Star and Crescent Boat Co.

In the Matter of STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY and INLAND BOATMEN'S UNION OF THE PACIFIC (AFFILIATED WITH THE C . I. O.)1 Case No. C-1223.-Decided December 19,1939 Water Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: supervisor dissuading employee from testifying at the hearing-Company-Dom- inated Union: financial support to, and advocacy of, unaffiliated union by re- spondent ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unlicensed personnel excluding those employed on the San Diegan and exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees ; no controversy as to-Representatives : proof of choice : signed applications for membership-Collective Bargaining : refusal to recognize though union offered to check membership cards with pay roll or to hold a consent election ; this coupled with support to company-dominated union disclosed intent of refusal to bargain ; ordered to bargain collectively with union as exclusive representative ; order based on majority obtained prior to unfair labor prac- tices-Discrimination: discharges and refusal to reinstate ; charges of, dismissed. Mr. Drexel A. Sprecher, Mr. Charles M. Brooks, and Mr. William R. Walsh, for the Board. Mr. Elmer H. Howlett and Mr. Towson T. MacLaren, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. William G. Mirow, of San Diego, Calif., for the respondent. Mr. George E. Bodle, of San Francisco, Calif., for the I. B. U. Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Inland Boat- men's Union of the Pacific, herein called the I. B. U., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its complaint dated December 21, 1938, against Star and Crescent Boat Company, San Diego, California, herein called the 'At the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the title of the proceedings to read correctly as it is set forth in the title above. The Trial Examiner granted the motion. 18 N. L. R. B., No. 68. 479 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and an accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, upon the I. B. U., and upon Star & Crescent Employees' Association, herein called the Association, a labor organization. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that (1) the respondent, on or about February 18, 1938, and on or about March 15, 1938, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the I. B. U. although it represented a majority of the employees of the respondent in an appropriate unit; (2) the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis- tration of, and contributed financial and other support to, the As- sociation; (3) the respondent refused to reinstate Alvah J. Hart, on or about September 1, 1937, because of his affiliation with, and activity on behalf of, the I. B. U.; (4) the respondent discharged Fred H. Wilson, on or about October 21, 1938, and Samuel F. Ferguson, on or about April 7, 1938, and has since refused to reinstate said employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the I. B. U., and because said employees refused to join the Association; and (5) the respondent by the above conduct and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. On January 3, 1939, the respondent filed an answer in which it denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and denied that it was engaged in interstate commerce. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in San Diego, California, from January 5 through 13, 1939, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the I. B. U. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, as to Samuel F. Ferguson. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The Trial Examiner granted the motion. These.rulings are hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing other rulings were made by the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 481 On March 27, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended, inter alia, that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the activities constituting the unfair labor practices; that it offer Fred H. Wilson immediate and full reinstatement with back pay to his former position; that it withdraw all recognition from the Associ- ation as a representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining; and, upon request, that it bargain with the I. B. U. as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. He recommended further that the complaint be dismissed as to Alvah J. Hart. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Star and Crescent Boat Company is a California corporation with its place of business located at San Diego, California. The respondent owns and operates two wharves located on tideland in the harbor of San Diego. The tideland is leased to the respondent by the Harbor Commission of the city of San Diego. The respondent further owns and operates an oil tanker, the M. V. San Diegan; three tugs or tow- boats; a fishing barge, the Point Loma; seven shoreboats or water taxis; four motor passenger vessels; three diesel launches; one gasoline passenger launch ; and five lighters. The respondent also has a quarter interest in a diesel tuna boat. In its operation of the M. V. San Diegan, the respondent makes semi-weekly trips between San Diego, California, and San Pedro, California, hauling oil and gasoline for the Star and Crescent Oil Company, the Shell Oil Company, the Richfield Oil Company, and the General Petroleum Company. In making this voyage the vessel plys more than 5 nautical miles out from the coast of California. The respondent's tugs or towboats are used for the purpose of towing disabled craft; particularly tuna boats. In performing this towing service the tugboats go upon the high seas as far south as Cape San Lucas, Mexico, and as far north as San Pedro, California. The tugboats are also used for the docking of both passenger and freight vessels in San Diego Harbor. A majority of the ships requiring this 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD service are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. Approxi- mately 20 per cent of the ships engaged in interstate and foreign com- merce coming into San Diego Harbor use the aforesaid tugs for dock- ing purposes. The tugboats are also used to haul provisions and fuel to the ships of the United States Navy when they are anchored in San Diego Bay. The shoreboats or water taxis are operated under the supervision of the United Water Taxi Company, a corporation, of which the re- spondent's president, Oakley Hall, and the respondent's general super- intendent, Carl Bruington, are part owners. One-third of the net proceeds earned by the United Water Taxi Company are paid to the respondent. The shoreboats operate on a regular schedule of service between the United States fleet and the shore of the city of San Diego. The shoreboats also are used occasionally to carry pilots to, and to run the mooring lines of, incoming vessels engaged in foreign and interstate commerce. In addition, they are used to carry light freight and mail carriers of the United States Government to North Island and to the United States fleet. North Island is located within the harbor of San Diego. The respondent also operates a ferry service between San Diego City and North Island. North Island is owned by and is under the supervision of the Federal Government for purposes of national de- fense. For this service the respondent uses its motor passenger vessels, its diesel launches, its gasoline passenger launch, and occasionally water taxis. While engaged in this service the respondent transports passengers, mainly personnel of the United States Navy, but also other Federal Government employees and civilians. Mail carriers of the Federal Government are carried as a matter of courtesy, free of charge. The respondent is also engaged in other miscellaneous boating operations. During the year 1937 the respondent purchased $125,725.06 worth of materials, slightly less than 1 per cent of which was purchased outside California. During the first 11 months of 1938 the respondent purchased $107,052.98 worth of materials, slightly more than 1 per cent of which was purchased outside California. We find that the respondent is engaged in trade, traffic, trans- portation, and commerce among the States 2 and that the operations of the respondent have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and foreign countries. 2 See Matter of International Freighting Corp., at al. and International Seamen's Union of America, 3 N. L. R. B. 692. STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 483 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership all men employed in unlicensed capacities on all crafts plying inland waters on the Pacific Coast. Star & Crescent Employees' Association is an unaffiliated labor organization which admits to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion In the latter part of December 1938, or the early part of January 1939, Board's counsel conferred with Bernard Butler, an employee of the respondent, and a number of other witnesses, with respect to the hearing in this proceeding which was about to take place. Butler testified that shortly before the hearing he was questioned by Carl Bruington, the respondent's general manager, concerning these con- ferences. According to Butler, Bruington said, "It looks kind of bad," and further stated, "If you don't remember, they can't get you for perjury." On cross-examination by counsel for the respond- ent Butler elaborated upon the above, by testifying as follows: Q. Did he tell you he wanted you to forget part of this testimony? A. Yes. Q. Forget it, not testify to it? A. No, he said that there was a case coming up and he said they couldn't get you for perjury if I didn't know. Q. And you took it from his conversation that he wanted you to forget what happened so you wouldn't testify to it? A. That is just exactly the way I got it. Bruington admitted having had a conversation with Butler in the latter part of December 1938 relative to the complaint against the respondent, but denied that he discussed anything concerning the impending hearing. The Trial Examiner, in weighing the credibility. of the two wit- nesses, stated in his Intermediate Report, "The undersigned gave especial attention to the demeanor of Butler and Bruington on the stand, which, coupled with a careful consideration of the testimony 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of each, impels the finding that the testimony of Butler, and not that of Bruington, is entitled to full faith and credit." In view of this finding by the Trial Examiner, we find that the above events oc- curred as described by Butler. We find from the foregoing that the respondent attempted to dis- suade its employee from testifying concerning its unfair labor prac- tices and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. Domination and support of the Association In January 1938 the I. B. U. inaugurated an organizational cam- paign among the respondent's employees. By February 15, 18 of the respondent's 33 employees had signed applications for member- ship designating the I. B. U. as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. On or about February 16, Oakley Hall, the respondent's president, inquired of Guy Perkins, a part-time supervisory employee 3 who later became president of the Association, "if the boys ever thought about organizing a com- pany association." On February 17 Carl Bruington, the respondent's general manager, furthered the initial suggestion of Hall by telling Butler that "the boys are forming an association, or a union. Will you go in the office and talk with Guy Perkins." Butler agreed to do so. Upon entering the respondent's office he was told by Perkins, who was accompanied by two other employees, that "they were going to form a company union, or association-they didn't know which" and wanted to know whether Butler would be interested. Butler was non-committal. Perkins said they were going to. see a lawyer and asked Butler if he cared to come. Perkins then telephoned a lawyer, apparently to make an appointment, and after a short con- versation, laughed, and stated to the other employees, "Oh, heck, he knew all about it anyway. We can go up anytime." The respondent was aware of the fact that its efforts to organize the Association were taking effect for on February 18, 1938, Bruing- ton asked Butler what he thought about the Association. Butler replied, "Well, Carl, I am not two-faced, I will tell you that I belong to the I. B. U., and I don't think I should join another union." 8 During the summer months of 1938 Perkins was captain of the Point Loma. As captain, he supervised the work of four members of the crew , a cook, and a waiter. While he did not have the power to hire and discharge said employees, he could recommend their dismissal. The record reveals that in at least one instance in 1938 Perkins ' recommenda- tion in this respect was followed . See Virginia Ferry Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 101 F. (2d) 103, enforcing Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Hates and Pilots of America, No. 9, 8 N. L. R. B. 730. STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 485 Bruington then advised Butler to "think it over," and, told him "that Mr. Baker [the I. B. U. organizer] was a salesman and he was work- ing on a percentage, and as soon as he left we wouldn't have any support . . ." While Bruington denied that he had the above conversation with Butler, in view of the Trial Examiner's finding as to his credibility, we do not credit his denial. We find that the events occurred as described above. On February 18, 1938, Perkins, accompanied by several other em- ployees, consulted with a local attorney who advised them as to the formation of a union and subsequently drew up the proper legal papers by which the Association was incorporated under the Non- Profit Corporation Law of California. Perkins testified that he had no knowledge relative to the payment of the attorney's fees. The respondent admitted that it paid the attorney in question a fee of $150 for his services in the formation of the Association. In view of Perkins' ignorance of the financial arrangements made with the attorney, the telephone conversation described above by Butler, and the respondent's admission that it paid the attorney's fees, we are of the opinion, and so find, that the respondent was in- strumental in making the arrangements with the attorney for the legal formation of the Association. The events described below further impel the conclusion that the respondent supported and sponsored the Association in an effort to thwart the growth of the I. B. U. On March 3, 1938, the Association's directors, by letter, advised the respondent that it was their "belief" that the Association had among its members a majority of the respondent's employees and requested recognition as the "sole elective bargaining agency" of the employees. Within a week or 10 days thereafter the respondent's president, Hall, met with the Association's representatives and discussed with them the terms and conditions of employment. As a result of this discus- sion, several changes were made in the conditions of employment. It is pertinent to note that recognition was granted the Association with- out any inquiry being made as to its majority claim. This is in direct contrast to the respondent's evasion of the I. B. U.'s claim to recogni- tion, which matter is discussed more fully below. We find from the foregoing that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed financial and other support to, the Association, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The I. B. U. claims that the unlicensed personnel employed by the respondent, excluding those employed on the San Diegan,4 and exclu- sive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The respondent raised no objection to such a unit. We find that the unlicensed personnel employed by the respondent, excluding those employed on the San Diegan and exclusive of supervi- sory, clerical, and casual employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the I. B. U. of the majority in the appropriate unit On February 18, 1939, there were 22 employees within the appro- priate unit. Of these, 18 had, on or before February 15, 1938, signed application cards designating the I. B. U. as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. On February 26, one addi- tional employee designated the I. B. U. as his bargaining representa- tive. We find that on February 18, 1938, the I. B. U. represented a majority of the respondent's employees within an appropriate unit. At the hearing 116 of the employees who had signed applications for membership in the I. B. U. declared that they no longer desired the I. B. U. to represent them for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, and, further, that they desired the Association to represent them. Two of such employees had tendered written resignations in April 1938, while four testified that they had orally renounced their alle- giance to a representative of the I. B. U. a short time after they had signed their applications for membership. The remaining five em- ployees disclosed their intention at the hearing. It is pertinent to note that three of the respondent's employees, Bernard Butler, Lowell Henson, and Randel Ferguson, testified that they resigned from the I. B. U. and joined the Association in order to retain their jobs, it being generally understood among the employees that such a course was necessary in order to have security in their employment. It is to be noted, moreover, that most of those employees who testified at the hearing concerning a change in their desires did so when called as A The San Diegan is a deep sea vessel over whose personnel the I. B. U. claimed no jurisdiction. 5 John Cramer, Mathew Golart , John Knight, Henry Manchester , Joe Medeiros , Warren Miller, Earl Perkins, Guy Perkins. James Row, Paul Wilson. and Louis Sterman. STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 487 witnesses by the respondent, whose anti-union attitude had been clearly demonstrated to its employees. We have seen in subsection A above that the respondent suggested the formation of the Association and contributed financial and other support thereto. We have also found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In view of such circumstances we conclude that the shift in affiliation from the I. B. U. to the Asso- ciation was not the free choice of the employees, and that had it not been for the respondent's unfair labor practices a majority of its employees would have remained members of the I. B. U. In any event, we cannot give weight to an asserted change in the desires of employees regarding their representative for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining when such change is preceded by unfair labor prac- tices on the part of the respondent. To do so would be to allow the respondent to build up an immunity against a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act by freely violating other sections of the Act. We cannot permit the purposes of the Act to be thus circumvented.,' We find that on February 18, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the I. B. U. represented a majority of the employees of the respondent within the appropriate unit. 3. The refusal to bargain On February 18, 1938, Paul Baker, an organizer for the I. B. U., conferred with Hall, president of the respondent. At the conference Baker advised Hall that the I. B. U. had been designated by a major- ity of the respondent's employees as their collective bargaining agent. Hall replied that another organization, or group of men, had ad- vanced a similar claim. He advised Baker that he and the representa- tives of the other group "should get together." It is significant to note, in this connection, that the Association was started at the behest of Hall and had begun organizing no earlier than 2 days before Baker's meeting with Hall. In view of these circumstances it is clear that Hall's advice to Baker was not made in good faith. At the conference Hall requested some proof of the I. B. U.'s claim to represent the employees. Baker offered to check the signed appli- cation cards with the respondent's pay roll. It does not appear what ° See N. L. R. B. v. Arthur L. Colten and Abe J. Colman, co -partners doing business as Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company, 105 P. (2d) 179: (C. C. A. 6) enforcing Matter of Arthur L. Cotten, and A. J. Colman, Co-partners, doing business as Kiddie Kover Manu- facturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 355; Matter of Hyman S. Levy, doing business under the style and trade name of Harris Woolen Mills Go. and Local No. 15 of the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 11 N. L. R. B. 964. 283029-41-vol. 18-32 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD response Hall made to this offer. At the hearing he did not deny that it was made, and it is clear that no action was taken in pursuance of Baker's offer. Shortly after the offer was made Baker advised Hall that "a company union" was being formed among his employees and that Hall should use his influence to prevent its further forma- tion. Hall denied knowledge of, and stated that he had nothing to do with the so-called company union. In view of the respondent's overt participation in the formation of the Association, Hall's denial to Baker of knowledge or participation in the formation of any com- pany union was obviously false. On March 1, 1938, the I. B. U., by letter, again advised the re- spondent that it represented a majority of the respondent's employees and requested the respondent to recognize it as the exclusive bargain- ing agency of such employees. On March 8 the respondent replied by letter and requested the presentation of evidence pertaining to the claim of the I. B. U. to represent its employees. On March 15 a con- ference was held between Hall and two representatives of the I. B. U. At the conference the I. B. U. representatives offered to check its application cards with the respondent's pay roll. To this suggestion Hall replied that the Association claimed to represent the same men, and that a check with the pay roll would not be determinative. The I. B. U. representatives then suggested that a consent election be held under the auspices of the Board. Hall stated that he would have to take this suggestion up with his attorney, and that after doing so he would advise the I. B. U. of his decision. No such decision was thereafter conveyed to the I. B. U. It is clear from the events described above, and we find, that the respondent refused to recognize the I. B. U. as the duly designated representatives of a majority of its employees within an appropriate unit on February 18 and on March 15, 1938, and at all times "there- after. This refusal to recognize the I. B. U. coupled with the re- spondent's unfair labor practices in forming and supporting the Association clearly reveals the respondent's intent to refuse to deal with the I. B. U. in good faith. We find that the respondent, on February 18 and on March 15, 1938, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain with the I. B. U. as the duly designated representatives of a majority of its employees within an appropriate unit. D. The alleged discriminations Alvah J. Hart. The complaint alleges that the respondent refused to reemploy Alvah J. Hart on or about September 1, 1937, after a lay- off, because of his affiliation with and activity in the I. B. U. The Trial Examiner recommended the dismissal of the complaint as to STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 489 Hart. No exception to this recommendation has been filed by the I. B. U. After consideration of the record we agree with the Trial Examiner and find that Hart was not denied reemployment because of his membership in or activity on behalf of the I. B. U. Fred H. Wilson. The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that Fred H. Wilson was discriminatorily discharged . The Trial Examiner so found and the respondent takes exception thereto. Wilson had been employed steadily by the respondent for 5 years prior to his discharge on October 21, 1938. He joined the I. B. U. on April 6, 1937. While he wore his union button continuously there- after, he was not active in the Union. On or about October 20 Wilson, while operating one of the re- spondent's water taxis, struck a submerged log. The resulting dam- age amounted to $300. On October 21 Bruington told Wilson that because of the accident he was to "take a vacation for a while without pay." Bruington testified that he had examined the water taxi after the accident and that "it looked like he (Wilson) hit something, and instead of stopping, he had run over it and done this damage." He further testified that he thought the accident was "just a case of care- lessness." For these reasons, Bruington asserted, he determined to lay off Wilson and communicated this to Wilson on October 21. Wil- son, while denying he was at fault, admitted that he expected some disciplinary action because of the amount of damage accruing to the boat. The respondent asserts in its brief that Wilson was restored to his former position on January 20, 1939. We find that Wilson was not discharged because of his membership in the I. B. U. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the situation that existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association, and has contributed finan- 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cial and other support thereto. Accordingly, we shall order the re- spondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association and to disestablish it as a collective bargaining representative of any of its employees. We shall further order the respondent, upon request, to bargain collectively with the I. B. U. as the exclusive representative of its unlicensed personnel, excluding those employed on the Sam Diegam and exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees. As we have noted above the respondent sought to establish at the hearing that the I. B. U. no longer represented a majority of its employees. We have found that the defection in the ranks was caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices in forming and supporting the Association and in restraining, intimidating, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Under these circumstances we cannot consider the defections to be valid.7 Moreover, our order is not based solely upon the foregoing con- siderations. Section 10 (c) of the Act authorizes the Board, upon a finding that a person has engaged in unfair labor practices, to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of the Act. We hold that in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the respondent's refusal to bargain must be remedied by an order to bargain on the basis of the majority obtained prior to the commission of the re- spondent's unfair labor practices." We have found that the respondent did not .discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alvah J. Hart and Fred H. Wilson. We shall therefore order that the complaint be dismissed as to them. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in these proceedings, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific and Star & Crescent Em- ployees' Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of, and contributing financial and other sup- port to the Star & Crescent Employees' Association, has engaged in 7 Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalga- mated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010, 1101, 9 N. L. R. B. 783, 815. 8Ibid. ; see also Matter of Somerset Shoe Company and United Shoe Workers of America; 5 N. L. R. B. 486; Matter of Burnside Steel Foundry Company and Amalgamated Associa- tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, 7 N. L. R. B. 714. 731. STAR AND CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY 491 and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. The unlicensed personnel employed by the respondent, exclud- ing those employed on the San Diegan and exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific was on February 18, 1938, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively with the Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-stated unit, the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alvah J. Hart and Fred H. Wilson, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Star and Crescent Boat Company, San Diego, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist : (a) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of Star & Crescent Employees' Associa- tion, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to Star & Crescent Employees' Association, or any other labor organization of its employees; (b) From refusing to bargain collectively with Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific as the exclusive representative of the unlicensed personnel employed by the respondent, excluding those employed on the San Diegan and exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees; 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights of self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Star & Crescent Employees' Association, as a representative of any of its employees for the pur- poses of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi- tions of employment, and completely disestablish Star & Crescent Employees' Association as such representative; (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific as the exclusive representative of the unlicensed personnel 'employed by the respondent, excluding those employed on the San Diegan and exclusive of supervisory, clerical, and casual employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its place of business stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid; (2) that the respondent withdraws and will refrain from all recognition of Star & Crescent Employees' Association, as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that the respondent completely disestablishes it as such representative; (d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated against Alvah J. Hart and Fred H. Wilson, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.