Intracoastal Towing & Transportation Co.

In the Matter Of INTRACOASTAL TOWING} & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA , INLAND BOATMEN'S DIVISION Case No. R-0463.-Decided May 2,1941 Jurisdiction : towing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to accord union recognition until certified by the Board ; election un- necessary : Company and union requested certification upon the record. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all unlicensed personnel on the' four tugboats of the Company Mr. L. B. Coppinger, of Houston, Tex., for the Company. Mandell cfi Wright, by Mr. Arthur J. Mandell, of Houston, Tex., for the Union. Mr. A. G. Koplow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE National Maritime Union of America, Inland Boatmen's Division, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) a petition on February 28, 1941, and an amended petition on March 28, 1941, alleging that' a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Intracoastal Towing & Transportation Com- pany,' Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Sec- tion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 7, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investiga- tion and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro- vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. 1 Referred to in certain of the formal papers as Intracoastal Towing and Transportation Company. 31 N. L. R. B., No. 87. 538 INTRACOASTAL TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO. 539 On April 7, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 9, 1941, at Houston, Texas, before E. P. Davis, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the Union were rep- resented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings 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. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Intracoastal Towing & Transportation Company is a Texas corpo- ration with its offices at Houston, Texas. It is a wholly owned subsidi- ary of the American Republics Corporation, a Delaware corporation. The Company owns, maintains, and operates four tugboats, or tow boats, in the Houston ship channel, and during the past 3 years approximately 100 per cent of its business has consisted of docking oil tankers and freighters for hire, in the ports of Houston, Texas City, and Galveston, Texas. The oil tankers and freighters are owned by both foreign and domestic lines and are engaged in trans- porting miscellaneous products between States of the United States and between the United States and foreign countries. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED National Maritime Union, Inland Boatmen's Division, is a labbI organization,' affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about February 25, 1941, the Company refused to negotiate with the Union as the exclusive representative of certain employees of the Company unless the Union was first certified as such repre- sentative by the Board. A statement of a Board Field Examiner, together with other evi- dence introduced at the hearing, show that the Union represents a 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD substantial number of employees in the collective bargaining unit hereinafter found to be appropriate .2 1 We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company, described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation "to, trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and -the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union contends that the appropriate unit consists of all unlicensed personnel on the four tugboats of the Company. The Company has not objected to the unit as."thus claimed by the Union. Each of the four tugboats has as unlicensed personnel one cook, one deck hand, and one fireman when operating with a single crew, and one cook, two deck hands, and two firemen when operating with a double crew. , Each of the tugboats also has two to four licensed officers, consisting of a master and an engineer, and sometimes also an alternate" master, or mate, and an assistant engineer. Wages, hours, and working conditions are the same on all four boats. We find that all unlicensed personnel on the four tugboats of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Com- pany the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collec- tive bargaining and otherwise effectuate" the policies of the Act.. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing the Union introduced into evidence 11 membership application cards, an authorization petition containing 7 signatures, and another authorization petition containing 5 signatures. Of the 2 The Field Examiner stated that the Union had submitted to him 4 authorization cards and 2 petitions , the cards and petitions together containing a total of 16 different appar- ently genuine original signatures . An affidavit stated that all signatures were obtained between February 25, 1941, and March 26 , 1941. There were also introduced in evidence signatures of 17 employees ,' on authorization petitions and cards. The extent of duplica- tion of the latter signatures and those submitted to the Field Examiner does not appear. The record shows that there are approximately 20 to 26 employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate. INTRACOASTAL TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO . 541' 11 membership,•application cards, 4 contained signatures which were duplicates of signatures on the authorization petitions, 1 contained no written signature, and 1 was withdrawn by the Union. At'the hearing the signatures on the remaining 5 cards and the 12 signatures on the petitions were compared by a representative of the Company with the endorsements on cancelled pay checks used by the Company to pay its employees. The representative of the Company testified that "they appear to be the same signatures" and that he had "no -reason to have doubts" that they were the same. Both the Company and the Union asked that the Board certify the Union as the.bar= gaining representative on the basis of the record, rather than direct that an election be held. Under they circumstances, we find that National Maritime Union of America, Inland Boatmen's Division, has been designated and selected by a majority of persons employed by the Company in the unit herein found to be appropriate as the representative of such persons for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for thei purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Intracoastal Towing & Transportation Company, Houston, Texas, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. All unlicensed personnel on the four tugboats of the Company, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. National Maritime Union of America, Inland Boatmen's Divi- sion, is the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of 'and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National' Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu]ations-Series 2, as amended, 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT is fEREBY cFITIFIED that National Maritime Union of America, Inland Boatmen's Division, has been designated and selected by a majority of-the unlicensed personnel employed by Intracoastal Tow- ing & Transportation Company, Houston, Texas, on its four tugboats, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, National Maritime Union of America, Inland Boatmen's Division, is the ex- clusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment.