International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, International Long- shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO and Westches- ter Marine Shipping Co., Inc.; Pyramid Sugar Transport, Inc.; and California and Hawaiian Sugar Company. Cases 15-CB-1474 and 15-CB-1475 July 9, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On January 17, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Re- spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging Parties and the Intervenors , District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Ben- eficial Association , AFL-CIO (MEBA), and District No. 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, As- sociated Maritime Officers , AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. We find no merit in Respondent's exceptions and agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act by picketing the Charging Party Employers with an ob- ject of forcing the Employers to replace their licensed deck officers, who are their representatives for the purpose of the adjustment of grievances, with similar individuals who are members of Respondent (MMP).' However, in agreement with the General Counsel, upon all the facts of this case, we deem it necessary to order Respondent to also cease picketing for the objects of forcing the Employers to recognize Re- spondent as the collective-bargaining representative of the Employers' licensed deck officers and/or to i We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge' s findings, as set forth in fn . 26 of the attached Decision , that Respondent's picketing was not "area standards" picketing. Respondent's admitted objective was to install its members aboard the vessels as licensed deck officers and to gain recogni- tion and gain a contract , all of which is far beyond that which is needed to protect area standards. See Houston Building and Construction Trades Coun- cil (Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321, 323 (1962). force the Employers to enter into a collective-bar- gaining agreement with Respondent setting the terms and conditions of their employment .2 Respondent's conduct constitutes coercion of the Employers to se- cure a contract which sets the employment terms of their 8(b)(1)(B) representatives in a manner and kind other than those chosen by the Employers them- selves. Such objects equally interfere with the Em- ployers' right to select their own 8(b)(1)(B) represen- tatives and to secure their loyalty. The purpose and effect of Respondent's picketing literally and directly contravened the statutory policy of allowing an em- ployer the unimpeded right to select its 8(b)(1)(B) representatives. We also find no merit in Respondent's argument that Section 8(b)(1)(B) was not intended to prohibit a union, which represents supervisors, from engaging in picketing solely to protect and improve the wages, hours, and working conditions of its members, and in particular to prevent the erosion of labor standards which Respondent has established over years of col- lective bargaining, and that Congress did not intend to prohibit picketing for the kinds of objectives which Respondent was pursuing here; i.e., recogni- tion and/or a collective-bargaining agreement.3 In other words, Respondent argues that Section 8(b)(1)(B) was designed only to prohibit a union from seeking to interfere with the employer' s literal "selection" of his 8(b)(1)(B) representatives. This ar- gument is contrary to both the facts and the law. Thus, as the Administrative Law Judge found, the purpose of the picketing of both vessels herein was to coerce the Employers to cancel their contracts with MEBA, to fire the masters and mates, and to hire instead Respondent's members. This conduct is at best inconsistent with Respondent's claims that it merely wanted to represent the 8(b)(1)(B) representa- tives. Furthermore, this argument is contrary to both Board and court law 4 In Marine Marketing, the court noted that there was no evidence that Congress intended not to reach this type of conduct. In the words of the court: 2 The situation is such that picketing for recognition and/or a contract becomes almost indistinguishable from picketing for the removal or replace- ment of 8(b)( 1)(B) representatives See Miscellaneous Warehousemen Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Tak-Trak. Inc), 145 NLRB 1511. 1518 (1964) 3 While these may be lawful objectives , a labor organization is clearly not free to utilize any means it chooses in order to achieve a desired result Meat Cutters Union Local 81 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work- men of North America, AFL-CIO [Safeway Stores] v. N L R B., 458 F.2d 794 (C.A D.C, 1972), enfg. 185 NLRB 884 (1970) 4 international Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, International Marine Division, ILA-AFL-CIO (Marine and Marketing International Cor- poration), 197 NLRB 400 (1972), enfd . 486 F.2d 1271 (C A D.C., 1973), cert denied 85 LRRM 3018. See also New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A S. Horner, Inc ), 177 NLRB 500, 502 ( 1969). 219 NLRB No. 9 INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS Petitioners next contend that, even if they are subject to its restrictions, Section 8(b)(1)(B) was never intended to reach the picketing that took place here. They argue that Section 8(b)(1)(B), so far as it pertains to grievance adjusters, is concerned solely with attempts by a labor orga- nization to change the person utilized by the em- ployer to adjust the grievances of members of the same organization. For example, there would be an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(B) here if SIU attempted to coerce the selection of the master and mates since the unli- censed seamen represented by SIU have their grievances adjusted by the master and mates. We have examined the legislative history with care, and there is some evidence that Congress' primary concern was with situations falling within petitioner's interpretation of the Act. See 2 Legislative History, supra, at 1012, 1077. But we have found nothing showing that Congress intended not to reach conduct of the sort that took place in this case-conduct which all par- ties agree comes within the statute's literal scope. If anything, Congress simply did not ad- dress itself to the specific problem that has ari- sen here, probably because it assumed that su- pervisors wanting to engage in this kind of picketing would avail themselves of the opportu- nity not to be classified as a "labor organiza- tion" and thus be free of all the restraints of Section 8(b). While we are aware that labor legislation does not readily adapt itself to the "plain meaning" school of jurisprudence, see, e.g., National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. N. L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612, 619, 64 LRRM 2801 (1967), we believe several factors militate against judicially creat- ing an exception that would immunize MM&P's conduct here. First, petitioners concede in their brief that if the company's desire to deal with MEBA rather than MM&P was based on a valid Section 8(b)(1)(B) interest, i.e., the company's interest in the supervisory skills, qualifications or loyalties of the members of the respective unions, rather than upon financial consider- ations, then its decision to choose one union over the other should properly be free from coercion under the statute. This would mean that in each case where a labor organization such as MM&P or MEBA sought to put its men on a vessel presently staffed with officers of the other, the legality of their picketing would de- pend on the employer's reasons for ultimately choosing one union rather than the other. We doubt that Congress intended any such post hoc 27 inquiry into the employer's motives where the union's action is directly and inherently destruc- tive of a right guaranteed in the statute-the right to be free from coercion in the selection of grievance adjusters [486 F.2d at 12741. We agree with the General Counsel, therefore, that Respondent's entire course of conduct, which was admittedly aimed also to secure recognition as bar- gaining agent and to impose on the Employers its contract for licensed deck officers, interfered with the Employers' freedom to select and control their 8(b)(1)(B) representatives. It follows therefore, that this conduct which interferes with the Employers' freedom to set the terms and conditions of employ- ment of 8(b)(1)(B) representatives in the context of this case necessarily interferes with their selection of persons to serve as representatives. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 17, AFL-CIO (George Koch Sons, Inc.), 199 NLRB 166 (1972). As the Board noted in George Koch Sons, the type of conduct herein is a warning to an employ- er not to select a supervisor unless the union ap- proves of the terms and conditions of employment. The Board held: We think it equally clear that the work stoppag- es which were initiated by Respondent were for the purpose of requiring Koch to accede to the union-dictated terms and conditions of Ziltener's employment and thus coerced the Em- ployer in the same manner as the fines levied on Ziltener [the 8(b)(1)(B) representative] himself, and we find such conduct on the part of the Union also to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B).5 Accordingly, in addition to ordering Respondent to cease picketing to force the displacement of li- censed deck officers of both Employers, we shall also order that Respondent cease and desist from picket- ing to obtain recognition and its contract for the Em- ployers' 8(b)(1)(B) representatives. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Union has en- gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and take certain affirma- tive action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. The Board has found that Re- spondent Union previously engaged in similar acts of misconduct in Marine and Marketing International 5 199 NLRB at 167 Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No Forty, AFL-CIO (The Capitol Ventilating Company), 202 NLRB 958, 960-961 (1973) 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Corporation, supra, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B). Further, we note that the record in the instant case reflects that the Ultrasea, a sister ship of the Ultra- mar, was similarly picketed. Under these circum- stances, and in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act, we shall therefore order that Re- spondent cease and desist from in any other manner restraining or coercing Employers Westchester Ma- rine Shipping Co., Inc., or Pyramid Sugar Transport, Inc., in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of the adjustment of grievances. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part: For the reasons given by the Administrative Law Judge, I would affirm his decision. I see nothing in Section 8(b)(1)(B) which prohibits any union activity except interference with the employer's selection of his bargaining-grievance representative. 6 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Inter- national Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, International Longshoremen's As- sociation, AFL-CIO, New Orleans, Louisiana, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing the vessels Ultramar or Sugar Island- er with the object of causing Transport , Inc., to re- place their licensed deck officers who are represented by and who are members of Intervenors, District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Benefi- cial Association, AFL-CIO, or District No. 2, Ma- rine Engineers Beneficial Association, Associated Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO, with licensed deck of- ficers who are members of and who are represented by Respondent Union; to obtain recognition as sole collective-bargaining representative of licensed deck officers ; to enter into a collective-bargaining agree- ment ; or to impose its terms and conditions of em- ployment on the licensed deck officers. (b) In any other manner . restraining or coercing said Employers in the selection of their representa- tives for the purpose of the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 15, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative , shall be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket the vessels Ultramar or Sugar Islander with the object of causing Em- ployers Westchester Marine Shipping Co., Inc., or Pyramid Sugar Transport, Inc., to replace their licensed deck officers, who are represented by and are members of District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial As- sociation, AFL-CIO, or District No. 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, Associated Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO, with licensed deck officers who are members of and are repre- sented by our Union; to obtain recognition as sole collective-bargaining representative of li- censed deck officers; to enter into a collective- bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of licensed deck offi- cers; and/or to impose on all such licensed deck officers our terms and conditions of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, restrain or coerce Employers Westchester or Pyramid in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of the adjustment of grievances. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, MARINE DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO DECISION FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge. These con- solidated cases were tried before me on September 11, 12 and 13 and October 1 and 2, 1974, in New Orleans, Louisi- ana. Unfair labor practice charges were filed by Westches- ter Marine Shipping Co., Inc. ("Westchester") and Pyra- INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS mid Sugar Transport, Inc. ("Pyramid") on January 4, 1974, and by California and Hawaiian Sugar Company ("C & H") on January 8, 1974 . A consolidated unfair labor prac- tice complaint issued on February 1, 1974. District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Associ- ation, AFL-CIO ("Dist. No. 1, MEBA") and District No. 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association , Associated Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO ("Dist. No. 2, MEBA- AMO") were permitted to intervene in these proceedings. Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act forbids a labor organization or its agents "to restrain or coerce . . . an employer in the selection of his representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust- ment of grievances." The principal issue presented in these proceedings is whether Respondent Union , in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B), has restrained and coerced Employers Westchester and Pyramid in the selection of their represen- tatives for the purposes of the adjustment of grievances by picketing the vessels Ultramar and Sugar Islander with ob- jects of causing the Employers : (1) to replace licensed per- sonnel who are represented by and who are members of Dist. No. I MEBA and District No. 2 MEBA-AMO with licensed personnel who are members of and who are repre- sented by Respondent Union; (2) to recognize Respondent Union as the sole collective-bargaining representative of such licensed personnel ; (3) to enter into a collective-bar- gaining agreement with Respondent Union covering the terms and conditions of employment of such licensed per- sonnel ; and/or (4) to implement for all such licensed per- sonnel the terms and conditions of employment which are provided for licensed personnel who are represented by Respondent Union . Respondent Union argues that the picketing complained of in these proceedings was in fact conducted by the Offshore Division of the International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots ; that the Off- shore Division is not a labor organization within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act; and that Respon- dent Union is not otherwise responsible for this conduct. Respondent also argues that, arguendo, even if the Interna- tional Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots be found responsible for the picketing , Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act was never intended and should not be construed to prohib- it a union which represents supervisors from engaging in picketing or other concerted activities solely to protect or promote the interests of its supervisory membership. Coun- sel for Respondent asserts in his brief: Section 8(b)(1)(B) was designed to protect the employer's control over the performance of his own collective bargaining and grievance-adjusting func- tions. But that is not what the dispute in this case is about at all . The dispute, rather, is over which organi- zation-MEBA or MMP-will supply and represent the employers' licensed deck officers and what the terms and conditions of those licensed deck officers shall be. Section 8(b)(1)(B) was never intended to have any application to such a dispute. The facts pertaining to these and related issues are dis- cussed below. Upon the entire record before me, including my observa- tion of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the 29 briefs filed by all counsel, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. INTRODUCTION; JURISDICTION Westchester, a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, is engaged in the operation of the M/V Ultramar, an Ameri- can flag vessel carrying oil, grain, and other commodities between various States of the United States and in foreign commerce. Since the commencement of its operations about August 8, 1973, the Ultramar has transported oil, grain, and other commodities valued in excess of $50,000 between the various States and in foreign commerce. Aries Marine Shipping Company ("Aries"), a New York corpo- ration with its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, is the bare boat charterer of the Ultramar. Since the commencement of the Ultramar's op- erations, Aries has derived revenues in excess of $50,000 for services performed in connection with the chartering of the Ultramar. I find and conclude that Westchester and Aries are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Pyramid, a Louisiana corporation with its principal of- fice and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, is engaged in the operation of the M/V Sugar Islander, an American flag vessel carrying bulk sugar between Hawaii and various continental States, including Louisiana. Since the commencement of its operations in 1973, the Sugar Islander has transported raw sugar valued in excess of $50,000 from Hawaii to Louisiana. C & H, a California corporation with its principal office and place of business in San Francisco, California, is charterer of the Sugar Is- lander under a 20-year time-charter. Since the commence- ment of the Sugar Islander's operations, C & H has derived revenues in excess of $50,000 for services performed in connection with the chartering of this vessel. I find and conclude that Pyramid and C & H are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The essentially undisputed and credible evidence of rec- ord, as discussed below, establishes and I find and con- clude that the licensed deck officers, as well as licensed engineers, employed by Westchester aboard the Ultramar and by Pyramid aboard the Sugar Islander are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and, in addition, possess authority on behalf of their respective employers to adjust grievances of the unlicensed nonsuper- visory personnel aboard the two vessels.' Further, the es- sentially undisputed evidence of record, as discussed be- low, establishes and I find and conclude that since about 'Respondent, although admitting in its answer that "all licensed deck officers are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act," denies that the licensed deck officers possess the authority on behalf of the employers to adjust grievances of the unlicensed nonsupervisory personnel. As discussed infra, sec. III, C, the credible evidence of record establishes that the licensed deck officers aboard the two vessels possess and in fact have exercised such grievance-adjusting authority on behalf of their re- spective employers-Westchester and Pyramid. 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD August 8, 1973, the terms and conditions of employment of all licensed deck officers, as well as licensed engineers, em- ployed by Westchester aboard the Ultramar have been and continue to be covered by a collective-bargaining agree- ment entered into between Westchester and Intervenor Dist. No. I MEBA; that since about June 25, 1973, the terms and conditions of employment of all licensed deck officers, as well as licensed engineers, employed by Pyra- mid aboard the Sugar Islander have been and continue to be covered by a collective-bargaining agreement entered into between Pyramid and Dist. No. 2 MEBA-AMO; and that, consequently, since about August 8, 1973, and contin- uing to date, Dist. No. I MEBA has been and continues to be the recognized collective-bargaining agent of all li- censed deck officers, as well as engineers, employed by Westchester aboard the Ultramar and, further, since about June 25, 1973, and continuing to date, Dist. No. 2 MEBA- AMO has been and continues to be the recognized collec- tive-bargaining agent of all licensed deck officers, as well as engineers, employed by Pyramid aboard the Sugar Is- lander. And, although Respondent Union denies in its answer that it is a labor organization as alleged, I find and con- clude, as discussed infra, that Respondent Union-Interna- tional Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO-is an organization in which employees partici- pate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor dis- putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and con- ditions of work, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. BACKGROUND ; THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF RESPONDENT UNION AND THE COLLECTIVE -BARGAINING AGREEMENTS PERTINENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS ; THE RIVALRY BETWEEN RESPONDENT UNION AND MEBA The current structure of Respondent Union-Interna- tional Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO-was established by its revised constitution adopted in 1970. Prior to that time, the Union was divided into locals. There were so-called "offshore" locals in major ports consisting of licensed deck officers on large ocean- going vessels; there were so-called "in land" locals consist- ing of licensed deck officers on smaller vessels such as tug- boats, barges and ferries; there were Associated Maritime Workers ("AMW") locals consisting of unlicensed person- nel on these smaller vessels ; and there were so-called "pi- lots" locals consisting of pilots. Respondent's 1970 consti- tution provides, inter alia, for the merger of these locals into divisions. The "Offshore Division" was to replace the "offshore" locals; the "Inland Division" was to replace the "inland" and "AMW" locals; and the "Pilots Division" was to replace the "Pilots locals." (See G. C. Exh. 10, pp. A-1 to A-8). The "offshore" members voted to form the "Offshore Division" and the "pilots" voted to form the "Pilots Division" as generally contemplated by the revised constitution. However, as Respondent's President Thomas F. O'Callaghan credibly testified, the so-called "Inland Di- vision" is not yet "fully formed"; "It just has not reached that stage yet"; "It is not created yet." Instead, there is an "Atlantic Region" and a "Pacific Region" of the so-called "Inland Division." O'Callaghan explained: The Atlantic Region is in existence and the Pacific Region is in existence, but we do not have an Inland . .. Division fully formed. . . . The entire union is going through a transition period to where it is becom- ing a firm body now, rather than a whole lot of sepa- rate locals going on their own way. In short, according to O'Callaghan, "It is not one cohesive body," but it is "headed in that direction." 2 Respondent Union's Offshore and Pilots Division and its two Inland Regions have their own bylaws adopted by their own membership; their own officers, treasury, and dues; and file separate disclosure reports with the Depart- ment of Labor. However, Respondent's constitution does provide that its International president, executive vice pres- ident and secretary-treasurer also act as executive officer, assistant executive officer, and financial officer of the "ful- ly formed" divisions. Thomas F. O'Callaghan is president of Respondent Union and is also executive officer of the Offshore Division. Robert J. Lowen is secretary-treasurer of Respondent Union and is also contract-enforcement and chief fiscal officer of its Offshore Division. Further, although other officers or officials are elected separately by each division's membership, I note, as President O'Calla- ghan acknowledged, a number of persons are officials of both Respondent's Offshore Division and the Regions of its not yet "fully formed" Inland Division. For example, A. Scott is port agent for Respondent's Offshore Division and is also branch agent for its Atlantic and Gulf Region of the Inland Division. The same is generally true for J. Bierne, M. Weinstein, F. Kyser, and W. Beech. And, as Respon- dent Union's Secretary-Treasurer Robert Lowen acknowl- edged, Respondent Union's two Regions of the Inland Di- vision are composed of licensed supervisory personnel and approximately 200 to 250 rank-and-file personnel who are admittedly "statutory employees" under the Act 3 Membership in the Offshore Division is limited to li- censed deck officers on large oceangoing vessels.4 The Off- shore Division has its own negotiating committee which 2 Respondent Union Secretary-Treasurer Robert J. Lowen credibly ex- plained that in addition to the above "two fully formed divisions"-i.e., Offshore and Pilots- .. there are four remaining subordinate bodies-the Atlantic and Gulf Region of the Inland Division . the Pacific Region of the Inland Division, [and] Local 27 and Local 30 . . . in the Panama Ca- nal. And, although the Union's constitution provides for a Government employ- ees' division and a shoreside division, there are presently no members in these named divisions. 3 In addition, by letter dated June 28, 1971, ILA President Thomas W. Gleason wrote Respondent Union President O'Callaghan to . . confirm the arrangements under which the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots [MMP] is being affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association [ILA] to become known as the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, the International Marine Divi- sion of the ILA [Marine Division].... " See, generally, G.C.-Exh. I I and attachments. The Offshore Division has some 6,000 members (see Resp. Exh. 12). INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 31 prepares contract demands, negotiates contracts, and calls strikes. Contracts negotiated by the Offshore Division's committee are subject to ratification vote by its members. The current Offshore Division collective -bargaining agree- ment is Respondent Exhibit 7.5 The agreement provides, inter alia: 1. Masters and Chief Officers selected by employers must be members of the Union (sec. II, (2) ). 2. Licensed deck officers, except Masters and Chief Officers, must be hired through the Union (sec. II, (3), and (4) ). 3. Licensed deck officers will not be discharged or re- jected except for "just cause" (sec. III). 4. A "minimum" "manning" requirement for certain classes of vessels of one Master, one non-watch- standing Chief Officer, one Second Officer and two Third Officers (sec. VII). 5. Employer-financed jointly administered pension, welfare and training programs . (Secs. XXIX and XXX.) (And see Respondent Exhibit 25-the pen- sion plan; and Respondent Exhibit 24-the welfare plan). Respondent Union for a number of years has repre- sented licensed deck officers of the United States merchant marine. The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association ("MEBA") has represented licensed engineers. However, during late 1950 or early 1960, MEBA, through its affiliate the Associated Maritime Officers ("AMO"), began to com- pete with Respondent by negotiating collective-bargaining agreements covering licensed deck officers, as well as li- censed engineers. ILA President Thomas W. Gleason, in a letter to AFL-CIO President George Meany, dated Febru- ary 15, 1974 (G.C. Exh. 12), attempts "to invoke [AFL- CIO] assistance to resolve a problem that is becoming in- creasingly acute for the . . . ILA and its affiliate, the Inter- national Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots... . As Gleason explains in his letter: national Union], to sign up ships from top to bottom (that is, from master to ablebodied seamen) before they have even been launched and well before any employees are to be hired. This effectively squeezes out the IOMM&P which is the only Union actually chartered by the AFL-CIO to represent deck officers. s s s s The technological change in the American Mer- chant Marine and the Government's new shipbuilding program has caused AMO to emerge as a far more dangerous threat than ever before. s s s s 11 The launching of the new ships began in 1970 as a result of the Government's program to revitalize the merchant marine. These vessels represented the first new merchant ships built in many years. The ships of the 1970s bear little resemblance to existing vessels. They are so much bigger and faster that they move cargo at a rate ten and twenty and more times that of present vessels. In the case of the huge new tankers, any comparison with their conventional counterparts absolutely boggles the mind. The problem is not imaginary. Already AMO has contracts with at least six companies covering a dozen ships already built. As new ships are launched, with still more new owners, AMO will threaten not only IOMM&P jurisdiction, but also the structure of its collective bargaining agreements and the economic base of the IOMM&P pension plan .6 III. THE EVENTS CULMINATING IN THE PICKETING OF THE ULTRAMAR AND SUGAR ISLANDER This problem concerns the continuing campaign by the Associated Maritime Officers ("AMO") to sign pre-hire contracts with newly-formed companies, cov- ering licensed deck officers aboard ships not yet launched. Under these agreements, AMO supplies the deck officers for these vessels and prescribes the con- ditions under which they are employed. Although the IOMM&P [Respondent] is the sole union chartered by the AFL-CIO to represent licensed deck officers, AMO now represents a serious threat to its jurisdic- tional integrity, its contract standards, the jobs of its members, and the rather fragile peace of the maritime industry itself. What we are faced with now is a concerted cam- paign on the part of AMO, aided by its parent, Dis- trict 2, MEBA, and its ally, the SIU [Seafarers Inter- 3 Resp. Exh. 7 is the "Master Collective Bargaining Agreement (Dry Car- go and Tanker Sections) Covering All Vessels Under Contract With the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots-Offshore Divi- sion." A. The Ultramar On June 1, 1971, Aries applied to the United States Maritime Administration and Maritime Subsidy Board for financial aid in the operation of the first American flag "OBO" (ore-bulk-oil carrier) vessels. The vessels in- volved were the Ultramar and a sister ship, the Ultrasea. On June 20, 1971, the Maritime subsidy board approved the negotiated price for the construction of each of these vessels and granted a construction differential subsidy to aid in their construction. Also approved were "the plans and specifications, as satisfying the commercial require- ments of the applicant's service.... " The plans and specifications listed a crew of 26 persons aboard the Ultra- mar.7 6 Also see Respondent Union President O'Callaghan's article entitled: "A Background Report on the AMO Threat to the IOMM&P," August 1974 (G.C. Exh 10, pp. 2-3), and Gleason's letter to Meany dated May 14, 1974 (G.C. Exh. 13) with Respondent President O'Callaghan's accompanying memorandum concerning "Recent New Pre-hire Agreements Covering Li- censed Deck Officers Aboard Newly Constructed Vessels," specifically list- in^ inter alia, the Sugar Islander and the Ultrainar. Schedule I to the proceedings before the Maritime subsidy board (Reap. Continued 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Captain Leo V. Berger is president and principal share- holder of Aries . He credibly explained that construction of the Ultramar was completed about August 8, 1973, at which time the vessel set sail from the National Ship Build- ing and Steel Company shipyard in San Diego, California. Aries transferred ownership to CIT. CIT appointed Bank- ers Trust as its trustee of ownership . Bankers Trust in turn bareboat chartered (or leased) the vessel to Aries for 20 years. And, about August 3 , 1973, Aries entered into a "Crew Husbanding Agency Agreement" with Westchester. Westchester thus became "the crew husbanding agent of Aries for the crewing . . . of each and all of the vessels now owned or which may hereafter be acquired by Aries .... " Westchester was "authorized to take charge of and attend the employment and discharge of masters, crews and other help, in and about the operation of said vessels, and the fixing of all compensation to be paid ; it being understood and agreed, however, that all costs and expen- ses of wages of masters, crew and other persons employed in and about said vessels shall be charged directly to and paid by Aries" (see G.C. Exh. 22).8 On August 8, 1973 , Westchester and Dist . No. 1 MEBA entered into a 3-year collective-bargaining agreement cov- ering the terms and conditions of employment of all li- censed deck and engine officers employed by Westchester aboard the Ultramar. Percy Overman, president of West- chester, credibly testified that, before signing these agree- ments, the "management of [his] Company"- ... discussed with me [Overman] the unions that would probably be used . I [Overman] also spoke with Captain Berger who recommended the union ... . Overman recalled that Berger had recommended Dist. No. I MEBA as the "Union to represent the licensed deck offi- cers.,, 9 In addition, Berger testified that he "thought [Westchester] would take [his] recommendation , because of [his] previous background in the industry."10 The MEBA collective-bargaining agreement applicable to licensed deck officers provides for a complement of only four li- censed deck officers aboard the Ultramar-a master and three mates-rather than the master and four mates which are, according to the witnesses of Respondent , generally required by Respondent Union's Offshore Division con- tract for comparable vessels . According to the testimony of Respondent Union Secretary-Treasurer Robert Lowen, the MEBA agreement provides in effect for one less deck offi- cer and for lower wage rates than those which are provided Exh. 3) lists a crew of 26, consisting of one master, one chief mate, one second mate, one third mate, and 22 other persons. Thus, the crew aboard the Ultramar would have included only four licensed deck officers-a mas- ter and three mates. 8 The "Crew Husbanding Agency Agreement" could be canceled on 90 days written notice by either party. Overman explained- "I think the reason" why Westchester contacted and entered into an agreement with District No. I MEBA "was we [West- chester] agreed with Captain Berger essentially with the philosophy of hav- mg the one arrangement ..." with one union. Westchester executed agree- ments for the unlicensed personnel on August 8, 1973, with the Seafarers International Union. ie As Berger put it, ".. If they [Westchester] were smart, they would " Aries, of course, could cancel Westchester's agency agreement on a 90-day notice and Berger was president and principal stockholder of Aries. for on comparable vessels under contract with the Respondent's Offshore Division." Captain Berger previously had entered into collective- bargaining agreements with Respondent Union from about 1968 to 1972 for vessels operated by three companies in which he was the principal party--Oneida Steamship Com- pany, Inc.; Oswego Steamship Company , Inc.; and Gene- va Steamship Company, Inc. When Berger's last collective- bargaining agreement with Respondent Union expired in June 1972, Berger notified Respondent that he had merged all of his other shipping companies into Oswego and had sold Oswego to a third party. Thus, Berger formally ap- prised Respondent on June 26, 1972: ... this communication is to advise you of the termi- nation of the collective bargaining agreement between [Respondent] and [Oswego] as of June 15, 1972. Thereafter, that contract is no longer in effect and there are no vessels to which it is applicable. Please consider this communication to be the appropriate no- tice of the termination of this collective bargaining agreement... . In the meantime, during 1971, shortly after construction had commenced on the Ultramar, Respondent Union Pres- ident O'Callaghan, as he credibly testified, met with Berger "and had some discussion about the ships that he [Berger] was building." O'Callaghan recalled that Berger then "stat- ed that our contractual relationship would remain the same." O'Callaghan testified: I [O'Callaghan] mentioned it [to Berger] because there was a number of sweetheart agreements being given out by AMO, and I knew that they were approaching various companies, and I wanted to make sure that there was nothing underhanded going with Berger. He [Berger] assured me there wasn't... . Subsequently, during late May or early June 1973, when construction of the Ultramar was nearly completed , O'Cal- laghan and Berger met again. Berger testified: We discussed the values of the M,M & P. And Cap- tain O'Callaghan advised me of the quality of the M, M & P and he has on hand any officers that I might need to fulfill the ship's licensed officers for deck. Captain O'Callaghan advised me that he could supply a full crew from top to bottom, meaning he could sup- ply me engineers, mates and arrange for unlicensed personnel. And we also discussed-and Captain O'Callaghan says, "Remember you won't need engi- neers." And previously he said, "MEBA is offering and also AMO is offering the same up and down con- tract." And Captain O'Callaghan also reminded me it Berger testified that the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 "was [intended] to revitalize the American Merchant Marine . . to set up certain standards with respect to getting subsidies . "; "They have to do this in order to be competitive with foreign ships of equal stature ... ", ". . they will subsi- dize three mates and a master . . . If you want to subsidize [or hire] more, you can't be competitive with foreign ships .... " And, at the time when Captain Berger recommended to Westchester that District No. I MEBA supply the licensed deck officers for the Ultramar, he was aware that MEBA's manning scale would in effect be one master and three mates. The United States Coast Guard had approved a minimum total complement of 9 licensed and 17 unlicensed personnel for the Ultramar, which included only one master and three mates as licensed deck officers. INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 33 with the new concept of shipping, mode of shipping such as gas turbines and unmanned engine rooms, that we wouldn't be needing engineers. So he would be better qualified to supply than someone else would. That's where we left that discussion. O'Callaghan acknowledged in his testimony that he had "asked [Berger] point blank, Are we going to be getting the contract?" O'Callaghan, however, credibly explained that Respondent Union was only interested in the licensed deck officers aboard the Ultramar and he denied that he had "advised Berger [he] could supply a full crew from top to bottom. . . . "12 On July 19, 1973, Respondent Union President O'Calla- ghan wrote Captain Berger, in part as follows: Dear Captain Berger: The International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, the International Marine Division of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL- CIO, made up of the most highly trained Officers in any merchant marine in the world, possesses the only charter issued by the AFL-CIO for Masters and other Licensed Deck Officers on oceangoing vessels regis- tered under the U.S. flag. • • s s We are particularly pleased to be able to have the opportunity to demonstrate that the continuing exclu- sive recognition of the IOMM&P in representing the Master and other Licensed Deck Officers aboard the new OBO-type construction should be of paramount importance in providing labor stability and continuing the previously excellent labor-management relation- ships between you and your Companies and this Orga- nization while our seagoing Officers serve as your ves- sel manager to increase the potential return on your investment. Our affiliation with the International Longshoremen's Association cannot help but provide additional insurance against unwarranted work stop- pages in view of the nature of employment of OBO- type construction. A copy of our current collective bargaining agree- ment is attached. We recognize that certain aspects of this agreement may have to be changed in the light of the new type of operation and we are agreeable to resolving any problems you envision might arise so as to ensure a long and profitable relationship together.13 12 Insofar as O'Callaghan's version of this particular meeting differs with Berger's version, I credit O'Callaghan. The evidence of record, as discussed herein, persuades me that Respondent was only seeking to represent the licensed deck officers aboard the vessels involved. I was impressed with O'Callaghan's candor in answering the questions put to him by counsel. His answers were in my view complete and trustworthy and appear reasonable when assessed against the complete chronology as summarized herein and the related testimony of Robert Lowen. I note in this respect that Percy Overman, president of Westchester, acknowledged that he "wasn't aware that [MESA and MMP] were offering also the same agreement to handle both the deck and engine officers.... " And see, C & H Exh. 3, a letter from O'Callaghan to Berger dated July 19, 1973, quoted infra. 13 In addition, also during mid-July 1973, according to the uneontrovert- ed testimony of Berger, ILA President Gleason telephoned Berger and stat- Berger recalled that between August 3 and 8, 1973, Re- spondent Union's Secretary-Treasurer Robert Lowen vis- ited Berger's office in New York. Berger testified: Mr. Lowen began explaining to me the quality of the Masters, Mates & Pilots and went into long detail regarding the school that M, M & P has in Baltimore. And in fact invited me down there to visit it. And Captain Lowen also advised me that since I am a Kings Point graduate that the union could give us the best qualified [sic]. He went into detail regarding this unique ship and we have to have a different agreement than any other presently in force. And, during this conversation, the number of mates to be supplied came up and Captain Lowen said they would supply as many as three or as many as necessary or anybody else would supply like MEBA or anybody else. And, after the discussion, Captain Lowen, before we went to lunch, gave me a brochure on the school and also an agreement. one-page agreement, if I wanted to sign with the Masters, Mates & Pilots. During this conver- sation I advised Captain Lowen that Westchester Ma- rine was crewing the vessel. I gave him the address. I may have also given the phone number... . Lowen, in his testimony, recalled that he first spoke with Berger on the telephone, "I [Lowen] told him [Berger] I was calling about the Ultramar . . . about the licensed deck officers.... " Lowen and Berger, according to Lowen, subsequently met for lunch. Lowen credibly testified that at this meeting, Berger "indicated there had been no deci- sion at that moment as to who the deck officers would be." Lowen recalled: "It seemed that the single most important criteria to Captain Berger was whether Mr. Calhoon [Presi- dent of MEBA] would decide who the deck officers were going to be." According to Lowen, Berger- ... indicated in no uncertain terms that the only rea- son he had the . . . contracts for the Ultramar .. . was that Mr. Calhoon had arranged the financing for him and that [Berger] was totally committed to doing what he [Calhoon] wanted to do in respect to man- ning, but [Berger] said the only union that had been decided upon was MEBA District 1 for the engineers. There was, as Lowen explained, no discussion "with re- spect to the grievance adjustability of the MMP licensed deck officers or the MEBA licensed deck officers." 14 Berger testified without contradiction that, On August 7, I got a call from Captain [William M.] Caldwell late in the afternoon in which he kept asking me what unions were going to man the ship. And I ed that,... he would be manning the Ultramar with other MM&P officers. . [Berger] advised [Gleason] that I [Berger] am not handling that. And [Gleason] in turn advised that, "This cannot go on and I will tie up all the American ships if I have to." And [Berger] replied to him that, "you do whatever you have to, Mr Gleason." 14 Insofar as the above summarized testimony of Lowen with respect to this particular meeting differs with the testimony of Berger as stated above, I credit Lowen. Lowen's explanations impressed me as more candid and complete in this respect Lowen's testimony impressed me as credible and reasonable in the context of the other credible evidence of record including documentary evidence and the related testimony of O'Callaghan concerning his talks with Berger. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD kept telling him it's being handled, again, being crewed and the matter [was] being handled by West- chester Marine . He kept insisting and asking me and I didn't tell him and he asked me whether the ship would sail that afternoon and I told him it would sail the next day. He said, "We are going to harass that ship until you would be glad to sell it for scrap." Caldwell is Respondent Union's executive vice president. During mid-November 1973, Berger received a tele- phone call from O'Callaghan. Berger credibly testified: The middle of November, we had a telephone con- versation with Captain O'Callaghan. And he started his conversation by saying, "What is going on here, Leo? What is this crap?" I told him, "I am not han- dling it. Westchester Marine is handling the crewing of the vessel," referring to the Ultramar. And he said, "Don't give me that crap. I have been around the waterfront a long time." I said, "Cap, why don't you and Calhoon [president of MEDA] get together and straighten this matter out. It's a matter that could be taken care of by the CIO-AFL-CIO." His response was, "Leo, what? Have you been talking to Calhoon"; like that I said, "No." And I said, "My door is open to come in and sign a contract whenever you are ready." About November 29, 1973, the Ultramar was picketed in the vicinity of the Bunge Corporation Grain Elevator in Destrehan, Louisiana, with signs stating: S. S. ULTRAMAR Works its Deck Officers Under LOWER STANDARDS than those worked under by Deck Officers REPRESENTED BY MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS MARINE DIVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION AFL-CIO Respondent Union President O'Callaghan testified that previously he "had spoken to the top officers of the Union . . . "; O'Callaghan "suggested and we all agreed that we had to take action to protect our contracts and to protect our Union and would take whatever action was necessary to do that." O'Callaghan conferred with the "two International Officers and three district vice presidents of the Offshore Division." O'Callaghan, as he testified: ... more or less turned the whole operation over to the contract enforcement officer, Bob Lowen, to han- dle, but I [O'Callaghan] did tell him to make sure that we make everyone aware of the fact that we wanted that contract. O'Callaghan acknowledged that he- ... notified Teddy Gleason [ILA president] that I [O'Callaghan] was going to have a picket line around the Ultramar when she got into port. The picketing was conducted by members of Respondent's Offshore Division. O'Callaghan admitted that an object of the picketing was: "I wanted a contract with them"-O'Callaghan "wanted members of the Masters, Mates and Pilots serving aboard those vessels as licensed deck officers." Lowen, when asked what were the objectives of the picketing, testi- fied as follows: ... we actually were going out for economic reprisal, among other things, to stop other people from engag- ing in the same type of practice to the detriment of our collective bargaining agreements, our membership, our pension plan, the whole ball of wax. We didn't know what we could really accomplish. Maybe they would give us the ships back. Maybe the people on the waterfront would just flat out refuse to touch their picket lines. Maybe the company would go broke. Whatever we hoped to accomplish, we hoped to accomplish by picketing. B. The Sugar Islander Donald Hare, vice president for C & H, credibly testified that C & H was the "inspiration" behind the construction of the Sugar Islander. C & H is a cooperative engaged in marketing Hawaiian raw sugar. The Marine Division of Reynolds Metal Company, in previous years, transported C & H sugar to the Gulf area. Reynolds, however, an- nounced that its vessels would not be available for this purpose at the termination of its 10-year contract in 1973.15 C & H became "the ultimate time charterer" of the Sugar Islander and Pyramid became the bareboat charterer and operator of the vessel. C & H selected Pyramid as bareboat charterer, according to Hare, because, inter alia, Pyramid .,was established in the New Orleans area where almost all of [C & H's] sugar . . . is sold." C & H was also "ac- quainted" with Pyramid personnel and "impressed with their capability."tb Hare acknowledged that C & H knew that there was "a distinct possibility" that Pyramid would in turn enter into an agreement with MEBA to furnish licensed deck officers for the Sugar Islander. Further, as Hare testified, C & H was concerned with the stability and economy of the Sugar Islander's operation. Hare understood that a crew com- posed of MEBA licensed personnel and SIU, Seafarers In- ternational Union, unlicensed personnel would not exceed the approved Coast Guard manning of 22 persons for the Sugar Islander and would give stability to labor or person- nel relations. Hare admittedly made it known to his "pro- 15 Hare also recalled that C & H had carnage of sugar on Matson Ship- ping Company vessels and Matson had a collective -bargaining contract with Respondent Union for the licensed deck officers. Hare was generally aware that the minimum manning requirements for licensed deck officers on the Matson vessels, in accordance with Respondent Union's contract, exceeded the manning as ultimately required for the Sugar Islander. 16 Hare acknowledged: In making the decision [to select Pyramid] we did not at anytime to the best of my recollection give conscious thought to the relative grievance adjusting ability of one union over another. INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 35 posed bareboat charterer," Pyramid, that he was "interest- ed" in MEBA. Captain Peter Johnson, executive vice president for Pyr- amid, credibly testified that, ". . . in order to operate this ship [Sugar Islander] properly we needed to have one union that covered all licensed officers.... " And, on June 25, 1973, Pyramid, as bareboat charterer of the Sugar Islander, and Dist. 2 MEBA-AMO entered into a 3-year collective-bargaining agreement for all licensed personnel employed by Pyramid aboard the Sugar Islander. On Au- gust 24, 1973, Pyramid also entered into a collective-bar- gaining agreement with SIU for the ship's unlicensed per- sonnel. Johnson recalled that the Sugar Islander was delivered to Pyramid from Lockheed Shipbuilding Compa- ny on August 24, 1973, in Portland, Oregon. Respondent Union previously had requested C & H to recognize its Offshore Division as bargaining agent for the licensed deck officers aboard the Sugar Islander. Thus, on November 22, 1971, Captain Robert E. Durkin, Respondent's International vice president, wrote Boyd Mc- Naughton, C & H's board chairman, in part as follows: I am sure that you recognize that to construct the subject vessel [Sugar Islander] without having the air cleared as to Labor Agreements which would permit involvement wherein the Parties can square away any problems that may relate to the construction of the new vessel, is not wise. Wisdom dictates s-a Collective Bargaining Agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement should be executed as soon as possible. I urge most strongly that you authorize such a Memorandum to be executed by whomsoever is so authorized who will be involved in the operation of the vessel. A suggested type of Memorandum of Agreement with this Organization is attached and even though the delivery of the vessel is a long time away in one sense, the problems that would have to be resolved will arise long before the vessel is completed. Should this vessel be operated by an existing Com- pany with whom this Organization already has a Col- lective Bargaining Agreement, then such a Memoran- dum would not be necessary . Please advise. Thereafter, during late October through early December 1972, Respondent Union President O'Callaghan and Secre- tary-Treasurer Lowen discussed the Sugar Islander with Wayne Brobst, vice president of industrial relations of Matson Navigation Company. These discussions occurred in Respondent's offices during their bargaining sessions with the Pacific Maritime Association. Brobst credibly tes- tified that O'Callaghan and Lowen repeatedly stated that "they would take whatever steps were necessary to secure the manning of the Sugar Islander." Matson was accused by Respondent's representatives of "rigging the deal whereby the crew arrangements [for the Sugar Islander] had been worked out that did not include MMP represen- tation."17 Lowen, in his testimony, generally admitted his attempt to discuss the mmanning of the Sugar Islander with Brobst during the above meetings. 17 Brobst recalled that O'Callaghan and Lowen also made similar and related accusations during April 1973. About September 26 and 27, 1973, the Sugar Islander was picketed in the vicinity of the Gulf Elevator and Transfer Company launch landing site in the New Orleans area with signs stating: MTV SUGAR ISLANDER UNFAIR TO THE MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS MARINE DIVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO The directions and instructions for this picketing came from Respondent Union President O'Callaghan to Captain Henry Stegall, Respondent's New Orleans port agent." About January 2, 1974, the Sugar Islander was also pick- eted in the vicinity of the Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Re- finery in Reserve, Louisiana. The signs stated: M.V. SUGAR ISLANDER Works Its Deck Officers Under LOWER STANDARDS than those worked under by Deck Officers REPRESENTED BY MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS MARINE DIVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION AFL-CIO The Sugar Islander was picketed with similar signs about January 7, 1974, near the Burnside, Louisiana, terminal and about January 25 and 26, 1974, near the Texaco dock in Mobile, Alabama. The picketing was, as in the case of the Ultramar, conducted by members of Respondent's Off- shore Division.19 C. The Grievance-Adjusting Functions of Licensed Deck Officers Aboard the Ultramar and Sugar Islander The credible evidence of record establishes that the li- censed deck officers aboard the Ultramar and Sugar Is- lander are authorized to and do perform grievance adjust- ing functions with respect to the unlicensed nonsupervisory personnel aboard the vessels. Thus, the collective-bargain- ing agreements between the Seafarers International Union and both Pyramid (G.C. Exh. 20) and Westchester (G.C. Exh. 23) for the nonsupervisory unlicensed personnel aboard the two vessels clearly contemplate the adjustment of grievances by the licensed supervisory officers arising under the SIU contracts. See, generally, G.C. Exhs. 20 and 23, art. II, Secs. 2 and 3, providing for "delegates," a "per- 18 Enus Parks, employed by District 2 MEBA-AMO, credibly testified that Port Agent Stegall told him during late September 1973 that "it was his [Stegall'sl intention to stay there [picketing] until the injunction was served , he [Stegall] intended to stay until the injunction was served and stop that business if he could because those were MMP jobs and MEBA didn't have any business representing those officers on that ship... " 19 A petition for a temporary injunction against Respondent Union was filed on February 15, 1974, in the United States District Court for the East- ern Distnct of Louisiana, pursuant to Sec. 10(j) of the Act. On March 14, 1974, the parties stipulated that, pending final disposition by the Board of the matters involved herein, Respondent Union would not, inter aha, picket the Ultramar or Sugar Islander. (See Intl. Exhs. I and 2 ) 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manent ship's comittee" consisting of the "boatswain," the "chief steward and the chief electrician" or "pumpman," the presentment of grievances to "superior officers," and "weekly meetings" in order "to make sure that all problems concerning the unlicensed crew are brought to light and resolved as quickly as possible.... " Pyramid's Executive Vice President Peter Johnson met with the master of the Sugar Islander, Captain William Mc- Auliffe, and the ship's engineers prior to delivery of the ship in order to familiarize them with the provisions of the SIU contract, including the handling of grievances con- cerning the unlicensed personnel aboard the vessel. As Captain McAuliffe credibly testified: I was advised that I was the Company's representative in handling these things [resolving grievances] and I was to try to resolve them on the vessel if possible and bring as few problems back as possible, try to make an amicable agreement between the seaman and the com- pany and to do it on the ship as far as possible. Likewise, Westchester President Overman discussed with the master of the Ultramar, Captain Faust, prior to that ship's initial voyage, the applicable grievance-adjusting procedures. Overman similarly instructed Faust "to settle any disputes that did arise." Captain McAuliffe cited instances of grievance resolu- tion at various levels aboard the Sugar Islander. One such grievance concerned overtime payable under the SIU con- tract. The seaman affected presented the grievance to his duly elected departmental representative (delegate), who, in turn, discussed the matter with the chief mate. The dele- gate and chief mate were unable to agree upon a resolution of the grievance and the matter was referred to the ship's chairman (the vessel's unlicensed crew representative) and the master. The Captain's interpretation of the contract was not accepted by the unlicensed personnel who ap- pealed the grievance determination to the SIU's patrolman or port representative when the vessel reached port. The matter was then discussed by the SIU's port representative with Captain McAuliffe, Pyramid's representative, at the payoff in port. Calftain McAuliffe reconsidered his former interpretation of the contract and agreed to resolve the grievance by paying the disputed overtime. Another such grievance cited by Captain McAuliffe concerned a lodging claim by unlicensed crew. The crew complained that vessel malfunctions while in port in Japan during the winter caused insufficient heat during a 3-day period. The crew's grievance was presented directly to the ship's chairman, who, in turn, discussed the matter with the master. The grievance was resolved by Captain McAuliffe's authoriza- tion of a 3-day lodging allowance per crewmember. Cap- tain McAuliffe also recalled an instance of grievance which was resolved without his involvement. The third mate was supervising the discharge of the ship's cargo when the crew claimed that an additional crew member was needed. The third mate determined to add on a crewmember. As for the Ultramar, Captain Louis Kingma, the ship's master, cited an instance when he and the SIU patrolman or shore representative resolved grievances concerning the overtime rate to be applied in cleaning the hull in accor- dance with the SIU representative's interpretation of the contract. In addition, Kingma recalled that he was con- fronted by the ship's chairman with the crew's grievance that the vessel had not been properly secured for sea prior to leaving port in accordance with the terms of the SIU contract. The grievance was resolved by Kingma agreeing to pay the unlicensed crew the requested financial penalty. Captain Kingma also noted in his testimony that he re- solved numerous overtime grievances aboard the ship.20 IV. DISCUSSION The principal issue raised here, as stated, is whether Re- spondent Union restrained and coerced Employers Pyra- mid and Westchester in the selection of their representa- tives for the purposes of the adjustment of grievances by picketing the vessels Ultramar and Sugar Islander in order to force the Employers to replace their licensed deck offi- cers who had grievance adjustment functions with others who were members of Respondent Union. A similar issue was recently resolved by the Board and the Court of Ap- peals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Marine and Marketing International Corporation, 197 NLRB 400 (1972), enf. 486 F.2d 1271 (C.A.D.C., 1973), cert. denied 85 LRRM 3018 (1974). In that case, the Board found that the union, the Respondent in the instant proceeding, violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act by picketing a ship, the Flor- idian, with the object of requiring the employer to replace its captain and mates with a captain and mates who were members of Respondent Union, thereby coercing the em- ployer to change its selection of individuals whose duties include the adjustment of employee grievances. The court of appeals, Chief Judge Bazelon dissenting, upheld the Board's findings, conclusions and order. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the Board in Marine and Marketing, supra, 486 F.2d at 1273, stated: It is conceded by all parties that MM&P's [Respon- dent Union] actions come within the literal purview of the statutory language. The admitted purpose of the picketing was to pressure the company to break its contract with MEBA, fire the new MEBA master and mates, and rehire the former MM&P master and mates. The Board was obviously correct in concluding that the master and mates are representatives of the employer for the adjustment of grievances. Therefore, under the statutory language, the picketing was in- tended to coerce the employer in the selection of his grievance adjusting representatives. The court of appeals agreed that "Section 8(b)(1)(B) would be inapplicable . . . provided petitioners [Respondent here] are not a labor union protected by the Act and therefore subject to its restrictions" because, as the court explained, Section 8(b), by its terms,- applies only to "a labor or- ganization or its agents.... " A union composed solely of supervisors is not a "labor organization" as that term is defined in the Act [Section 2(5)]. It has no 20 The record reflects other related and similar instances in which griev- ances were resolved aboard the vessels. INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 37 statutory "employees" [Section 2(3)]. Such a union, therefore, cannot commit an unfair labor practice un- der any of the subsections of Section 8(b)... . However, as the court observed: The main difficulty with MM&P's position in the present case is that it admittedly is a "labor organiza- tion" under the Act. Indeed, our own court has recent- ly held that, because MM&P has certain locals con- taining statutory "employees," it constitutes a "labor organization" subject to the restrictions of Section 8(b). See Int. Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. N.L.R.B., 351 F.2d 771, 777 [(C.A.D.C.,] 1965). Further, the court of appeals, quoting from the Second Circuit's decision in National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association v. N.L.R.B. [S & S Towing Co.], 274 F.2d 167, 173 (C.A. 2, , 1960), agreed that- ... the legislative history is far from being so definite or persuasive as to justify our reading the Act, in a manner opposed to its plain language , so as to permit a union in which "employees participate" to engage in acts branded as unfair labor practices by § 8(b) simply because the workers on whose behalf the union was acting are all supervisors. In sum, the court of appeals concluded: ... even though we agree with the general proposi- tion that Congress intended to permit supervisors to resort to self-help, a supervisors' union cannot have it both ways. If it allows statutory "employees" to par- ticipate, it becomes a "labor organization" entitled to the protections given such organizations and subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 8(b) on such organizations . If it does not allow any "employees" to participate, it is freed of any responsibilities under Section 8(b) at the price of forfeiting the protection of Section 8(a)... . In Marine and Marketing, supra, 486 F.2d at 1274, as in the instant case, Respondent Union asserted that the re- strictions of Section 8(b)(1)(B) were "never intended to reach the picketing that took place. . . . They [Respon- dent Union] argue that Section 8(b)(1)(B), so far as it per- tains to grievance adjusters, is concerned solely with at- tempts by a labor organization to change the person utilized by the employer to adjust the grievances of mem- bers of that same organization ." The court of appeals, after having "examined the legislative history with care ... concluded: ... we have found nothing showing that Congress intended not to reach conduct of the sort that took place in this case-conduct which all parties agree comes within the statute's literal scope. The court declined to create an exception that "would im- munize MM&P's conduct here." The court stated: The coercive nature of MM&P's picketing, especially in light of MM&P's successful efforts to capitalize on its affiliation with ILA, precludes resting the legality of MM&P's picketing on an open-ended inquiry into the company's "real purpose" in choosing MEBA over MM&P. The company has an interest in being free from coercion from labor organizations in the selec- tion of its grievance adjusters, no matter what its rea- sons for choosing one union over the other.21 The principles applied by the Board and upheld by the court of appeals in Marine and Marketing, supra, are con- trolling in the instant proceeding. And, applying these principles here, I find and conclude that Respondent Union violated the prohibition of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by picketing the Ultramar and Sugar Islander in order to force Employers Westchester and Pyramid to replace their MEBA licensed deck officers who had grievance ad- justing functions with licensed deck officers who were members of Respondent. Respondent Union, by the fore- going conduct, has thus restrained and coerced employers in the selection of their representatives for the purposes of the adjustment of grievances. The credible evidence of record, as detailed supra, estab- lishes that the purpose of the picketing in the instant case, as in Marine and Marketing, supra, was to pressure Em- ployers Westchester and Pyramid to break their contracts with MEBA, fire the masters and mates, and hire instead Respondent's masters and mates. Thus, in the case of the Ultramar, Respondent Union President O'Callaghan first discussed this subject with Berger, an officer and principal stockholder in Aries, during 1971, while the Ultramar was under construction. O'Callaghan was then reassured by Berger "that our contractual relationship would remain the same" and that "there was nothing under-handed going with Berger" and MEBA. Subsequently, during late May or early June 1973, when construction of the Ultramar was nearly completed, O'Callaghan again met with Berger and "asked [Berger] point blank," "Are we going to get the contract" for the licensed deck officers aboard the Ultra- mar. About this same time, on July 19, 1973, O'Callaghan also wrote Berger: The International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, the International Marine Division of the International Longshoremen's Association, made up of the most highly trained officers in any merchant marine in the world, possesses the only charter issued by the AFL-CIO for Masters and other Licensed Deck Officers on ocean going vessels registered under the U.S. flag. 2i The court of appeals distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Hanna Mining Co. v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, 382 U.S. 181 (1965). In that case, as the court of appeals noted (486 F.2d at 1275, In. 3), MEBA picketed a vessel claiming that the employer unfairly had refused to recognize the union as bargaining agent of the vessel 's engi- neers. The Supreme Court held that state court jurisdiction to enjoin the picketing was not preempted by federal law since the conduct was not argu- ably proscribed by Section 8(b) of the Act. The court of appeals, in distin- guishing Hanna Mining Co, states: While this may constitute an implicit holding that the picketing there did not violate § 8(b)(1)(B), an obvious difference distinguishes the Hanna picketing from that which took place in the instant case. In Hanna, the picketing was not directed at having certain engineers fired and replaced, as was the case here, but rather at having MEBA recog- nized as the bargaining representative of the employed engineers, a majority of whom allegedly desired MEBA as their representative. 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD O'Callaghan stated in his letter that he was "pleased to be able to have the opportunity to demonstrate that the con- tinuing exclusive recognition of the IOMM & P [Respon- dent] in representing the Master and other Licensed Deck Officers aboard the new OBO type construction should be of paramount importance in providing labor stabil- ity. . . . " O'Callaghan noted that "Our affiliation with the International Longshoremen's Association cannot help but provide additional insurance against unwarranted work stoppages in view of the nature of employment of OBO type construction." O'Callaghan enclosed with his letter a "copy of our collective bargaining agreement.... " About this same time, also during mid-July 1973, ILA President Gleason apprised Berger that "he would be man- ning the Ultramar with other MM&P officers.... " ILA President Gleason admonished Berger that Gleason "will tie up all American ships if I [Gleason] have to." Respondent Union Secretary-Treasurer Lowen similarly spoke with Berger during early August 1973. Lowen was concerned "who the deck officers would be" on the Ultra- mar and he urged Berger to sign a collective -bargaining agreement. And, about August 7, 1973, Respondent Union Executive Vice President William Caldwell telephoned Berger in order to ascertain "what unions were going to man the ship." Caldwell, unsatisfied with Berger's answer, warned Berger : "We are going to harass that ship until you would be glad to sell it for scrap." Thereafter, during mid- November 1973, O'Callaghan expressed his strong displea- sure to Berger when advised by Berger that Westchester "is handling the crewing" of the Ultramar. About November 29, 1973, the Ultramar was picketed in the vicinity of the Bunge Corporation Grain Elevator in Destrehan, Louisiana, with signs asserting that the Ultra- mar works its deck officers "under lower standards" than those worked under by deck officers represented by Re- spondent Union-"Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Di- vision of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO." O'Callaghan acknowledged that he "had spo- ken to the top officers of the Union"; O'Callaghan had "suggested and we all agreed that we had to take action to protect our contracts and to protect our Union and would take whatever action was necessary to do that." O'Calla- ghan had conferred with the two International Officers and three district vice presidents of the Offshore Division. Fur- ther, O'Callaghan had "notified Teddy Gleason [ILA presi- dent] that I [O'Callaghan] was going to have a picket line around the Ultramar when she got into port." O'Callaghan admittedly "wanted a contract"; he admittedly "wanted members of the Masters, Mates and Pilots serving aboard those vessels as licensed deck officers." Respondent Union Secretary-Treasurer Lowen, when asked what were, in his view, the objectives of the picketing in this case, acknowl- edged, in part: We didn't know what we really could ac- complish. Maybe they would give us the ships back. °22 22 O'Callaghan testified that he had "more or less turned the whole opera- tion over to Contract Enforcement Officer Bob Lowen, but I [O'Callaghan] did tell him [Lowen] to make sure that we make everyone aware of the fact that we wanted that contract ." Lowen, Respondent's secretary-treasurer, was also responsible for the picketing of the Floridian in Marine and Mar- The credible evidence of record, as recited supra, also establishes a similar purpose or objective with respect to the picketing of the Sugar Islander. During late 1971, while the Sugar Islander was under construction, Captain Robert E. Durkin, Respondent's Vice President, wrote Boyd Mc- Naughton, C & H's board chairman, urging his company or whatever company operates the vessel to sign a collec- tive bargaining agreement "as soon as possible." During late 1972, Respondent Union President O'Callaghan and Respondent Union Secretary-Treasurer Lowen repeatedly apprised representatives of Matson Navigation Company that "they would take whatever steps were necessary to secure the manning of the Sugar Islander." And, during late September 1973, the Sugar Islander was picketed in the Gulf Area with signs stating that it was "unfair to the Mas- ters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, of the Internation- al Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO." The direc- tions and instructions for this picketing, like in the case of the Ultramar, came from Respondent Union President O'Callaghan. The Sugar Islander was later picketed during January 1974 with signs identical to those used against the Ultramar. As stated, these picket signs named "Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO." There is no ref- erence in the picket sign to Respondent's "Offshore Divi- sion." And, as discussed in section III, C, supra, the essentially undisputed and credible evidence of record shows that the licensed supervisory deck officers aboard the Ultramar and Sugar Islander, as was the case in Marine and Marketing, supra, perform grievance adjusting functions with respect to the unlicensed nonsupervisory personnel. The collective- bargaining, contracts between Employers Pyramid and Westchester and the SIU for the unlicensed personnel con- template the adjustment of such grievances by these "supe- rior officers." The credible testimony of both Captain Mc- Auliffe and Captain Kingma provide examples of such grievance adjusting. Respondent, in its posthearing brief, does not seriously dispute the fact that ". . . licensed deck officers aboard the two ships are supervisors who in fact perform grievance adjusting functions for their respective Employers. Respondent Union, in its answer, denies that it is a labor organization under the Act. In Marine and Marketing, su- pra, as the court of appeals noted, Respondent "admittedly is a labor organization under the Act." Further, the court of appeals recalled (486 F.2d at 1273): - ... our own court has recently held that, because MM&P has certain locals containing statutory "em- ployees", it constitutes a "labor organization" subject to the restrictions of Section 8(b). See Int. Org. of Mas- ters, Mates & Pilots v. N.L.R.B., 351 F.2d 771, 777 (C.A.D.C. 1965). The credible evidence of record in the instant case amply keting, supra The picket sign in that case, as here, only referred to "Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Division, ILA, AFL-CIO" and did not refer to Respondent's "Offshore Division " The ILA honored the picket line in that case, as here. And, as the Board found in Marine and Marketing, supra, 197 NLRB at 401, O'Callaghan told that employer: "by tradition those jobs belonged to us" and "we are going to stop the ship." INTL. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 39 establishes that the status of Respondent has not been changed in any material manner. Respondent Union still has "certain locals containing statutory employees" and continues to be a "labor organization" within the meaning of the Act. Thus, as discussed supra, section II, Respondent's regions of its not yet "fully formed" Inland Division are composed of some 200 to 250 rank-and-file personnel who are admittedly "statutory employees." 23 The provisions of Respondent's 1970 constitution also reflect the continuing role of the International (Respon- dent) in the affairs of its subordinate locals. For example, the constitution provides: Subordinate bodies shall have authority to negotiate agreements affecting their locality and jurisdiction ex- clusively. The agreements must be made in the name of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots. No agreement shall be signed by an officer with- out receiving the consent of the International President , ... [Emphasis supplied.] And, the 1970 constitution provides that International president (O'Callaghan) act as the executive officer of fully formed divisions and render services thereto. The Interna- tional executive vice president (Caldwell) is empowered to, inter alia, act as the assistant executive officer of the fully formed divisions. And, the duties of the International sec- retary-Treasurer (Lowen) include acting as financial officer of all fully formed divisions.24 In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent Union continues to be and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Respondent asserts (br., pp. 21-25) that "the picketing complained of in this case was conducted by the Offshore Division of MM P which is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act." However, under applicable principles of agency law, Respondent Union is responsible for the conduct com- plained of in this case. Cf. International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots v. N.L.R.B., supra, 351 F.2d at 777; Riley-Stocker Construction Co., 197 NLRB 738, 742- 743 (1972); W.L. Crow Construction Co., 192 NLRB 808, 812-814 (1971). Here, Respondent's International officers 23 Respondent, in its posthearing brief states: Although MM P, as its name implies, is composed primarily of Masters and Mates (licensed deck officers) and pilots-all of whom are "super- visors" within the meaning of the Act-some of its subordinate bodies do represent a small number of "employees" as defined in the Act. principally unlicensed personnel (such as deck hands or cooks) on tug- boats, ferries and similar vessels, which, because they employ such few people, are frequently employed on a "top to bottom" basis.... It is because of this small number of "employee" members that the Board regards MM&P as a "labor organization" as defined in the Act. See, e.g International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, 144 NLRB 1172 (1963), enfd. 351 F.2d 771 (C.A.D.C., 1965) 24 The record reflects that a number of Respondent's representatives such as A. Scott, M. Weinstein , W. Beech , J. Bierne, and F . Kyser serve in dual capacities with respect to Respondent 's Offshore Division and the regions of its not yet "fully formed" Inland Division . Further, the record reflects that Respondent continues to avail itself of the Board's processes as a labor organization. Cf. Timbaher Towing Co., 208 NLRB 613 (1974); B.F. Dia- mond Construction Co., 163 NLRB 161 (1967), enfd . 410 F.2d 462 (C.A. 5, 1969); and A.L. Mechhng Barge Lines, 192 NLRB 1118 (1971). All members of Respondent, including those of its inland regions , participated in electing the International Officers and in the adoption of the 1970 constitution. repeatedly contacted representatives of the employers who were involved in the operation of the two vessels in an effort to have Respondent's licensed deck officers em- ployed aboard the vessels instead of those officers who were members of MEBA. Respondent's International offi- cers participated in the decision to picket the vessels. In- deed, Respondent Union President O'Callaghan issued the directives and instructions for the picketing and gave ILA President Gleason advance notification of the picketing. The picket signs name only Respondent Union and make no reference to its "Offshore Division." And, assessed in the context of the background rivalry between Respondent Union and MEBA with respect to the licensed deck offi- cers and the relationship of Respondent Union to its re- gions and divisions, I find and conclude that Respondent is fully responsible for the Section 8(b)(1)(B) conduct in this case. 5 Respondent argues that the Board and Court of Appeal's decision in Marine and Marketing, supra, is no longer controlling because of the Supreme Court's subse- quent decision in Florida Power & Light Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 641, 417 U.S. 790 (1974). However, Florida Power dealt with the question of whether Section 8(b)(1)(B) proscribes union discipline of supervisor members for performing rank-and-file work during an economic strike. Here, we are concerned with direct union pressure upon employers to replace and change the identity of representatives selected by the em- ployers for grievance adjustment functions. Accordingly, in my view, the Florida Power holding is not controlling here. I note, in this respect, that Judges Wright and Mack- innon, who, respectively, wrote the Court of Appeals ma- jority and dissenting opinions in the Florida Power cases, formed the majority in the Marine and Marketing case. And, as stated, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Ma- rine and Marketing.26 The complaint in the instant case alleges that Respon- dent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by pick- eting the Employer's ships with the object of causing the employers to replace their licensed personnel, represented by and members of MEBA, with members of Respondent Union. Applying the principles stated in Marine and Mar- keting, supra, I find and conclude, as discussed above, that picketing for such an objective, in the circumstances of this 25 Respondent, in its brief, relies on DiGorgio Wine Co, 87 NLRB 720 (1949), affd 191 F.2d 642 (C.A.D.C, 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 869. Di- Gorgio is not controlling here because "statutory employees" are members of and participate in Respondent as demonstrated above; the picketing here was conducted under direction and instruction from Respondent ; and the interests of Respondent and its "Offshore Division" are identical. 26 At the hearing, counsel for Respondent argued that the picketing in this case was for a lawful so-called area standards objective. Cf. Keith Riggs Plumbing, 137 NLRB 1125, 1126 (1962); Claude Everett Construction Co, 136 NLRB 321 (1962); Retail Clerks International Association, 166 NLRB 818, 823-824 (1967), enfd. 404 F 2d 855 (C A 9, 1968). The Board, in de- termining whether a union has picketed for an unlawful objective, is not bound by the union's self-serving declarations of lawful object Cf. N.L R B v Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Woodward Motors], 314 F 2d 53, 58-59 (C A. 2, 1963).In the instant case, it is clear that Respon- dent was in fact picketing for a proscribed objective. Respondent Union President O'Callaghan acknowledged that, inter aha, he "wanted members of the Masters, Mates and Pilots serving aboard those vessels as licensed deck officers"-"That's right. That's all I wanted." I therefore reject this contention as not supported by the credible evidence of record. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD case, is proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. How- ever, General Counsel argues that Respondent 's picketing was further violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) because its ob- ject was, in addition, to cause the employers "to recognize Respondent as the sole collective bargaining representative of all licensed personnel"; "to enter into a collective bar- gaining agreement with Respondent covering the terms and conditions of the licensed personnel," and/or "to im- plement for all licensed personnel the terms and conditions of employment provided licensed personnel represented by Respondent." As General Counsel argues, ". . . if the only object of Respondent's picketing were . . . to gain recogni- tion as representative of the supervisors already employed, picketing for this object alone would have violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) in the circumstances of the instant case ." Since I have found the 8(b)(1)(B) violation based upon what may be termed the replacement rationale as applied in Marine and Marketing, supra, and in view of the order which I recommend to remedy this violation , I deem it unnecessary to determine whether or not Respondent also violated this Section because its picketing was also for recognition, or collective-bargaining agreement, or union-standards objec- tives. In declining to reach these additional and alternative issues raised by General Counsel , I note that Section 14(a) of the Act states: Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this Act shall be compelled to deem individuals de- fined herein as supervisors as employees for the pur- pose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining. And, as the Supreme Court stated in Florida Power, supra: By its terms, the statute proscribes only union restraint or coercion of an employer "in the selection of his representatives for purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances", and the legislative history makes clear that in enacting the provision Congress was exclusively concerned with union at- tempts to dictate to employers who would represent them in collective bargaining and grievance adjust- ment. n D Nowhere in the legislative history is there to be found any implication that Congress sought to extend pro- tection to the employer from union restraint or coer- cion when engaged in any activity other than the selec- tion of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining and grievance adjustment. Cf. Hanna Mining Co. v. District 2, MEBA, 382 U.S. 181 (1965) as distinguished by the court of appeals in Marine and Marketing, supra, 486 F.2d at 1275, fn. 3. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Westchester, Aries, Pyramid , and C & H are employ- ers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, Marine Division, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Union has restrained and coerced Em- ployers Westchester and Pyramid in the selection of their representatives for the purposes of the adjustment of griev- ances by picketing the vessels Ultramar and Sugar Islander with an object of causing the Employers to replace their licensed deck officers who are members of and who are represented by Dist . No. I MEBA and District No. 2 MEBA-AMO with licensed deck officers who are mem- bers of and who are represented by Respondent Union, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices found herein affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. The Board has found that Respondent Union previously engaged in similar acts of misconduct in Marine and Marketing, supra, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B). Further, I note that the record in the instant case reflects that the Ultrasea, a sister ship of the Ultramar, was similarly picketed. Under these circumstances, and in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act, I shall therefore recommend that Re- spondent cease and desist from in any other manner re- straining or coercing Employers Westchester or Pyramid in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of the adjustment of grievances. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]