Although Respondents' brief cites isolated examples of various types of conduct that Congress sought to proscribe, this does not mean that it intended to exclude conduct, such as that here involved, which is literally and directly encompassed within the language of Section 8(b)(1)(B) 18 GC Exh 8 19 It is unnecessary to name other individuals who attended this meeting 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 14, Garcia went to the Carib Hilton Hotel for the purpose of meeting Captain Lowen for further negotiation of the dispute. There he met Lowen who entered the lobby accompanied by Johnny Bowers, International executive vice president of ILA, Willie Murphy, also an ILA Vice President, and Juan Perez Roa. Garcia addressed the' group about the Company's prob- lems and at one point complained directly to Bowers, with whom he was acquainted, concerning the position that the ILA had taken. According to the undenied testimony of Garcia, Bowers replied, "You must be crazy to think that the ILA will not support Masters, Mates & Pilots, they have affiliated with us and they have brought 12,000 members into our union." Turning to my conclusions, it first should be recalled that on the morning of August 3, while the ship was being docked, the gang of longshoremen remained waiting on the dock of the terminal after the MMP pickets had departed to the area outside the terminal upon orders of the police. At this point Jorge Aponte, vice president of Respondent Local 1740, took a phone call from his union hall, on completion of which he went and spoke to the longshore- men who had remained at the dock. As previously found, these employees departed as soon as he spoke to them. On consideration of all the circumstances, including Respon- dent's failure to call Aponte to give any explanation for this conduct, I think it a reasonable inference, and I so infer, that Aponte gave instructions to the longshoremen to leave.20 However, assuming that standing alone this incident is insufficient to bind Respondent Local 1740, the statements which Juan Perez Roa made to Garcia on August 6 that he had instructions from New York not to discharge the vessel and that the longshoremen would not unload the ship, as well as the other remarks by him at this time as set forth above, impel the obvious conclusion, which I find, that strike instructions were outstanding to members of the Local not to unload the vessel. Although the statements were made by a representative of the International union, President Chu Castro of Respondent Local 1740 was present at the time and took no action to disavow what he said. In addition to the foregoing, it will be recalled that the legend on the picket signs included the words "Internation- al Org. Master, Mates & Pilots Int. Marine Div. I.L.A. AFL-CIO" (Emphasis supplied.) This legend remained on the signs throughout the picketing, yet the ILA took no steps to disassociate itself from the picketing nor did it ever disclaim affiliation with Respondent MMP, as stated on the picket sign. In view of all the foregoing, I conclude and find that Respondent Local 1740 acted in concert with Respondent MMP and that its entire course of conduct, as above described, was in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.2i 20 Cf International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No 554 (Clark Bros Transfer Company, et al ), 116 NLRB 1891, 1901 21 Although on two occasions after August 3 Respondent Local 1740 went through the motions of sending longshoremen to the terminal (at Villalon's request) this does not dissuade me that this Respondent engaged in the unlawful course of conduct herein found. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, appearing in connection with the operations of Respondents set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, International Marine Division, AFL-CIO, and Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By picketing the ship M/V Floridian for the purpose of restraining and coercing an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, Respondent International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, AFL-CIO, have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 4. By instructing their members not to unload the vessel M/V Floridian for the purpose of restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, Respondent Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO, has engaged in the unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 5: The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed:22 ORDER A. Respondent International Organization of Masters, 22 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS Mates and Pilots, International Manne Division, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing the vessel M/V Floridian to procure the removal of Marine & Marketing International Corporation of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing that employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices and meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 23 Copies of the notice, in both Spanish and English, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall after being duly signed by an authorized representative be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24 B. Respondent Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas, Local 1740, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Ordering, instructing, or advising its members to withhold their services in the unloading of the M/V Floridian for the purpose of procuring the removal by Marine & Marketing International Corporation of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing that employer in the selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies' of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."25 Copies of said notice, in both Spanish and English, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately by receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that certain notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 26 23 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read 405 "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 24 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 25 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 26 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket the ship M/V Floridian to procure the removal by Marine & Marketing Interna- tional Corporation of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce the above-named employer in the selection of repre- sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, INTERNATIONAL MARINE DIVISION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office Pan Am Building, 7th Floor, P.O. Box U U, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue,, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 106-764-2424. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT order, instruct, or advise our members to withhold their services in the unloading of M/V Floridian for the purpose of procuring removal by Marine & Marketing International Corporation of its 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce the above-named employer in the selection of repre- sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. Dated By (Representative) (Title) UNION DE TRABAJADOREs DE MUELLES Y RAMAS ANEXAS, LocAL 1740, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office Pan Am Building, 7th Floor, P.O. Box U U, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 106-764-2424.