Timbalier Towing Co., Inc.

TIMBALIER TOWING CO. 613 Timbalier Towing Company, Inc.' and Inland Boat- men's Union of Seafarers' International Union of North America Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO. Case 15-RC-5240 January 22, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PF.NFLI.O Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerry Boykin. After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 15, this proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Petitioner, Em- ployer, and Intervenor2 filed briefs in support of their respective positions. 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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the National Labor Relations Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer recognized the Intervenor as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all its marine personnel on the MV Shawnee on August 1, 1973, on the basis of signed authorization cards. At that time it signed a recognition agreement providing that it would obtain marine personnel for the MV Shawnee through the Intervenor; that the parties would meet within 30 days to complete negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement; that, pending such agreement, there would he no changes in terms of employment without mutual agreement; that if an agreement was reached by September 1, 1973, it would be applied retroactively with respect to wages and welfare and pension benefits; that there would be no strike or lockout; and that the agreement could be terminated by either party on 7 days' written notice on or after September 1, 1973. On August 29, 1973, the Petitioner filed a petition for an election accompanied by sufficient signed authorization cards to demonstrate its interest in the unit. The report on the investigation of the Petition- er's interest in the unit shows that its cards were obtained on August 9, 1973. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the petition is barred by the Employer's good-faith recognition of the Intervenor, which requires that they be given a reasonable period of time to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not for a definite period and cannot act as a bar. It also contends that the Employer's recognition of the Intervenor is not a bar because there was no card check by an impartial person and because its cards were signed only 7 days after Intervenor's cards. Because we find that, in the circumstances, recogni- tion does bar the petition, we do not reach or pass upon the contention that the contract is not a bar. There is no requirement in the Act or in precedent that valid recognition of a labor organization on the basis of signed authorization cards, and in the absence of competing claims, may occur only after a card check by a disinterested party. We have previously found recognition accorded to a union in the absence of such a check a bar to an election.3 Nor do we find the fact that Petitioner's cards were signed "only" 7 days after Intervenor's significant. What is significant is that they were obtained after recognition of the. Intervenor. Petitioner does not contend that recognition was extended to Intervenor after it began organizing, nor does it contend that the Employer was aware that it intended to launch an organizing campaign at the time it recognized the Intervenor. Petitioner does not contend, nor does it advance facts which would suggest, that recognition of the Intervenor was not in good faith, or that the Intervenor did not represent a valid majority of the employees in the unit. The Employer examined the Intervenor's authori- zation cards and fully satisfied itself that the Intervenor rightfully represented a majority of the employees in the unit which all parties have agreed is appropriate. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any competing claim, the Employer was then bound to, and did, recognize the Intervenor. Thereafter the Employer and the Intervenor signed a preliminary agreement, terminable on proper notice, contemplating, and providing the basis for, negotia- tion of a comprehensive collective-bargaining agree- ment as well as memorializing recognition of the 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. AFL-CIO. 2 Associated Maritime Workers, Local No 8, a/w International a Dale's Super Valu, Inc, 181 NLRB 698 208 NLRB No. 89 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Intervenor. But that is a separate matter, neither affecting the validity of the Employer's recognition of the Intervenor nor its effect. We have previously held that the good-faith recognition of a labor organization on the basis of a demonstrated majority, when no other labor organi- zation is engaged in organizing, supports a presump- tion of continuing majority and bars an election for a reasonable period of time to permit the parties to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement.4 The Intervenor was recognized August 1, 1973. The petition was filed August 29, 1973. We conclude that the 4 weeks which elapsed between these events was not a reasonable period and that the petition is barred by the prior recognition of the Intervenor. We shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4 Eg., Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc, 157 NLRB 583, Dale's Super Valu, Inc, supra