North Star Drilling Co., Ltd.

826 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD North Star Drilling Company, Ltd. and National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-19086 August 9, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On February 22, 1984, Administrative Law Judge Harold Bernard Jr. issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the judge's decision. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 In affirming the judge's findings and conclusions, we note that the Board's order in Sabine Towing & Transportation Co., 205 NLRB 423 (1973), on which the judge in part relied, was denied enforce- ment in the Fifth Circuit, 599 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1979), where this case might be reviewed if the Re- spondent chooses to contest our order. The court refused to uphold the order in Sabine Towing be- cause it believed that the Board had improperly transferred to the Employer the burden of proof regarding the existence of alternative means by which the Union could communicate with employ- ees and because, in its view, the Board had ignored evidence that the Union there had, in fact, been relatively successful in contacting employees while they were ashore. 599 F.2d at 665. In Sabine the record indicated that the tanker employees went ashore eight times a month for periods of 17 to 35 hours at a time, and that the union organizers had managed to meet substantial numbers of them in taverns, restaurants, or at their homes. The union also had a list of employee names and addresses to aid this effort and had been able to send its litera- ture onto the tankers. In the present case, however, there were not similar frequent port calls, and the union organizers were ejected from or denied entry to the heliport sites from which employees were transported to ' Member Johansen adopts the judge's conclusions because he finds them consistent with the Board's recent decision in Fairmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139 (1986). Chairman Stephens finds the judge's analysis consistent with his con- curring opinion in Fairmont Member Cracraft did not participate in Fairmont. However, so long as Fairmont remains Board law, she will apply the analysis set forth in that decision. She agrees with her colleagues that Respondent violated the Act by failing to provide union organizers reasonable access. a We conform the judge's recommended Order and notice with his findings. the drilling platforms and back. The Respondent's only effort to reach an accommodation with the Union regarding one of these onshore sites oc- curred just as the Respondent was preparing to move the platform to a different location. Finally, in Sabine, the Board's order required that access to the tankers be granted , whereas the order in the present case provides that the Re- spondent may also comply with the order by pro- viding suitable onshore access . Thus, in the present case, the General Counsel has clearly carried the burden of showing that the Union lacked reasona- ble alternatives to those provided in the order for communicating with the Respondent's employees. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, North Star Drilling Company, Ltd., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and re- letter the subsequent paragraphs. "(a) Subject to reasonable rules and regulations, allow nonemployee organizers of the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or other labor organizations, to have access on the vessel Alaskan Star to employees during their free time for the purpose of soliciting them on behalf of a labor organization, or for consulting, advising, meeting, or assisting employees regarding their rights to self-organization; or provide a suitable off- premises site to the Union for such purposes." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative lawjudge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT continue or give effect to our policy barring nonemployee organizers from access to employees on our vessel the Alaskan Star for so- liciting them during their free time on behalf of the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or for consulting, advising, meeting, or assisting the employees re- garding their rights to self-organization, provided, 290 NLRB No. 91 NORTH STAR DRILLING CO. 827 however, that nothing shall be construed to prohib- it us from making and enforcing reasonable regula- tions in respect to visits to our vessel by such non- employee union organizers, or from providing suit- able off-premises access to the organizers. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, subject to reasonable rules and regula- tions, allow nonemployee organizers of the Nation- al Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or other labor organizations, to have access on our vessel Alaskan Star to our employees during their free time for the purpose of soliciting them on behalf of a labor organization, or for consulting, advising, meeting, or assisting our employees re- garding their rights to self-organization; or we shall provide a suitable off-premises site to the Union for such purposes. NORTH STAR DRILLING COMPANY, LTD. Gerald Wolper, Esq., for the General Counsel. Peter Chatilovicz, and David D. Kadue, Esgs., of Washing- ton, D.C., for the Respondent. Henry Dooley, of San Francisco, California, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HAROLD BERNARD JR., Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Boston, Massachusetts, on De- cember 1, 2, and 3, 1982, on complaint allegations that the Respondent refused to grant union organizers access aboard its oil rig, Alaskan Star, to talk with its crew- members, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Based on the entire record," including the witnesses' demeanor, and consideration of ably prepared briefs by the parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent, a limited partnership formed under the law of the State of Texas, with an office in Houston, Texas, operates an oil rig vessel, the Alaskan Star, in waters off the United States, including points located off Masssachusetts and Louisiana , for the purpose of discov- ering oil. Respondent, during such operations, admits to r Respondent's unopposed motions to strike from the record attach- ments I and 2, contained in Charging Party's brief and being a magazine article concerning safety aboard oil rigs, and a letter to the Regional Office concerning the Union's withdrawal from a settlement agreement, respectively, as neither was introduced at the hearing, but was merely at- tached to Charging Party's posthearing brief, are granted, as is its motion to correct minor errors in its brief. The General Counsel's motion to cor- rect transcript inaccuracies is likewise granted. annually receiving materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside Massachusetts and to engaging in commerce within the meaning of the Act. It is so found. The Union admittedly is a labor organization as de- fined in the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Alaskan Star is a semisubmersible and self-pro- pelled drilling vessel operating in offshore United States waters, where she probes into the ocean floor searching for oil. Designed to withstand severe sea conditions, the floating rig sits on twin pontoons 50 feet wide and 260 feet long, which support massive columns on which rest the main and upper deck, as well as the drilling floor at- taining an elevation of 141 feet. The latter "platform" area, 226 feet by 207 feet, contains space for equipment, supplies, cranes, the well-center, rig substructure area, a helicopter landing pad, and the crew's quarters. The vessel, operational in the Baltimore Canyon off Atlantic City, New Jersey, from April 1980 to July 1981, was moved to George's Bank off Hyannis, Massachu- setts, on July 22, 1981 , and was later again moved, this time to waters off Venice, Louisiana, on August 21, 1982, arriving there the following month.2 During these operations, she is manned by a 96-em- ployee crew consisting of about 19 supervisory-ranked individuals and 76 others, this crew consisting of senior tool pushers, drillers, derrickman, floor hands, barge en- gineer, balance control operator, rig engineer, subsea en- gineer, technicians, crane operators, radio operator, welder, and roustabouts . There is also a paint crew as- signed to continually maintain the rig. An independent contractor is used to staff and operate the ship's galley with its own employees. The rig operates 24 hours a day, every day, at an esti- mated cost of $120,000 daily. The employee operating complement is divided into 4 crews overall, consisting of 19 nonsupervisory employees in each crew. These crews serve on a rotating and staggered basis, so that two crews are on shore at any given time, and two crews are on board, in each case one of the two ashore , and one of the two on board taking part in a 1 - or 2-week stay, de- pending on when they were rotated. Thus a crewman on crew A when first reporting for duty has spent 2 weeks ashore and now contemplates 2 weeks on duty, and would be relieving a crewman on crew B who had spent 2 weeks on duty and who then was being released for 2 weeks ashore. The so-called staggering comes in because crew A, after relieving crew B, will then be aboard with crew C, which at that point will be on board for only 1 more week (having spent 1 week before with crew B, after which it will be relieved by crew D, and so forth. Crewmembers work 12-hour shifts and then are off 12 hours. While off duty the employee generally spends 30 to 40 minutes showering and changing clothes, 30 min- 2 The vessel's stay in any location is of an uncertain duration, and de- pends on variables not always predictable such as the hardness in the composition of soil beneath the ocean floor, weather conditions , and deci- sions of the operator. A well can take 6 months to a year to drill. 828 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD utes at mealtime, and the remainder watching television, playing cards or darts, and sleeping. The employees also attend training sessions conducted by management on board the vessel during this time. There are areas em- ployees and supervisors alike frequent, such as the galley, two recreation rooms, bunk rooms, washrooms, the deck area, and the helicopter. While on duty, there are no scheduled breaktimes or scheduled meals for the employee, who takes two meals when time can be found and spends 15 minutes for each. Generally, the work performed is dirty, demanding, and dangerous due to moving, spinning, lifting, and freely swinging chains, pipes, cutting or drilling equipment with which employees work in close quarters, the pitch- ing and rolling of the deck aboard a vessel on the high seas, subject to storm-caused extreme movements, and possible, though unpredictable, exposure to lethal sour gas released from beneath the ocean floor during drilling and that can find its way up to the workers through the drilling equipment or housing. These potential hazards have not, however, prevented the Alaskan Star from compiling a record of 800 accident-free days at the time of this hearing, an indication that safety is an important and successfully addressed concern. Employees aboard the Alaskan Star reside in some 13 different States: Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Arizona, a scattered geographical pattern subject, moreover, to annual changes reflecting an established yearly 25-per- cent employee turnover in the industry.3 Employees get to work and retun home as follows: While the Alaskan Star was off Hyannis, Massachu- setts, July 1981 to August 1982, the Respondent flew em- ployees from New Orleans and Houston to Hyannis on a company plane. This was the case for 90 percent of the employee complement. Other employees drove from their homes to Hyannis. From Hyannis, the Respondent flew employees from a helicopter service heliport out to the rig, picked up employees heading for shore points following their 2-week tour of duty, and transported them by plane from the Hyannis airport to New Orleans and Houston, where such employees then drove home. Other relieved employees who had been helicoptered to Hyannis drove home from there, about 10 percent of the employee complement. After the Alaskan Star moved to its position some 25 miles off the Venice, Louisiana shoreline in September 1982, employees had to find their own transportation to Venice when returning from their homes to report for work, or when returning home from Venice after their tour on duty because the Respondent, at that time, only furnished transportation by helicopter to and from its drilling vessel and a heliport in Venice operated by Petroleum Helicopter, Inc., a private compa- ny. These helicopter landing areas on shore, at Hyannis 8 Respondent manager of human resources , Gary Horn, when ques- tioned by me, did not "have" the turnover for the Alaskan Star, but de- scribed the industry turnover rate, opining that Alaskan Star's turnover was "not much." Area Manager Theodore Falcom testified "there may have been some turnover" on the vessel. and Venice, so-called transfer points, are discussed fur- ther below.4 B. The Union's Organizing Drive As noted, the Alaskan Star was located in the Balti- more Canyon off Atlantic City from April 1980 to July 1981. Union organizers Henry Dooley, national organiz- ing director, and Robert Healey, business agent, under- took the effort to organize Alaskan Star employees some- time in July 1981. None of the employees on that vessel or on other such type rigs were represented by the Union. Dooley's testimony shows that following his direction to Healey that the organizing get underway, he was in- formed that helicopters used a landing field in Hyannis to ferry employees to and from the rig, and that supply boats carried goods to the rig from Davisville, Rhode Island; accordingly, Dooley instructed Healey to go to those points and see if Healey could organize employees there. Healey visited the Hyannis helicopter office twice, found it locked, and on the second trip went to the main terminal where, on inquiring when and whether oil rig people were being flown, was told this occurred on Mondays. On September 14 Healey again returned to the heliport, found the door unlocked, went in, and intro- duced himself to individuals there and was engaged in conversation seeking to determine whether the persons were from the rig, when an individual entered the wait- ing room from an inner office and, after learning from Healey that he was a union organizer, told Healey he was not allowed in there. Prior to Healey's introducing himself as a union official he asked the individual wheth- er there was any work at the rigs and was told cooks were needed. It was only after Healey revealed his status and informed him that he was interested in organizing rig employees that the official ordered Healey to leave, also informing him that Healey was not allowed out on the oil rigs either. Healey noticed watchmen walking around and left. That same day Healey drove to Davis- ville, Rhode Island, to both try to organize rig supply boat employees and to see if the employees on the rig supply boats could talk to the men on the rigs about joining the Union. On arrival, Healey introduced himself to a guard as a representative of the National Maritime Union and was told, "they don't want you guys down on those boats, I can't let you through-you must have spe- cial permission from the people that run the boats." Healey, after being directed to the office, went there to find it locked. He then left. Healey thereafter returned twice a month to Hyannis, sometimes . finding the office vacant, other times seeing people inside, but talking to individuals, for the most part, outside the building. He was not excluded on these occasions and did not see the official who excluded him earlier. There were only a couple people in the waiting room at a time and he testified he never learned who 4 The George's Banks location was 120 miles off Hyannis, and large helicopters ferried as many as 12 to 14 employees each trip , although for such purposes at the Venice location , 25 miles off shore, 4 to 6 employees were carried in smaller helicopters each trip. NORTH STAR DRILLING CO. was on the Alaskan Star, there being different rig em- ployees there who told him they could not provide such information, as they did not know. Healey described his visits as experiences when he would go down there and find not too many people around and "they always seemed to be in a hurry to go some place, so there wasn't much of a place to meet anyone." Early in Healey's efforts, in somewhat paralleling events, Dooley testified to having numerous phone calls with Healey concerning the latter's failure to make any progress in locating or communicating directly or indi- rectly with rig employees, whereupon Dooley decided to request Respondent to grant him access aboard the vessel, and to provide the Union with a list of employ- ees' names and addresses . Healey's efforts, as described above, to communicate with employees without such access or list continued. By letter dated July 24, 1981, the Union requested Respondent to provide such access and a list, as described. Believing that the vessel was still in Baltimore Canyon, Dooley referred to being granted access to the vessel's incorrect location because by then the Alaskan Star had moved to the George's Banks loca- tion. Dooley mailed a second letter to Respondent with the same requests on August 18, 1981 , this time correctly placing Respondent's vessel at George's Banks. Not re- ceiving a reply to either of his letters to Respondent, de- scribed above, Dooley filed the instant charge on Sep- tember 21, 1981. Healey's visits to Hyannis, described above, continued after this charge was filed, as did the Union's efforts gen- erally, described below. C. Respondent's Reply to the Union 's Requests Respondent denied the Union's request for access to Alaskan Star and a list of employee names and addresses on November 2, 1981, citing in its refusal a nonvisitors policy based on protection of trade secrets, safety con- cerns, and expense. At the same time, however, Re- spondent offered to provide an alternative means of access to the Union at the Hyannis airport, during which, for a 15-minute period 1 day a week for 4 weeks the Union would be free to address employees. Although the Union filed an amended charge on No- vember 3, 1981, asserting that Respondent, pursuant to the Company's November 2 letter, was "continuing" to refuse access to the Union to talk with its employees on board the Alaskan Star, Respondent's offer of an alterna- tive means was destined to later bear fruit, although only temporarily. On November 9, 1981, the Board's Regional Office issued complaint followed by Respondent's answer. The record next shows that cross-motions for summary judg- ment were filed by Respondent in March 1982, and by the General Counsel in April 1982. Sometime in April 1982, the Exxon Corporation as- signed its contract pursuant to which the Alaskan Star was drilling for oil on Exxon's behalf to the Tenneco Corporation, which was to remain Alaskan Star's "opera- tor" (her crew remaining intact) until August 1982. During this period, on June 15, 1982, a three-man televi- sion camera crew from a Boston TV station visited aboard the Alaskan Star during an intended 6-hour tour, 829 reduced to 4-1/2 hours because of weather consider- ations. After a 1-hour flight, the TV station visitors stepped onto the helicopter platform on the rig, received instructions in the recreation room, including advice about the dangers of sour gas and the proper way to conduct themselves, and toured the operation including the galley, where they spoke with employees, the mud logging room, the rig on drilling floor, the cabins, and the geologist's office. The TV station's field producer, Hamilton Fisher, who was with the visitors, testified that he spoke to people in each area visited while they were on duty, though during slack time, and that he was not told there were any places on the rig off limits to his group; nor was he asked to sign any agreements prohibit- ing disclosure of confidential matter, but was asked to acknowledge understanding the dangers on the rig as ex- plained by rig officials, and to waive liability for any in- juries incurred while on board. D. The Parties' Settlement Agreement On August 10, 1982, as an outgrowth of the parties' discussions, Respondent's counsel, Peter Chatilovicz, mailed a letter to the Union for Dooley's signed approv- al, which contained a carefully detailed format providing the Union with access to the Alaskan Star employees in the Hyannis helicopter facility's waiting room, during scheduled periods of time-25 minutes in duration-for eight meetings. The plan improved on Respondent's ear- lier-described suggestion contained in its November 2, 1981 letter of refusal and, in general, manifests a thought- ful resolution crafted with good intentions. Dooley signed the proposed resolution with corrections added, and sent the papers back to Respondent . Counsel Chati- lovicz then wrote the Board's executive secretary August 13, 1982, confirming an earlier communication seeking delay in disposition of the pending Motions of Summary Judgment on the basis of a pending settlement and advising that an agreement had, in fact, been reached. When Dooley received a copy of such letter he wrote the Board on August 19, 1982, denying that any agreement had been reached and requesting the case be processed. Although the record contains no explicit explanation why Dooley took this position, there is some basis to infer that it was because he had gotten word from "people on the Cape [Cod] whose husbands or boy- friends worked on the towboats that take these rigs down south and they told us that it was going to Venice," sometime before he visited Hyannis to "learn" for himself the whereabouts of the Alaskan Star. During such later visit, a 10-day stay in Hyannis in September 1982, Dooley went to the helicopter office and found, each day, no one there, whereupon he drove to Davis- ville, Rhode Island, to "check it out." In any event, the record in fact shows that the Alaskan Star departed from George's Bank enroute to offshore Venice, Louisiana, on August 21, 1982, and that Re- spondent notified Dooley of this in a letter dated August 30, 1982, which refers to such information being provid- ed Dooley "recently," and also offers a similar arrange- ment at Venice, "if conditions at the new location are 830 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD substantially the same as the conditions which existed at the Hyannis location." The letter further specified "(that is, should your ability to contact our employees be as limited as it was when the employees left the rig in Hyannis)." On September 9, 1982, the Alaskan Star arrived at the Venice location. The same day, the Board dismissed the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment. E. The Union's Visit to Venice Learning from spouses and friends of tugboat crew- members who served on towboats used to move rigs that the Alaskan Star was then located off Venice, some time in early October 1982, Dooley traveled there. During his 2-day stay, on October 11 and 12, Dooley visited the hel- icopter landing site, operated by Petroleum Helicopter, Inc. While standing outside the fenced-in parking lot taking down a license tag number after having taken a picture, Dooley testified he was approached by a person from the direction of a building inside the fence who told him to "get the f- out of there." Explaining during examination that he would leave public property when advised to do so in the "Bayou" country, Dooley left promptly, his stay lasting only 5 to 10 minutes. The re- maining time Dooley spent searching out available meet- ing places with no success, having been told by a local innkeeper it would not be wise around Venice to provide a meeting place for such purpose because it would hurt his business. Respondent, on November 2, 1982, wrote the Regional Director for the Board's Region 1, seeking dismissal of the complaint based on the August 1982 resolution and indicating that the charge had not been withdrawn pur- suant to such settlement, "apparently because Respond- ent was required by its client [under contract] to move its oil rig to a new location in the Gulf of Mexico."5 The Regional Office, through counsel for the General Coun- sel Gerald Wolper, informed Respondent by letter dated November 12, 1982, that such dismissal was inappropri- ate as the proposals in the agreement referred to did not afford any remedy to employees given the Alaskan Star's present location, and the Union (the Charging Party) ob- jected to the proposed agreement as a resolution of the issues in the case for the same reason, citing Roadway Express, 246 NLRB 174 (1979). Prior to the hearing in this case Dooley testified he had some seven contacts with company counsel during which (except for a call on October 11, 1982) he de- scribed the Union's difficulties in contacting Alaskan Star employees. In fact, there is no indication in the record that the Union has succeeded in contacting or identifying any of them from the July 1981 beginning of its organiz- ing efforts and the hearing on December 1982.6 During 5 Respondent's own explanation for Dooley's refusal to implement the agreement confirms the inference drawn as to this motive set forth above. 6 At the hearing Dooley testified he eschewed Respondent counsel's offer to make a joint visit to Venice during a phone call on October 11, 1982, because the agreement fell through and things seemed always to "disperse" in the parties' own efforts to resolve matters. those contacts, I find, the Union was continuing to press its request for access aboard the Alaskan Star, and Re- spondent, by its course of conduct then and at the hear- ing, was continuing to refuse such request, as well as the request for a list of employees ' names and addresses. It is further clear that Respondent was notified on or about November 24 and at the hearing on December 1, 1982, of the General Counsel's intention to amend this com- plaint to add the then-present location of Alaskan Star off Venice to the allegation that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, Respondent was accorded full opportunity and encouragement to seek ad- ditional time to respond to the amendment, if it deemed such was necessary, but declined the opportunity through experienced counsel. The ruling to allow the amendment stands confirmed. It follows from such that Respondent's motion before me to dismiss the complaint, either because the matters involving Hyannis-based events were settled, or because there was no issue properly before me regarding Venice must fail for the reasons noted above, that is, the failure of the settlement to resolve the real, present controversy (and one that will continue unless resolved regarding all future locations) and the propriety behind granting the amendment to the complaint. F. Analysis and Conclusion It is the clear and settled law of the land that the ques- tion whether employee rights under Section 7 of the Act must be secured by permitting a union access to employ- ees on an employer's premises is resolved by determining whether reasonable alternative means exist by which the union can communicate with those employees. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1966). In those in- stances when employees are said to be isolated from normal contacts with the outside world due to location and the requirement they reside on the employer's prem- ises for substantial periods of time, as in the instant case regarding Alaskan Star employees-who are on board 2 weeks in a row-there is said to exist no substitute for union access to the employees while they are on board. Sabine Towing & Transportation Co., 205 NLRB 423 (1973), enf. denied 599 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1979). Respondent contends, however, that the Union could have made home visits to employees and that the fact that only one-half its employees would be home at any one time is irrelevant. Since 90 percent of the employees were flown to Hyannis from their residences for trans- port by helicopter to the Alaskan Star, the Union could not use the license plates of cars parked there to track down such employees' addresses and was barred from the parking lot in Venice from doing so. Moreover, as the Board has held, without a list of names and address- es-which the Respondent refused to furnish the Union-home visits as well as mail and telephone solici- tation would be a futile means for a union to pursue. Hutzler Bros. Co., 241 NLRB 914, 916 (1979). The record further indicates that there is no uniformity in the wear- ing of company insignia by employees either as a result of practice or company requirements as that such insig- nia, which the record shows is, in fact, only sporadically NORTH STAR DRILLING CO. evident, provides no reliable basis to identify and com- municate with employees. The record further indicates clearly that phone calls to the rig employees are "not encouraged," so that the Union was denied this means of communication as well. Nor would use of mass media, on the face of matters, constitute reasonable alternatives since Alaskan Star's lo- cation is sometimes far at sea where costly television transmission or radio transmission cannot be relied on, the location changes between points far distant from one other so that channel selection would be difficult and, as a result, these means are considered of little use and not to constitute a reasonable alternative to direct access. Hutzler Bros. Co., above at 915, citing Solo Cup Co., 172 NLRB 1110 (1968). The thin possibility that ads placed in trade journals would find their way to the Union's tar- geted readership at some undetermined time aboard Alas- kan Star, where papers and such journals are available, would likewise fail to afford a reasonable alternative. There remain for consideration contentions by the Re- spondent that the Union had a reasonable alternative means to contact employees at the helicopter transfer points, and that it did not do enough to contact employ- ees on its own to warrant being accorded access in this case. It takes little analysis to doubt that the transfer points afford an opportunity for the Union to address employ- ees with its message. The location of the transfer points changes as the location of the Alaskan Star changes-al- ready she has been stationed at three locations, Baltimore Canyon, George's Banks, and off Venice, Louisiana. There is uncertainty, insofar as the Union is concerned, whether the same employee transfer point will serve the Alaskan Star from place to place and for what period of time, or whether a new point will have to be assimilated into its communications and direct contacting efforts. By its nature, the transfer point, as organizer Healey noted, seemed to be the scene of people in a hurry to go some place-understandable given the fact that half the em- ployees there were heading home (immediately, it should be noted at the Venice point since they did not have to await Respondent's plane) after 2 weeks at sea. Healey found no success in identifying Alaskan Star employees at the transfer point in Hyannis, though in retrospect the Respondent contends he could have simply read the pas- senger manifest at a check-in counter, and for his part, Dooley was barred from the Venice point altogether. It is clear as well that the number and identity of the crews being helicoptered to the transfer points varies-and that Respondent's transfer of employees-the system, varies depending on whether it is flying them from the transfer point (Hyannis)' to their homes, in which case employ- ees must wait to board the plane and are thus "avail- able," or whether employees are free to leave immediate- ly (Venice), and are really only available on a catch-as- catch-can basis-if identified. Further, the number of flights differs with the size of the helicopter; thus there are different numbers of employees arriving at different times depending on the point's location distance from the ° There is no indication the Union learned the whereabouts of the plane used to fly employees to and from Hyannis. 831 Alaskan Star. I find all these variables and obstacles in the way of communication with employees to provide too tenuous a basis on which employee statutory rights should be made to depend. Belcher Towing Co., 238 NLRB 446 (1978), and 256 NLRB 666 (1981); Sabine Towing & Transportation Co., above at 425. As has been noted before, a reasonable alternative requires something more conducive to communication than the hectic at- mosphere arising from the busy comings and goings in these transfer points, where supervisors, officials, and dif- ferent companies' rig crews commingle and where, as matters stand, it is dubious that employees may exercise their Section 7 rights in a "relaxed atmosphere ." Alaska Barite Co., 197 NLRB 1023 , 1028-1029 (1972). Finally, although Respondent went to considerable lengths to belittle the Union's efforts to contact employ- ees (since such efforts may justifiably have merited such observations, from Respondent's vantage at least) and contended that the failure to take certain specific steps, such as (a) following unidentified persons to restaurants near the transfer points, (b) visiting Hyannis on days when the Union knew shift changes occurred while Northern Star was temporarily off Hyannis, and (c) gath- ering clues from clipboards and public address announce- ments of the arrivals of helicopters from the Alaskan Star to the heliport transfer points, militates against a finding in the Union's favor such argument is based on the incor- rect premise that, in effect, a union must show it has ex- plored and exhausted nearly every possible alternative means for contacting employees before direct access can be permitted. Such a view has been uniformly rejected as it misfocuses the inquiry into union efforts overly nar- rowing the scope of the true and correct question wheth- er Section 7 rights of employees can be addressed rea- sonably by means other than the preferred face-to-face contact given the objective circumstances in which em- ployees find themselves, as revealed by the entire record, not just a Monday morning quarterbacking -type review of the Union's performance alone Belcher Towing Co., 256 NLRB 666, 666-667 (1981); Alaska Barite Co., above at 917. Here, the Union's continuing efforts to locate and contact employees, either directly, or indirectly through supply boat crews, relatives, and friends of towboat crews that move the rigs, numerous visits to Hyannis, Davisville, Rhode Island, and Venice, Louisiana, con- tacts in towns where employees might be expected to visit, and through requests to Respondent for employee names and addresses during the entire course of the cam- paign in 1981 and 1982 demonstrate substantial efforts to contact and communicate with other means alleged as reasonable but found inadequate, make it plain that the Union's efforts, to secure on-premises access even under Respondent's limited view of the governing legal princi- ples, arise not merely from a desire for mere conven- ience, but from necessity. 0. Respondent's No-Visitors Policy The Alaskan Star is registered under the United States flag to the highest classification for floating drilling ves- sels under requirements of the Coast Guard , American Bureau of Shipping , U.S. Public Health Service, and 832 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Federal Communications Commission. There have been visits by the latter Agency's personnel from the Bureau of Department of Minerals Management quite frequently, and nonemployees of independent contractors are regu- larly onboard, as were officials of Tenneco Corporation while the Exxon contract was assigned to Tenneco. Supple boats visit the rig to drop off materials and goods, and nonoperating personnel , such as the personnel directory, sometimes visit the Alaskan Star. In addition, as noted above, a television three-man crew visited aboard Alaskan Star to interview and film employees during the rig's operation 120 miles off Hyannis, at the direction of Tenneco officials. In addition, inspections onboard are conducted by agents from the American Bureau of Shipping. ' Moreover, during his testimony, Theodore Falcon, area manager for one of Respondent's partners, stated that human resources personnel have been out to the Alaskan Star and talked about unions four or five times within a year. He testified the content in the discussions basically had to do with, "we [had] some communica- tions and that the union people may be talking to them" and that "they were just making them aware of the fact that unions were maybe going to be approaching them." Falcon continued that, "they, you know, just were making these fellows aware of that, you know, just- also, you know, [that] we have been to this point a non- union company." (Emphasis added.) It is readily apparent that the Respondent's nonvisitors policy has generally yielded to accommodate the dictates of various surrounding circumstances that may be accu- rately traced to mitigating factors in each instance yet in their totality reflect "where there is a will there is a way." It follows, as well, that specific concerns for safety, injury-related liability, and confidentiality alleged- ly underpinning such policy have likewise been modified to tolerate a substantial degree of visitation, so that there is no reason to suppose visits by union organizers, under carefully drawn procedures, could not likewise be toler- ated aboard the Alaskan Star notwithstanding the no-visi- tor rule. The Union has already stated on the record that its own insurance covers its representatives from injuries onboard seagoing vessels and is willing to sign waivers holding Respondent free from liability; that it has no in- terest in trade secrets aboard ship, and that it would be willing to have its representatives stay out of the crew's sleeping quarters. Respondent's burden is further less- ened, somewhat, because access for the Union need not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to serve the pur- pose at hand. Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 544-545 (1972); NLRB v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 167 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1948). Nor can there fairly be said to be propriety or a securing of employee Section 7 rights in allowing such a no-visitors rule to bar union access to employees on the Alaskan Star where, it has been demonstrated, nonoperating personnel of Respond- ent are often flown to address employees in training ses- sions on the subject of unions, including the facts that the union may be approaching employees and that the company has been nonunion. This observation does not impinge on an employer's rights to address his own em- ployees on the subject of unionism; it has, instead, a bear- ing only on whether, when an employer chooses to do so in an isolated worksite, it can then refuse to allow em- ployees to be addressed with other views on the exercise of their Section 7 rights at the same worksite on the basis of a no-visitor rule administered in the fashion and the circumstances this one has been administered in. For this additional reason, although the earlier cited reasons suf- fice, I find the rule is no basis to bar access to employees on the rig. See generally American Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. NLRB, 600 F.2d 132 (8th Cir. 1979), and cases cited above. Based on the foregoing , including a necessary balanc- ing of the competing interests at stake , I find that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by refusing the Union access to its employees on the Alaskan Star. Interlake Steamship Co., 174 NLRB 308 (1969); Ingram Barge Co., 204 NLRB 63 (1973); New Pines, Inc., 191 NLRB 944 (1971); Monogram Models, 192 NLRB 705 (1971); Scott Hudgens, 130 NLRB 414 (1977), and cases cited above. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section I, above, occurring concerning its operations described, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent, by refusing to allow union organizers aboard the Alaskan Star to engage in organizing activity among its crewmembers, engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Although the violation of law is premised on Respond- ent's refusal to allow union organizers on board the Alas- kan Star to talk to employees, there is no reason why a full remedy cannot be afforded employees by recom- mending Respondent be ordered to allow the Union rea- sonable access on board the Alaskan Star or, in the alter- native, that Respondent provide suitable off premises access to employees along the same or improved lines of the parties' earlier agreement, reached while Alaskan Star was located off Hyannis, Massachusetts. This is so because although it is true that, for example, the transfer points were, as matters stood , predecision, not reasonable alternative means of access, there is reason to believe that with this decision in hand, the parties, with Re- spondent's cooperation in particular , could fashion suita- NORTH STAR DRILLING CO. ble arrangements to ensure that the transfer points or their equivalent become reasonable alternative sites for access. This could be accomplished if the access were shaped to reasonably duplicate what the circumstances surrounding access would be were such to be accorded on board the Alaskan Star, that is, Alaskan Star employ- ees identified beforehand as such could be contacted face to face, on employer-owned or leased property, or when the Union had an acknowledged right to be present in better than a trespassers status, for regular periods of time when employees were scheduled to be present (as they are when on the vessel) in a relaxed atmosphere for reasonable lengths of time over a reasonable period of time. Given the changes in the Alaskan Star's position, and the dynamics aboard her, including weather -caused problems, serious dangers, the expense and incursion into operations necessitated by an order directing access be provided only on the rig, I see no reason, in this unique set of circumstances, to saddle the parties with so limited an order and believe the alternative as constructed pursu- ant to this decision and recommended Order will effectuate the policies of the Act. The remedial order, of course, will accord Alaskan Star employees such access by union organizers wherever the vessel is located to avoid multi- ple litigation, insofar as possible and desirable, should the Alaskan Star have been moved since the hearing, or is moved following the decision. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed$ ORDER The Respondent, North Star Drilling Company, Ltd., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Continuing or giving effect to its policy barring nonemployee organizers from access to employees on its s If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- Poses. 833 vessel the Alaskan Star for the purpose of soliciting them during their free time on behalf of the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, or for consulting, advising, meeting, or assisting the employees regarding their rights to self-organization, provided, however, that nothing shall be construed to prohibit the Respondent from making and enforcing rea- sonable regulations concerning visits to its vessel by such nonemployee union organizers, or from providing suita- ble of premises access to organizers, as described in the remedy section of this decision as full compliance with the recommended Order. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its premises in Houston, Texas, and at em- ployee transfer points and on board its Alaskan Star, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. ' If 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 Nation- al 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."