Trident Seafoods Corp.

1016 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Trident Seafoods Corporation and Region 37, Inland Boatmen's Union, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Case 19-CA- 19205 May 12, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On December 30, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Arline Pacht issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting argument, and the Charging Party filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in response to the Respondent's exceptions The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel 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 as modified,' and conclusions and to adopt the rec- ommended Order as modified 2 The judge found the Respondent, by denying the Unions' agents access to its cannery premises in South Naknek, Alaska, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act We adopt the judge's decision, but we modify the judge's findings in accord with Jean Country, supra, which clarifies the framework to analyze whether a union has the right under Sec tion 7 of the Act to engage in protected activity on private property The Respondent bought a salmon cannery in South Naknek, Alaska, in March 1987 3 South Naknek is a small village that is accessible from the mainland town of Naknek by air or boat The salmon canning season essentially occurs during the last 2 weeks of June and all of July Employees i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings The judge discusses in detail why mass media communication was not a reasonable alternative Jean Country 291 NLRB 11 ( 1988) states that mass media communication will be a feasible alternative only in excep tional cases This case does not present that exception 2 The General Counsel and the Charging Party have excepted to the judge s failure to order that posting of the notice to employees corn mence at the beginning of the processing season rather than on receipt of the notice from the Regional Director Because posting would be mean ingless at a time when no affected employees are at the facility we grant this exception and shall order the posting to commence at the beginning of the processing season We also shall modify the notice to conform with the recommended Order 3 All subsequent dates are in 1987 work about 8 hours per day for the first 2 weeks of the season and about 12-16 hours per day for the last 4 weeks Employees live and eat on the compa- ny premises, although they can go into "town" when they are not working Employees have no phone in their living quarters Mail is picked up by the Respondent and sorted and distributed to the employees at a central mail box According to credited testimony, mail delivery is sporadic The Respondent's property is not fenced, but a sign at the main entrance prohibits unauthorized vehicles and trespassers and requires visitors to register In fact, according to the judge, "this policy was followed in the breach rather than the observance"-visitors such as villagers, employees of other canneries, as well as the approximately 900 fishermen from the 300 independent contractor ves sels delivering salmon to the Respondent entered the property routinely without registering The Unions represented the resident cannery workers and culinary workers of the Respondent's predecessors 4 The Unions' agents, knowing that employees were unavailable in July and there was no place for them to stay overnight on South Naknek, wrote to the Respondent in early June stating that the Union would like to meet with em- ployees on company property, as they had done in the past When the agents arrived on June 25, the Respondent's superintendent told them his superi- ors had instructed him not to allow them on the property The Unions wrote on July 1 requesting permission to meet employees at the facility, and the Respondent denied the request on July 9 The judge analyzed not only the employees' Sec- tion 7 right and the Respondent's property right, but the existence of effective, reasonable alternative means of communication We agree with the judge that the employees' Section 7 right is organization- al in nature and compelling, and that the Respond- ent's property interest in the nonprocessing areas of the facility is weak because of the general availabil- ity of these areas to the public We also agree with the judge, for the reasons set forth below, that the Unions had no reasonable alternative means of communication Given the lack of reasonable alter- native means of communication, and considering the impairment that denying access has on the em- ployees' compelling Section 7 right, as compared with the minimal infringement granting access im- poses on the Respondent's relatively weak property right, we find that the employees' Section 7 right requires the yielding of the Respondent's property right in this case Accordingly, we adopt the judge's finding of an 8(a)(1) violation * The Respondents successor status is being litigated in another forum 293 NLRB No 125 TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP 1017 In discussing alternative means of communica- tion, the judge credits testimony that mail delivery at the Respondent's South Naknek facility is errat- ic Based on this finding, we conclude that the Unions were not required to investigate the possi- bility of alternative sites in South Naknek because the Unions could not be certain that employees would receive timely notice of a meeting even if reasonable alternative sites were available 5 Ac cordingly, assuming the Unions could have ar ranged for a meeting place in South Naknek at one of the locations the Respondent suggested at the hearing, we find that such a meeting was not a rea- sonable alternative For the following reasons, we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge's statement that it was futile for the Unions to request an employee list from the Respondent First, as noted above, the erratic nature of mail delivery at the South Naknek facili- ty made it ineffective for the Unions to mail no- tices of a meeting to employees at the Respondent's facility Second, contacting employees before their arrival at South Naknek was not a reasonable alter- native means of communication because the em ployees are widely dispersed This case is distinguishable from SCNO Barge Lines, 287 NLRB 169 (1987), affd sub nom Mari- time Union v NLRB, 867 F 2d 767 (1989) In that case, decided under Fairmont Hotel,6 the Board denied access because the union, which had an em ployee list, presumably could have contacted the employees 7 SCNO involved a year-round work force of presumably long-term employees, whereas the employees in this case were seasonal and there was a high rate of turnover Further, the Unions herein first learned on June 25 that they were denied access to the facility Given the relative un- availability of workers once the peak canning season began, by June 25 there was insufficient time to arrange for off-premises employee contact Moreover, there is no evidence of prior union suc- cess in contacting employees at home that would indicate that such contact was a reasonable alterna- tive means See G W Gladders Towing Co, 287 NLRB 186 (1987) Finally, we note that granting access in SCNO would have involved allowing the union into an area used exclusively for business purposes and risking interference with productivi ty In this case, as noted above, granting access in- volves only allowing the Unions into nonproduc- tion areas frequently used by employees and non employees alike Accordingly, the Respondent's re- liance on SCNO is misplaced ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re spondent, Trident Seafoods Corporation, South Naknek, Alaska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified I Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) "(b) Post at its facility at South Naknek, Alaska, and such other places where notices to employees and employee applicants are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "19 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 19, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent at the beginning of the peak processing season and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and job appli cants are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material " 2 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c) "(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply " 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge APPENDIX s Thus we find it unnecessary to rely on the Unions actual efforts to locate alternative sites which were made only in preparation for trial For similar reasons we also find it unnecessary to rely on the judge s presumption that the South Naknek gym did not come outfitted with chairs 8 282 NLRB 139 (1986) 7 Member Johansen adheres to his dissent in SCNO and agrees with the U S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that an employers fur nishmg a union with a list of names and addresses for telephone solicits tion mailings and invitations to meetings under circumstances like these that do not allow a fair opportunity for face to face contact with employ ees is not a reasonable alternative to granting union organizers access to the workplace Maritime Union v NLRB 867 F 2d 767 (2d Cir 1989) Member Cracraft did not participate in SCNO and finds it unnecessary to pass on the merits of that case inasmuch as this case is factually distin guishable from SCNO 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 policies or rules pursuant to which IBU and AFU repre- sentatives have been denied access to our resident workers in nonprocessing areas of the company 1018 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD premises, for the purpose of soliciting these em- ployees during their nonworking time, or for the purpose of consulting, conferring, advising, assist mg, or otherwise communicating with them in non processing areas during their nonworking hours in regard to their statutorily guaranteed right of self- organization, provided, however, that nothing con tained herein shall be construed to prohibit us from making and enforcing reasonable regulations with respect to visits by such nonemployee union repre- sentatives WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL, if requested by the IBU and/or AFU, grant the Unions' representatives access rights to the Company's nonproduction facilities for the pur- pose of distributing union literature, soliciting union membership, holding union meetings, or for the purpose of consulting, conferring, advising, as- sisting, or otherwise communicating with employ- ees on our property in South Naknek, Alaska, during nonworking hours, subject only to reasona- ble regulations concerning such visits FINDINGS OF FACT I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Respondent, a Washington corporation with an office and place of business in South Naknek, Alaska, is en gaged in processing salmon During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondents business operations resulted in gross sales of goods and services valued in excess of $500,000 During the same time period, Re spondent sold and shipped goods or provided services from its facilities in Alaska to customers outside the State or to customers within the State who were directly en gaged in interstate commerce, for a total value exceeding $50,000 Additionally, during the past 12 months, Re spondent purchased and received at its Alaskan facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the State or from suppliers within the State who ob tained the goods and materials directly from sources out side the State Accordingly, the complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that Trident Seafoods Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The IBU and the Alaska Fishermen's Union (AFU) are and have been at all times material, labor organiza tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION Catherine Roth Esq, for the General Counsel William Grimm Esq (Davis Grimm and Payne), of Seat tle, Washington, for the Respondent Robert Gibbs Esq (Gibbs Douglas Theiler and Dracher), of Seattle, Washington, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARLINE PACHT, Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to a charge filed on 16 June 1987 1 by Region 37 Inland Boatmen s Union International Longshoremen s and Warehousemen's Union (the IBU), a complaint issued on 29 July alleging in substance that Trident Seafoods Cor poration (the Respondent)2 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (the Act) by refusing to permit union agents to meet with its rest dent employees on company property for organizational purposes The Respondent filed a timely answer admit ting that it had refused access to the union agents but de vying that it had violated the Act The hearing was held before me on October 15 and 16 in Seattle, Washington On the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and on consideration of the briefs filed on behalf of the General Counsel, the Respondent and the Charging Party I make the following r The parties stipulated that the corporation s name was changed from Trident Two to Trident Seafoods 2 Unless otherwise indicated all events took place in 1987 III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Setting In March 1987, Trident Seafoods purchased a salmon cannery from the Sea Alaska Corporation The facility is located in South Naknek, Alaska, a relatively isolated and remote fishing village located on the Naknek River, which flows into Bristol Bay The village, which consists of a cluster of approximately 30 houses, a bar, school, community hall general store, and church is separated from the town of Naknek by the river and, thus, is acces sible only by sea or air Given the remoteness of the fa cility, Respondent transported all employees to and from South Naknek by chartered plane at the beginning and end of the short salmon season which lasts from mid June to late July Respondents labor force was drawn principally from the northwest States of Washington, Oregon, and Cali fornia Other employees came from locations throughout the State of Alaska a few came from as far as Illinois Florida, and Hawaii The employees were generally youthful, many were working their way through college During the 1987 season the total work force numbered 150 employees including supervisors Respondents plant superintendent, Gary Johnson, who held the same post tion under the predecessor estimated that 60 percent of the 1987 work force were new employees However, Thomas Wilson, a cannery employee for the past 3 years believed that the percentage actually ranged from 60 to 80 percent Throughout the salmon season, the employees lived in what was in fact a self contained community On their TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP arrival at the facility, employees were assigned to rooms in the Company's six bunkhouses which accommodated all the work force, including supervisors and 50 to 60 fishermen They took all their meals in the company caf etena The compound also contained a recreation room with a single television set which received broadcasts from an Anchorage station 3 Employees had no tele phones in their rooms Instead, two public pay phones were available, one was located on the Company's dock and another at the mailroom Under special circum stances, Superintendent Johnson also permitted employ ees to use the third telephone in his office The regulan ty of mail delivery was disputed According to Tom Wilson, mail was received sporadically Johnson main tained, however, that an office worker collected mail from a post office on a daily basis She then sorted and distributed it into open alphabetized slots so that employ ees with the same last initial found their mail grouped to gether Although the mail may have been collected as regularly as Johnson claimed, I am inclined to credit Tom Wilson's statement that it was not received with consistent promptness, because a memo prepared by Re spondent forewarned job applicants that "mail delivery is very erratic "4 For the first 2 weeks following their arrival at the can nery, employees worked from 8 am to 5 p m, perform ing general cleanup tasks in preparation for the influx of salmon During these early weeks, employees were free to leave the compound after their shift was over This moderate pace changed radically when the salmon run began in earnest in early July For the balance of the month, employees worked a 12 to 16 hour day, 7 days a week, with little spare time or energy for extracurricular activities The main and possibly only paved road in South Naknek led through an open gate into the compound and past a building on which posted signs stated "No unau thorized vehicles on the cannery property, all visitors must check into the office, private property, no trespass ing, no three wheelers beyond this point " (See Tr, vol I, 137-138) Johnson explained that these signs actually were intended to prevent vehicles from entering the compound and interfering with the movement of forklifts or garbage trucks Johnson further testified that in accordance with these signs and with company policy visitors were supposed to sign in at the cannery office and were permitted to remain only if they had a legitimate business purpose In fact, the evidence shows that this policy was followed in the breach rather than the observance No fence bor dered the cannery's perimeter, and no guards secured the premises Moreover, Johnson conceded he did not patrol the compound and could not identify all those who en 8 Johnson indicated that programs from three television networks were received Tom Wilson testified that there was only one television station However after careful examination I find no contradiction in their testi mony I infer that Johnson meant that the Anchorage station served as a conduit transmitting broadcasts from a few networks in the lower 48 States 4 Respondents office manager Rosemary Wilson testified that parts of this memo did not pertain to the South Naknek cannery but she did not indicate that the comment about mail delivery was inapplicable 1019 tered Consequently, pedestrians could and did roam the facility with apparent freedom By far the largest group of visitors to the cannery were crewmembers from 300 fishing vessels under inde pendent contract with Respondent Periodically during the salmon season, these boats, each with a skipper and a two to three man crew, moored at Respondent's dock to replenish supplies During these visits, the 900 or more fishermen were at liberty to use the Company s facile ties-that is, the showers, recreation room, laundry, com pany store and cafeteria 5 They also could visit resident cannery workers in the bunkhouses In addition, villagers and workers from another cannery and a fishing supply depot several miles away had access to the various non processing areas of the cannery Thus, literally hundreds of nonemployees entered Respondent's property without restraint Indeed, the only evidence that Respondent ejected unwanted visitors came from Johnson's testimony that he had a local police officer escort one or two me briated fishermen back to their boats at the end of the season In addition to its official no trespassing policy, Re spondent also published in its employee handbook a no solicitation rule which forbid any solicitation or distribu tion by nonemployees on company property and by em ployees during working times in working areas These rules were posted at several locations in the facility 6 B The Union's Agents Are Denied Access to Respondent's Property For approximately 40 years prior to Respondent s takeover, the IBU and AFU represented bargaining units at the cannery, most recently, the resident cannery work ers and the culinary workers 7 For the past year or two, Mark Coles, secretary treasurer of the AFU, and David Della, IBU patrolman/business agent, traveled together to South Naknek to meet with employees covered by collective bargaining agreements with Respondent's predecessor 8 Both representatives had a number of other facilities to visit in various regions of Alaska They also were aware that the South Naknek cannery workers were unavailable during the peak season in July As there was no hotel in South Naknek, the union agents 5 Respondent issued a pass similar to a charge card to the skipper of each vessel which could be used to charge purchases at the company store Because only one such card was assigned per boat they could not possibly have served as a means of identifying the hundreds of crewmem bers who used Respondents facilities e The no solicitation rule stated in pertinent part Nonemployees are not allowed at any time to come upon our prem ises for the purpose of solicitation or literature distribution This policy is to restrain third parties or strangers from soliciting or hand mg out materials for political union charitable or similar activities This rule followed immediately after another provision in the hand book titled Employee Communications which stated inter aha We believe very strongly that the inflexible and impersonal structure that labor unions bung with them has no place in our business The rule then advised employees that no one can legally force you to sign a union authorization card See R Exh 5 7 In the past the Unions also represented the company owned tender boat crewmen a The AFU had represented approximately 50 cannery workers hired in Alaska while the IBU had represented 80 to 100 workers hired outside the State 1020 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD could not remain overnight Thus their mission had to be accomplished in a single day Given these constraints, Della and Coles met only once with the employees during the last 2 weeks of June When they arnved the union representatives adver tised the forthcoming meeting by word of mouth and also posted notices announcing the time and place of the meeting These annual meetings were held after produc tion hours either in the cafeteria or the recreation room, neither of which is in the immediate vicinity of the proc essing building Johnson did not object to the agents ac tivity and acknowledged that their visits had posed no problem After the AFU was notified of the change in owner ship in the spring of 1987, Coles wrote to the 1986 unit members using their last known home addresses and ad vised them of the acquisition In early June, the AFU sent a questionnaire to these some members asking them to advise the union of their employment plans Thirteen members responded Ten members stated that they would not be returning two of the three who said they would return did not, and a third who did return was as signed to another of Respondents installations In early June the Union wrote to advise the Respond ent that Coles and Della would again visit the facility The two union representatives arrived at South Naknek on June 25 Because Respondent had denied that it was a successor and had refused the Unions request to bargain, the agents purpose on this occasion was to reorganize the employees 8 In 1987, as in the previous year, Della and Coles first flew from Seattle to King Salmon Alaska, and then rented a car to drive to Naknek There, they arranged to fly to South Naknek on Penninsula Airways, an air taxi service at a one way cost of $30 each The entire trip takes approximately 4 1/2 hours On their arrival at the cannery, they met with Johnson and requested permission to meet with the employees on Respondent's premises Johnson told them that he had been instructed by his superiors not to allow them onto the property He then telephoned Penninsula Airways for Della and Coles and drove them to the plane imme diately thereafter By letter dated July 1, counsel for the IBU and AFU again wrote to Respondent requesting permission to meet with employees at the cannery for or ganizing purposes Respondent denied the Unions re quest by letter of July 9 C Respondent Proposes Alternative Channels Respondent contends that the Unions could have lo cated other facilities in South Naknek to hold a meeting with the employees, specifically a bar and cafe called the Gin Mill the community hall, or the school gymnasium The testimony about the availability and utility of these sites was in dispute Johnson stated that during a chance encounter with a Greg Chilcott owner of the Gin Mill and a member of the village council he learned that the bar could be rented when business was slack The Gin Mill not only catered to the Respondent's employees but 9 Respondents status as a successor under the Act is not at issue in this proceeding but is being litigated in another forum to villagers fishermen and workers from another compa ny near South Naknek This popular is somewhat noton ous drinking place had patrons at all hours of the day and night, from the time of opening at 11 a m to its clos ing at 2 or sometimes 5 a m During the first 2 weeks of the salmon season, up to 90 to 95 percent of Respond ent s employees visited the place, though not all at the same time Tom Wilson, who left Respondents employ and worked as a bartender at the Gin Mill for the last 4 weeks of the 1987 season, estimated that 5 to 15 percent of Respondents employees might turn up there at any one time, except on Sunday when, according to Rose mary Wilson, it was less busy Testimony concerning the availability of the school gymnasium and village community hall also was in con flict Johnson testified that he thought the gym was available because he had played basketball there with some employees on a few occasions during the 1987 season Office Manager Wilson added that application to the Bristol Bay school district or the park and recreation Department in Naknek was necessary to obtain use of the gym However, Tom Wilson reported that village children had assured him the gym was closed during the 1987 season With respect to the community hall, Rosemary Wilson testified that she learned from a former employee of the South Naknek village council that the room was avail able on application to the council by a responsible person AFU Representative Coles indicated that his efforts to find alternative sites in South Naknek had proved fruit less Thus, he related that prior to the trial in this case, he had telephoned the Naknek burrough manager who advised him that the South Naknek village council was inactive and, therefore, it was difficult to contact any of its members He suggested that Coles might try to tele phone village council member Greg Chilcott about the availability of the village community hall which he de scribed as having a seating capacity of no more than 30 to 40 Coles then attempted to call Chilcott but failed to reach him IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING FINDINGS A Introduction Applicable Principles In deciding whether Section 7 activity may take place on an employer's property the parties competing inter ests must be carefully evaluated for [t]he basic objective of the Act [is] the accommodation of § 7 rights and pn vate property rights with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other' The locus of that accommodation however, may fall at differing points along the spectrum depending on the nature and strength of the respective § 7 rights and private property rights asserted in any given context' Hudgens v NLRB, 424 U S 507 522 (1976) quoting NLRB v Babcock & W i l c o x C o, 351 U S 105, 112 (1956) Pursuant to these decisions the Board recently articulated guidelines to be used in resolving conflicts between property rights and employee rights under the Act In Fairmont Hotel 282 NLRB 139, 142 (1986), the Board stated that the first TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP step is to weigh the relative strength of each party s claim in the following manner If the property owners claim is a strong one while the Section 7 right at issue is clearly a less compel ling one, the property right will prevail If the property claim is a tenuous one and the Section 7 right is clearly more compelling then the Section 7 right will prevail Only in those cases where the re spective claims are relatively equal in strength will effective alternative means of communication become determinative The Board proposed that the following factors should be considered in assessing the strength or weakness of the property right the use to which the property in question is put, any restrictions placed on public access to the property or to the facility located on the property, and the size and location of the private facility The fac tors to be considered in evaluating the Section 7 right in clude the nature of the right asserted, the purpose for which it is being asserted, the employer that is the target of the activity, the situs of the activity and the relation ship of the situs to the target, the intended audience of the activity, and possibly the manner in which the right is being asserted Ibid B Application of Fairmont to the Facts of this Case 1 The Union s claim is clearly compelling On applying the principles of Fairmont Hotel to the facts of this case, I find for the reasons stated below that the Section 7 organizational right at stake here is clearly more compelling' than Respondents property claim Respondent contends that it has demonstrated a strong private property right In support of its contention, Re spondent relies on its posted signs its purported practice of excluding unwanted visitors and its alleged uniform enforcement of a no solicitation rule However the total ity of the evidence fails to support Respondents exagger ated claim To the contrary, the record in this case estab lashes beyond doubt that Respondents practices contra dicted its official exclusionary policies Villagers, workers fishermen from other facilities and the literally hundreds of fishermen whose boats moored at Respondents dock roamed freely in the compound throughout the salmon season They socialized with rest dent cannery workers in their bunkrooms and had unre stncted access to other nonproduction areas io Respondents claim that a police officer was called on periodically to expel unwanted visitors vastly overstates the matter At best the evidence shows that late in the season a police officer was called on to escort one or two intoxicated fishermen off the premises, more for the sake of the besotted individuals than as a protective secu my measure Thus Respondents assertion that it uni formly consistently and unequivocally excluded unwanted visitors has no factual foundation 10 Meal tickets had to be purchased at the cafeteria but Respondent did not suggest that tickets were limited to employees 1021 The record also contradicts Respondents assertion that it posted signs to prohibit trespassers as a bona fide safety measure for Superintendent Johnson admitted that these signs were aimed at vehicular not pedestrian traffic Given the substantial number of outsiders who entered the compound without restraint Respondents alleged safety concerns could not have been grave, or have any bearing on the exclusion of the two union agents Respondents claim that it applied its no solicitation rule in a uniform manner was equally unpersuasive The record shows that the rule was invoked only once-to deny access to Coles and Della A single experience is not a statistically significant datum on which to base a claim of uniform enforcement Respondents cannery may not be as public as a store in a large shopping center or an arcade which bisects an office complex (See, e g , Emery Realty Corp, 286 NLRB 372 (1987)) Nevertheless, a fair reading of the record leads to the conclusion that the nonprocessing areas of Respondents cannery were available to the public such as it was in remote South Naknek, Alaska In sum, I find that Respondent has failed to prove that its policy against nonemployee visitation was stringently enforced or bore any relationship to legitimate safety concerns Consequently I conclude that Respondents as serted private property claim is relatively weak in the circumstances of this case In contrast, the Section 7 right assured to the Union on behalf of employees was clearly compelling As the Board recently stated in Emery Realty, supra the Sec tion 7 right of employees to organize which the Union here seeks to assert through its organizational solicita tions lies at the very core of the interests the National Labor Relations Act seeks to protect 11 Indeed, the right to self organization to form, join or assist labor or ganizations is so fundamental a guarantee that without it, other guarantees would have little meaning The Supreme Court has long recognized that organi zation rights are not viable in a vacuum their effective ness depends in some measure on the ability of employ ees to learn the advantages and disadvantages of organi zation from others Central Hardware Co v NLRB 407 U S 539, 543 (1972) In this regard the role of profes sional organizers can be critical in assuring the full meas ure of organizational rights guaranteed to employees for their special training and experience enable them to inform the employees as to the benefits of union organs zation Accordingly Section 7 guarantees both the right of union officials to discuss organization with employees and the right of union officials to discuss organization among themselves Id at 542 Accord, Emery Realty supra The assistance of experienced organizers was espe cially necessary here where Respondents work force was youthful and unseasoned Moreover the record establishes that the extent and duration of organizational activity was necessarily limit ed by conditions beyond the Unions control As a prat tical matter, the IBU and AFU representatives had only 11 Quoting Sears Roebuck & Co Y San Diego County District Council of Carpenters 436 US 180 206 fn 42 (1978) 1022 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 day available for campaigning during the brief 2 week period before the peak salmon season Further, Coles and Della had conducted meetings in the past in nonwork areas of the cannery without creating any problems Given these circumstances, Respondent cannot seriously maintain that granting access to the Unions agents would disrupt its operations or interfere significantly with its private property interests Other considerations outlined in Fairmont strengthen the compelling nature of the Unions claim The immedi ate beneficiaries of the Section 7 activity were the Tri dent employees, the situs of the activity served as both residence and workplace for the work force, the primary and sole target of the activity was the Respondent Thus the relationship between audience, situs, and target could not be more direct In sum, all the factors which should be weighed to assess the strength or weakness of the respective claims lead to the conclusion that there is no more compelling Section 7 interest than the one asserted by the Unions in this case Because the rights asserted by the parties in in terest were not equal it is unnecessary under Fairmont to consider whether the Unions had alternative means of communicating with the employees Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by prohibiting IBU and AFU representatives from meet ing with employees in nonproduction areas on its prem ises for organizational purposes See Emery Realty, supra 2 The Unions did not have reasonable alternative means of communication Even assuming that the parties claims were in equi poise as the Respondent contends, I would find that the Unions did not have reasonable, alternative means to communicate their message to Respondents employees The General Counsel and Charging Party submit that in determining whether the Unions had effective options to reach the employees, the Respondents remote and isolat ed location must be taken into account The Respondent denies that the cannery was inaccessible and that in any event alternative meeting sites and other forms of com munication were available An analysis of whether the Unions had reasonable and effective alternative channels of communication starts with the seminal case of NLRB v Babcock & Wilcox Co 351 US 105, 111-112 (1965), in which the Supreme Court drew a distinction between those cases in which employees live near the employers plants in well set tled communities and other cases in which the employ ees [are] insulated from normal contacts , citing, as an example NLRB v Lake Superior Lumber Corp, 167 F 2d 147, 151 (6th Cir 1949) In the former, more convention al context, the Court observed that employees could be reached by [t]he usual methods of imparting informa tion namely, by personal contacts on streets or at home, by telephone calls, letters, or advertised meetings In the latter situation, however, the location of [the] plant and living quarters of the employees places the em ployees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them through the usual chap nels 351 U S at 112-113 The Supreme Court ruled that in such circumstances, the union is entitled to access to the employer s premises to discuss unionism with the employees 12 In a more recent decision Husky Oil NPR Oper ations v NLRB 669 F 2d 643 (10th Cir 1982), the court enforced the Boards Order (245 NLRB 1979) allowing union access to a remote and isolated petroleum explora tion worksite The Husky Oil camp, more than 600 miles distant from Anchorage, could be reached only by plane Most employees worked 4 consecutive weeks and then left for 2 week home visits The court rejected the em ployer's argument that the union could have met em ployees at the Anchorage airport or at their homes, agreeing with the Board that these proposed alternatives were difficult and ineffective Id at 647 In reaching this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit ob served that other lower courts have placed considerable importance on face to face contact between union organizers and employees, especially when other forms of communication are ineffective or inexpensive NLRB v Tamiment Inc 451 F 2d 794 798 (3d Cir 1971) (no substitute for face to face contact), cert denied 409 U S 1012 (1972), NLRB v S & H Grossingers Inc, 372 F 2d 26, 29 (2d Cir 1967) (radio and newspaper ad vertising expensive and relatively ineffectual ), cf NLRB v United Aircraft Corp, 324 F 2d 128 130 (2d Cir 1963) ( predictable alternatives to person al contact bear without exception the flaws of greater expense and effort, and a lower degree of effectiveness ) Id at 646 Similarly, in an earlier case Alaska Barite Co, 197 NLRB 1023 (1972) enfd mem 83 LRRM 2992 (9th Cir 1973) cert denied 414 U S 1025 (1973), employees worked a 5 day week at a mining camp on a remote island off the Alaskan coast One half of the work force returned to their homes in Petersburg on weekends and other employees spent occasional weekends there as well Id at 1024 Despite the fact that many of the em ployees were at the same nonworkplace location on weekends the Board with court approval, held that union access to the employees property was warranted because other adequate channels of communication with employees were not demonstrably available Id at 1027 The Board also concluded that the union was not required to engage in a costly and fruitless gesture to demonstrate that they had unsuccessfully exhausted other avenues of communication See also Husky Oil v NLRB supra at 645 NLRB v S & H Grossinger s 372 F 2d 26 29-30 (2d Cir 1967) (employer which operated a moun tarn resort where 60 percent of employees resided on hotel property and only left premises for brief periods violated Section 8(a)(1) by excluding nonemployee union organizers) In the instant case, Respondent's employees were even more removed from their year round residences than were the employees in Husky Oil and Alaska Barite 12 The Babcock & Wilcox decision was reaffirmed in Central Hardware Co supra at 543-545 and Sears Roebuck & Co Y San Diego County Council of Carpenters supra TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP Unlike the employees in those cases the Trident workers were confined to their remote outpost and immediate en virons for the entire 6 week employment season Thus, the possibility of home visits by the Unions representa tives would have been exceedingly difficult Respondent submits that face to face contact with the employees was possible at a few sites in the South Naknek village But the record evidence establishes that these few potential alternatives were difficult to obtain and presented obstacles to effective communication 13 Respondent's own witnesses revealed that even for those who were living in South Naknek, contacting the appropriate persons to reserve the facilities was not an easy matter Certainly, such problems would be com pounded for the union agents whose offices were in Seat tle Even assuming that one could successfully reach the necessary persons, the Gin Mill could be rented only on rare occasions when business was slow More typically, especially during the first 2 weeks of the season when workers had some free time, the Gin Mill was noisy and crowded 14 It is not obvious that the Gin Mill would naturally have suggested itself to anyone as a suitable meeting place for organizational purposes The commu nity hall held only 30 to 40 persons and the school gym, even if available and large enough, presumably did not come outfitted with chairs Thus, none of these accom modations provided a relaxed atmosphere in which em ployees could reach a reasoned decision See Kutsher's Hotel & Country Club, 175 NLRB 1114 (1969), enf denied 427 F 2d 200 (2d Cir 1970) Beyond these difficulties, an even greater obstacle con fronted the union organizers in attempting to meet with employees away from the Respondents premises They simply had no effective way to notify the 1987 resident employees that a meeting would take place The AFU s efforts to write to its 1986 members at their home ad dresses before the season started proved to be totally un successful Thus the Unions did not know if any of their former members would be hired by Respondent and return to the cannery in 1987 Therefore, letters notify ing employees of a forthcoming meeting would have to be addressed impersonally and sent in care of the can nery Because of the manner in which mail was dis bursed the Unions could not be certain that their litera ture would reach the employees In these circumstances communicating by mail was hardly an effective way to reach Respondents employees See Husky Oil supra at 648 It would be wholly unreasonable to insist that the IBU and AFU representatives make the arduous trip to South Naknek with no assurance that the cannery em ployees had received notice of a meeting Other methods of communication which might prove reasonable in a conventional urban setting were ineffec tive in Respondents remote and isolated location As in Husky Oil, the cannery employees here did not have in 13 Respondent also suggests that meeting places were readily available in the community of Naknek This suggestion cannot be taken seriously because to hold meetings there the Union would have been required to provide costly air transportation for approximately 100 employees 14 Because Respondents employees did not wear uniforms after work they could not be readily distinguished from the many other patrons of the Gin Mill 1023 dividual telephones in their bunkrooms Instead public telephones were only available in public places If the Union called the facility it can be presumed that employ ees would have to be paged in some manner or given a message to return the call at a later time Television commercials or newspaper advertisements would be no less costly to the Unions in this case than they were in Husky Oil in which the court ruled they were not a rea sonable means of communication See 669 F 2d at 647 fn 4 Moreover, there would be no guarantee that advertise ments of any sort would reach their intended audience Even apart from these limitations, the Board and the courts have recognized that media communication is in herently less effective than face to face encounters As the Second Circuit stated in NLRB v United Aircraft Corp , 324 F 2d 128, 130 (2d Cir 1963), cert denied 376 us 951 [T]he predictable alternatives [to personal contact] bear without exception the flaws of greater expense and effort, and a lower degree of effectiveness Mailed material would be typically lost in the daily flood of punted matter which passes with little impact from mailbox to wastebasket Television and radio appeals where not precluded entirely by cost, would suffer from competition with the family s fa vorite programs, and at best would not compare with personal solicitation Newspaper advertise ments are subject to similar objections 15 Respondent also contends that the Unions did not even attempt to determine whether alternative means were available and therefore, failed to sustain their burden of proving that it made reasonable attempts to seek alterna tive channels of communicating with Respondents em ployees other than direct access to Respondents prem ises 16 In addressing this same argument in Emery Realty, supra fn 13, the Board agreed with the court of appeals which stated in Husky Oil that Babcock and Wilcox does not require a union to resort to unsatisfactory means of communication and we may assess the channels available to the union without first requiring the union to try them The Board further noted in Emery Realty that The union s organizational effort or lack of it how ever remains a factual circumstance to be weighed in deciding if the union has met its burden of proof In other words with respect to the reasonable alternative means inquiry there are some instances in which the reasonableness of suggested alterna tives can be assessed on the basis of objective evi dence even without the Union s having attempted to use those means while in other instances the General Counsel will not have carried the burden 15 Accord Alaska Barite Co supra at 1028-1030 16 Respondent faults the Unions for failing to request the names and addresses of the 1987 employees Given Respondents unconcealed an tiunion posture as evidenced by a statement in the employee handbook it is hardly necessary to insist that the Unions make a futile request which certainly would have been denied Compare Husky Oil supra at 648 in which the employor voluntarily gave the union the names home address es and telephone numbers of all 45 of its employees 1024 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of showing absence of reasonable alternative means if the Union has not attempted to use a particular suggested nonencroaching method of communicat ing its message and demonstrated that such a method is not a reasonable means Ibid In the present case as in Husky Oil and Emery Realty, the record provides sufficient facts concerning the em ployees geographic isolation and the availability of alter natives to convince me that the Union did not have to exhaust every possibility and engage in expensive, ulti mately futile gestures to prove that the alternative modes of communication proposed by Respondent were unrea sonable In conclusion, I find that the Unions had no effective alternatives to convey their message to Respondents em ployees other than conducting organizational activity on Respondent s premises CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Trident Seafoods Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By denying the IBU and AFU nonemployee orga nizers access to its employees at its cannery in South Naknek Alaska, Respondent has interfered with re strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent unlawfully denied Region 37 Inland Boatmen s Union, and the Alaskan Fishermen s Union access to its employees on its prem ises, I shall order that the Respondent grant such access to the Unions nonemployee organizers subject to rea sonable regulations On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend ed17 1 Cease and desist from (a) Continuing or giving effect to policies or rules pur suant to which IBU and AFU representatives have been denied access to its resident workers in nonprocessing areas of the company premises, for the purpose of solicit ing these employees during their nonworking time, or for the purpose of consulting, conferring, advising, assisting or otherwise communicating with them in nonprocessing areas during their nonworking hours in regard to their statutorily guaranteed right of self organization, provid ed, however, that nothing contained here shall be con strued to prohibit Respondent from making and enforc ing reasonable regulations with respect to visits by such nonemployee union representatives (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) If requested by the IBU and/or AFU, grant the Unions representatives access rights to the Company s nonproduction facilities for the purpose of distributing union literature, soliciting union membership, holding union meetings or for the purpose of consulting, confer ring advising, assisting, or otherwise communicating with employees on Respondents property in South Naknek Alaska, during their nonworking hours, subject only to reasonable regulations concerning such visits 18 (b) Post at South Naknek, Alaska copies of the at tached notice marked Appendix 19 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19 after being signed by the Respondents an thonzed representative, shall be posted by the Respond ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply ORDER The Respondent, Trident Seafoods Corporation South Naknek, Alaska, its officers, agents successors and as signs, shall 17 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 18 The General Counsel has requested that the order in this case should include a visitatonal provision authorizing the Board to engage in discovery to monitor compliance with its Order However the Order in this case which simply requires that the Respondent grant access can be monitored easily by the Union Therefore because a visitatonal clause appears to be unnecessary I deny the General Counsels motion 19 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