Global Marine Development of California, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 192 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Global Marine Development of California , Inc. and
District 1, Pacific Coast District , MEBA, AFL-
CIO. Case 31-CA-4019
October 22, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On June 13, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
James S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief , and General Counsel and
Charging Party filed briefs in opposition to
Respondent 's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Global Marine Devel-
opment of California, Inc., Los Angeles, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended Order.
' The Respondent has alleged that the Administrative Law Judge demon-
strated a bias against Respondent and its position in the instant case. We
have carefully considered the record and the attached Decision and find no
basis for these charges of bias alleged by Respondent.
2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record and exceptions in our view adequately present the issues and posi-
tions of the parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES S. JENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on Janu-
ary 14, 15, 16, and February 19, 1974. The complaint,
which issued on November 29, 1973, was amended on De-
cember 10, 1973, and at the trial and was based on a charge
and first amended charge filed on October 9 and Novem-
ber 28, 1973, respectively. The complaint alleges violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and seeks a remedy requiring
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union. Spe-
cifically, the complaint as amended alleges that a unit com-
prised of first, second, and third assistant marine engineers
and oilers employed on Respondent's vessel, the Hughes
Glomar Explorer, is appropriate; that since August 10,
1973, the MEBA has represented a majority of the employ-
ees in said unit; that on various dates from early August to
September 25, 1973, Respondent engaged in various acts
and conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(I); and on Sep-
tember 25 and October I, 1973, terminated 10 first, second,
and third assistant marine engineers because of their mem-
bership in the MEBA in order to undermine and destroy
the Union's majority status and in order to evade any obli-
gation to bargain with the MEBA, all in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
By its answer and amended answer, Respondent admit-
ted the procedural and jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint but denied the remaining substantive allega-
tions, pleading affirmatively that the alleged discriminatees
were at all times supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
In an amended answer filed at the trial, Respondent denied
the appropriateness of the unit on the ground it included
licensed engineering officers who are supervisory person-
nel, with oilers who are nonsupervisory personnel; that
there is no community of interest between the licensed en-
gineering officers and oilers; and that the licensed engi-
neering officers, in addition to being supervisors, are tech-
nical and/or professional employees and the oilers are not.
All parties were given full opportunity to appear, to in-
troduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by the
Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Coun-
sel.'
Upon the entire record in the case,2 and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in the
operation of the deep sea mining and exploration vessel,
Hughes Glomar Explorer. In the course and conduct of its
deep sea mining and exploration business operations, Re-
spondent annually purchases and receives goods and serv-
ices valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the
State of California. Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
1 After the time for filing briefs expired, Respondent submitted a letter
supplementing its brief by calling attention to a circuit court decision, a
copy of which was attached thereto. In the absence of objection by either
the General Counsel or Charging Party, I have considered the case cited
therein, which, in any event, does not affect my findings and conclusions
reached hereinafter.
2 In view of my findings and conclusions hereafter, Respondent's motion
to dismiss the complaint is denied.
214 NLRB No. 40
GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF., INC. . 193
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District I, Pacific Coast District, MEBA, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
During the early part of 1973,3 the Hughes Glomar Ex-
plorer was under construction at the Sun Shipyard in Ches-
ter, Pennsylvania. In late July, the ship left on the first of
two legs of a shakedown cruise, the first leg ending in Ber-
muda on or about August 9, and the second leg ending in
Long Beach, California, on October I. It appears from the
testimony that the Hughes Glomar Explorer is a unique
type vessel in that it was designed to mine or remove man-
ganese nodules from the ocean floor, and carries a crew
somewhat larger than the ordinary merchant vessel. A gen-
eral superintendent appears to be in overall charge of the
ship which is divided into the following departments: min-
ing, deck, engine, and stewards. The mining department is
comprised of approximately 40 employees. Its supervisory
hierarchy consists of the superintendent of operations, an
assistant superintendent of operations, and an undisclosed
number of foremen. The steward's department has approx-
imately nine employees and is directly supervised by the
chief steward. The deck department has approximately 20
employees and is under the supervision of the captain and
chief mate. The employer also classifies and considers the
bos'n and the second and third mates as supervisors. Each
crew in the engine department is comprised of approxi-
mately 10 individuals, consisting of a chief engineer, and
first, second, and third assistant engineer and oiler catego-
ries." The General Counsel and the MEBA contend the
first, second, and third assistant marine engineers who
served on both legs of the vessel during its shakedown
cruise, all of whom signed authorization cards, are employ-
ees, while the Respondent contends they are supervisors.
The General Counsel further contends that a unit includ-
ing the first, second, and third assistant marine engineers
and oilers is appropriate. The MEBA, while requesting rec-
ognition in a unit of first, second, and third assistant ma-
rine engineers, contends both a unit limited to those indi-
viduals, and a unit which also includes the oilers is appro-
priate. As noted above, Respondent contends that the
three categories of assistant marine engineers are supervi-
sors and that those individuals and the oilers lack a com-
munity of interest. Respondent further contends the au-
thorization cards are invalid because of supervisory solici-
tation and instigation. Thus, the issues are:
(1) Whether the 10 assistant marine engineers employed
on the Hughes Glomar Explorer are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act;
All dates are in 1973 unless otherwise stated.
The parties stipulated that the general superintendent, superintendent of
operations, assistant superintendent of operations, foremen, chief steward,
captain, chief mate, and chief engineer are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. The numbers of individuals in each of the departments is based
on the unrefuted and credited testimony of First Assistant Engineer John
Smith.
(2) Whether the authorization cards signed by the assis-
tant engineers are void because of alleged supervisory so-
licitation and instigation; and
(3) Whether a unit limited to the assistant engineers or
one also including the oilers is appropriate.
Insofar as the engine department is concerned, Respon-
dent employed two crews which were designated as A and
B crews. The A crew was on the ship from at least the time
it left the Sun Shipyard until it reached Bermuda on Au-
gust 9, at which time it was replaced by the B crew which
brought the vessel around South America, arriving in Long
Beach on October 1. It was contemplated that the two
crews would alternate thereafter, i.e., while the A crew was
at sea, the B crew would be at home, and vice versa.
In addition to Chief Engineer Anthony, the A crew con-
sisted of First Assistant Engineer McDonald, Second As-
sistant Engineer Kell, Third Assistant Engineers Aikens,
Frederickson, and Ahbel, and oilers Ouellette, Kaun, and
McKiney. The B crew was composed of Chief Engineer
Stackhouse, First Assistant Engineer Smith, Second Assis-
tant Engineer Brookshire, Third Assistant Engineers Ah-
bel, Welty, Adamis, and Peel, and oilers Pope, Madden,
and Richards.'
B. Disputed Supervisory Status
With the exception of the chief engineers,6 the engine
department personnel-first, second, and third assistant
engineers and oilers-were assigned to four overlapping
shifts, each man working a continuous 12-hour tour of
duty which was divided into a 6-hour watch shift and a
6-hour maintenance shift. Two licensed assistant engineers
were on watch at all times, the watch engineer being locat-
ed in the control room in accordance with Coast Guard
regulations, and the maintenance engineer who ordinarily
worked in the engineroom doing maintenance and associ-
ated work. Each engineer stood successive control room
and maintenance watches. The engineer standing watch in
the control room was designated the "watch" engineer, and
the one on maintenance duty, the "maintenance" engineer.
An oiler was also assigned to each of the watches so that
two oilers were on duty at all times.?
The composite testimony of the assistant engineers, all
5 The following terms were used interchangeably throughout the trial:
first, second, and third engineers: first, second, and third marine engineers;
and first, second, and third assistant engineers. The dates of hire for the
assistant engineers on duty on the Hughes Glomar Explorer were: A crew-
Frederickson-December 4, 1972; Kell-November 7, 1972: McDonald-
June 18 ; Aikens-July 17: Ahbel-July 28. B crew-Welty-March I;
Smith-April 9; Brookshire-May 22; Ahbel (served on both A and B
crews, see above): Peel-August 9; Adamis-August 10. With the exception
of Ahbel who served on both crews , all assistant engineers on the A crew
were terminated on September 25, and those on the B crew were terminated
on October I. "A crew" Chief Engineer Anthony was terminated on Sep-
tember 25 and " B crew" Chief Engineer Stackhouse was terminated on
October I.
6 The parties stipulated that Chief Engineers Anthony and Stackhouse
were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
7 As there were only three oilers on both the A and B crews, third assis-
tant engineers performed the duties of the fourth oiler on both crews, Ahbel
(and for a short time Aikens) on the A crew, and Adamis and Peel on the B
crew. These four third assistant engineers graduated from the California
Continued
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 of whom testified, establishes that all of the work per-
formed by the "watch" engineer and the oiler on the corre-
sponding watch is routine. The watch engineer stands his 6
hours of watch in the control booth in accordance with
Coast Guard requirements, where, according to First As-
sistant Engineer Smith, he monitored the "different alarms
which show any change of condition in the machinery.
Regulating voltages and kilowatt loads on the generators.
We-also had a diesel engine exhaust temperature indicator
which we monitored from that point, and checked the tem-
peratures and pressures that the oiler brought up on the
oiler's log sheets and made certain entries into the engine-
room official log book, concerning certain temperatures
.. . and the pressures . . . we also entered certain electri-
cal readings in the log book." The oiler on the correspond-
ing watch makes hourly rounds of all machinery in the
engineering spaces, taking readings every second hour
which he records in the oiler log sheets, some of which are
recorded by the watch engineer in the engine room log
book. While he has no duties to perform there, the oiler
spends from I to 2 hours of his shift passing time in the
control room talking to the watch engineer. The watch en-
gineer also relays specific instructions from the chief engi-
neer to the maintenance engineer regarding what is to be
done on the maintenance watch." 8
Each of the watch engineers was assigned an area of
responsibility by the chief engineer, the first assistant engi-
neers on each crew, McDonald and Smith, being responsi-
ble, along with Third Assistant Engineers Frederickson
and Welty on the A and B crews respectively, for the main
engines and associated equipment. Second Engineers Kell
on the A crew and Brookshire on the B crew were responsi-
ble for the fuel oil, bilge, and ballast systems and associat-
ed machinery. Third Assistant Engineer Ahbel on the A
crew, and presumably Aikens on the B crew, had prime
responsibility for the evaporators and high-pressure air
compressors. The maintenance work with respect to those
areas of responsibility was performed by those individuals
on their maintenance shifts, the maintenance shift in each
individual's case following immediately his shift as watch
engineer. The oiler on the maintenance shift, or the third
assistant engineer doing oiler work, worked along with the
maintenance engineer. In addition to doing routine main-
tenance work in their specific areas of responsibility, the
maintenance engineers and oilers performed the unfinished
necessary maintenance work of the previous maintenance
shift, and other manual routine work such as fixing leaks,
scraping and painting deck plates, painting handrails, trac-
Maritime Academy in July, having received Bachelor of Science degrees in
marine engineering after a 3-year course of study.
8 Upon instructions from Chief Engineer Anthony, First Assistant Engi-
neer McDonald made up a list of jobs that needed to be done in the engine-
room by the crew. Any assistant engineer or oiler could add to the list,
which Anthony reviewed on a daily basis, adding to or deleting jobs, and
assigning priorities to jobs. On the B leg of the trip, Chief Engineer Stack-
house met with First Assistant Engineer Smith every morning and told him
what items he wanted done that day. Smith recorded the jobs in a "little
workbook:" As Smith was relieved on the maintenance watch by Ahbel. "he
(Smith) would outline a rough program of things to do during my 6 hours."
Every evening Stackhouse went to the engineroom and told Second Assis-
tant Engineer Brookshire what jobs he wanted done, and on numerous
occasions told the oiler directly what he should do.
ing and color-coding valves, sweeping and keeping the en-
gine and control rooms clean, changing oil in the compres-
sors, cleaning up oil spills, pumping bilges, and cleaning
purifiers. One of the oilers on the A crew, Ouellette, was
also a welder. He spent all of his time on welding jobs
which were assigned to him directly by the chief engineer.
Upon his own request, he was sometimes assisted by one of
the assistant engineers. One of the third assistant engineers,
Aikens, took over Ouellette's oiler duties.
Each of the 10 assistant engineers testified that he had
never exercised, nor had he been advised that he had the
authority to recommend or exercise, any of the following
authorities: to reprimand, discipline, discharge, grant time
off, grant shore leave, prepare evaluations, attend staff
meetings, hire, interview for employment, grant pay raises,
or authorize overtime.9
Respondent contends, however, that the assistant engi-
neers not only possessed supervisory powers, but exercised
them on a day-to-day basis. As indicative, Respondent
contends that when First Assistant Engineer Smith was-on
maintenance watch, the oilers reported to him for their as-
signment. It is clear, however, that when Smith was on
maintenance watch, he and an oiler worked together, and
that Smith was told what work was to be done by the chief
engineer. In fact, the record is void of evidence demonstra-
ting the authority;on the part of the assistant engineers to
make independent assignments. Nonroutine.work resulted
when there was a failure of some piece of equipment which
required that corrective action be taken. While it was with-
in the aura of the watch engineer's responsibility to see that
corrective action was taken, the work routinely fell on the
maintenance engineer, and oiler. Even in emergency situa-
tions it appears it was the responsibility of the maintenance
engineer and oiler to effect repairs,'and if the emergency
was such that it required a change in the speed of the ves-
sel, the watch engineer immediately notified the bridge and
the chief engineer came to the engineroom spaces and de-
termined the repairs required. Further, Smith testified that
the watch engineer lacked authority to pull the mainte-,
nance engineer and oiler off a job and assign them to an-
other job.
Respondent contends Smith exercised supervisory au-
thority during the training period of Adamis and Peel by
assigning them watch-standing duties. The evidence shows
that Third Assistant Engineers Adamis and Peel boarded
the ship in Bermuda and, after a brief period of standing
watch with an oiler in order to become familiar with the
vessel , were assigned to stand watches as oilers with Third
Assistant Engineer Ahbel who stood both the watch engi-
neer and maintenance watches. Friction arose among the
three due to the fact they were about the same age and had
all graduated in the same class at the California Maritime
Academy. When Peel complained to Smith about the situa-
tion, Smith stated there was nothing he could do. Approxi-
mately a week later Peel again complained and Smith
again told him there was nothing he could do. WhewPeel
then advised Smith that the situation was intolerable and
"I am just not going to make it down to the watch any-
9 Respondent called no witnesses to rebut the testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses.
GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF., INC. 195
more," Smith stated he would see what he could do about
it and contacted Chief Engineer Stackhouse with the rec-
ommendation that Adamis and Peel be switched from
Ahbel's watch to Smith's watch, and that Pope serve as
oiler with Ahbel. Chief Engineer Stackhouse approved the
switch and thereafter Adamis and Peel were on watch duty
with Smith who had them alternate between the control
room and oiler's watches. When Smith felt that the two
were qualified to stand the control room watch alone,
Smith went into the engineroom and helped out the engi-
neer and the oiler on maintenance watch. Moreover, the
chief engineer had instructed Smith to come to him for any
changes in personnel or machinery.
Respondent also alleges Smith assigned the oilers to
their various watches. Smith testified as follows:
Well, like I say, Mr. Brookshire selected Madden as
his oiler and Bob Ahbel, Adamis and Peel they more
or less selected each other. I believe that Tim Welty,
he had worked with Don Richard before and so they
more or less selected each other and I wrote all this up
in this order. That left Herb Pope and I asked him if
he would like to stand watch with me, and he said
sure, I will stand watch any time, any place-that type
of thing-very willing. So I wrote it up in that manner.
I took it to the chief engineer who I located in the
engineroom at that time. He rejected it and changed
it-had me change it-and I submitted it to him once
again the way he wanted it and he approved it and I
posted it in the engineroom.
Respondent contends "Smith personally and effectively
recommended the discharge of an engineer named Secon-
dine." Smith testified that before the vessel left the ship-
yard, he recommended to Chief Engineer Anthony that
Secondine be terminated because of his absences and that
"the chief engineer-Mr. Anthony-he threw up his hands
in the air and said I can't hire or fire anybody." While it
appears Secondine was in fact terminated approximately a
week later, the reason for the termination was not shown,
nor that Smith's recommendation had anything to do with
Respondent's contentions regarding the alleged supervi-
it.
sory authority of First Assistant Engineer McDonald are
similar to those it raised with respect to First Assistant
Engineer Smith and are equally without merit.
With respect to Respondent's contention that the assis-
tant engineers had the power to effectively recommend dis-
ciplinary action against oilers or other subordinates, the
undisputed evidence shows that if a Coast Guard regula-
tion was violated, the most an assistant engineer could do
was to either report the infraction to the chief engineer,
who in turn would report it to the ship's master, or "log"
the incident in the engineroom log. While it was not shown
that this had ever happened on the Hughes Glomar Ex-
plorer, in any event it does not appear the assistant engi-
neer would make any recommendation with respect to any
disciplinary action to be taken: Disciplinary action, if any,
would be determined by the Coast Guard.
With respect to the authority of the watch engineer over
other personnel working in the engineroom, Second Assis
tant Engineer Kell testified, without contradiction, that he
was informed by either Mining Superintendent Blurton or
Rogers that he had no authority over a shipboard electri-
cian named Snyder. He further testified that while the
watch engineers should be in control in case a controversy
arose between an electrician and a watch engineer, such
was not the case on the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The
evidence further revealed that while members of the min-
ing crew occasionally performed duties in the engineroom,
they neither reported to, nor received any direction from,
the watch engineer. Moreover, as noted above, the watch
engineer was without authority to pull the maintenance en-
gineer and oiler off one job and assign them to another.
A further incident showing the lack of authority resting
in the assistant engineers on the vessel involved Second
Assistant Engineer Kell. One day while making rounds, he
discovered mining department personnel pumping oil over
the side of the vessel, an offense which could have resulted
in substantial fines and license suspensions for him and the
chief engineer. He testified, "Well, I tried to make them
stop; tried to get them to stop. and they told me, well, in
kind of crude language, to get away from there, get out of
there .. .." The mining department personnel continued
pumping oil over the side. On another occasion, Third As-
sistant Engineer Frederickson asked one of the electricians
to take a reading on a certain circuit. The electrician re-
fused on the ground he worked for the chief engineer.
Frederickson reported the incident to the chief engineer
who confirmed the fact the electrician worked under him.
Further evidence showing the lack of authority on the part
of the assistant engineers involved Third Assistant Engi-
neer Ahbel and oiler Pope. Ahbel asked Pope to do some
welding, to which Pope replied, "They ain't paying me to
be a welder." Ahbel did the welding himself and Pope
"stood around just as a fire watch."yAsked whether he
could have disciplined Pope, Ahbel replied, "No. There is
nothing I could have done." The issue of working overtime
arose on one occasion. Following, is First Assistant Engi-
neer Smith's testimony on the subject:
A. Early in the voyage there was a lot of work just
getting organized in the ship and we needed some
manhours to get some of these items done and I
checked with the chief engineer to see what the proce-
dure was for having people work over their, 12 hour
day.
He wasn't entirely sure about the procedure but he
felt that there would be overtime and he would check
and find out, but in the meantime I was to go ahead
and get the work done and get these jobs. completed if
possible-and he would continue checking and he in-
structed me to ask these people to inform them that he
wasn't sure, they would get this overtime or collect it
but we would make an entry in the log book._ ,
He had some form that he thought the company
had that he would fill out and would indicate hours
that people worked.
That is the basis upon which we proceeded. These
people actually volunteered and turned to when I
asked them.
Q. When you asked them did any of them turn you
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
down and say no, I am not going to work overtime?
A. No.
Q. If they would have did you have the authority to
force them to work overtime?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever get overtime pay?
A. No.
Q. Did they ever get overtime pay?
A. To the best of my knowledge they did not.
While assistant marine engineers may be endowed with
considerable responsibility in the operation of some ves-
sels, which of necessity is accompanied by authority over
unlicensed personnel which would render them supervi-
sors, that situation does not appear to be the case on the
Hughes Glomar Explorer. First Assistant Engineer Mc-
Donald explained the differences in the duties of the first
assistant engineer as follows: "Well, the first assistant on
normal merchant ships . . . he generally takes care of all
repair work. He never stands a watch and he is on call 24
hours a day more or less like the chief. In emergency, he is
right there at all times. On this vessel, I was never called
out anytime off watch. I had no telephone in my room so
they could call me. Now on other ships they generally have
a telephone for the first assistant." 10 Third Assistant Engi-
neer Adamis testified that it was his understanding upon
graduating from the California Maritime Academy, that
the first assistant engineer worked a 40-hour, 5-day week,
was in charge of the main engineroom, overtime, the wip-
ers, and did not stand a watch. Adamis served aboard the
vessel S S Kopaa until a few days before the opening of the
hearing. He testified while the first assistant engineer on
that vessel "was a day worker," he was on 24-hour call, did
not stand a watch, was in charge of the engineroom and
the wipers and handled overtime for all engine department
employees. There were no wipers employed on the Hughes
Glomar Explorer. Adamis testified that wiper's work,
which "consists of scraping, painting, cleaning the engine-
room, cleaning up oil, sweeping, emptying the garbage
cans, cleaning bilges-whatever the first assistant told you
to do. It was mostly the lowest class work in the engine-
room-the cleanup work" was performed by, among
others, First Assistant Engineer Smith. Contrary to the first
assistant engineer on the S S Kopaa, Smith spent from 50
to 60 percent of his time doing wipers work. The duties of
the first assistant engineer on the S S Sea Train Georgia-
which Ahbel served on immediately preceding the trial of
this matter-were the same as those testified to by Adamis
on the S S Kopaa.
Respondent contends the powers'and authority confer-
red by law on the first, second, and third assistant engi-
neers by reason of their being licensed by the United States
Coast Guard, is sufficient to classify them as supervisors
under Section 2(11) of the Act. The Board, however, has
taken a contrary view. In Graham Transportation Company,
124 NLRB 960 (1959), the Board stated at 962:
We also find no merit in BME's final contention
10 The chief engineer is the only one in the engine department on the
Hughes Glomar Explorer with a private room and telephone.
that some of the engineers involved herein are supervi-
sors because they are licensed by the United States
Coast Guard. In determining the supervisory status of
marine engineers, whether or not they are licensed, we
have always utilized the same tests which are applica-
ble in other industries. Thus, where it has been clearly
established that marine engineers have the authority
expressed in Section 2(11), we have found them to be
supervisors, but where they possess no such authority,
we have found them to be nonsupervisors. To be sure,
the Board has customarily treated licensed marine en-
gineers as supervisors, but in those cases, it was clear
from the size of the ship and crew that there were
other engineroom personnel for the engineers to su-
pervise. The fact that a marine engineer possesses a
Coast Guard license does not alone support a finding
of supervisory status.''
With respect to Respondent's contention that the watch
engineer has sole and full responsibility for the entire en-
gine department, the record indeed establishes his respon-
sibility for the machinery. However, "responsibility for the
maintenance of physical property does not, of itself, estab-
lish the existence of supervisory authority." 12 The facts set
forth above disclose that such direction the watch engineer
gives to personnel, being the oiler on his watch and the
engineer and oiler on maintenance, are clearly of a routine
nature and do not require the use of independent judg-
ment. The oiler on duty with the watch engineer makes
routine rounds of the engine spaces which precludes the
exercise of independent judgment. The relationship of the
watch engineer to the maintenance engineer and the oiler is
much the same. While the watch engineer is responsible for
the "operation" of the physical property, the maintenance
engineer is responsible for its "maintenance and repair."
The maintenance engineer and oiler perform routine main-
tenance and repairs and in emergencies, nonroutine re-
pairs. The maintenance engineer , a skilled mechanic, works
in conjunction with the maintenance oiler and no doubt
directs the oiler in the repair of the machinery. However,
the relationship of the maintenance engineer to the mainte-
nance oiler in regards to these functions is more akin to a
skilled mechanic-helper relationship than that of a supervi-
sor-employee one, and does not involve responsible direc-
tion.
In sum, I conclude and find that the assistant engineers
employed on the Hughes Glomar Explorer lack any of the
indicia of the authorities specified in Section 2(11) of the
Act, and are not, therefore, supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. Great Lakes Towing Company, supra; Material
Service Division, General Dynamics Corp., supra; Graham
Transportation Company, supra; see also A. L. Mechling
Barge Lines, 192 NLRB 1118 (197 1).13
° Accord, Great Lakes Towing Company, 168 NLRB 695 (1967); Material
Service Division, General Dynamics Corp., 144 NLRB 908 (1963).
12 Graham Transportation Company, supra at 962.
13 Respondent contends the facts here are remarkably similar to those in
Midwest Towing Co., Inc., 151 NLRB 658 (1965). While the jobs performed
by the engineers and oilers in that case were indeed similar to the jobs
performed by the assistant engineers and oilers on the Hughes Glomar Ex-
plorer, the authority possessed by the engineers in the two cases is in no
wise similar . Contrary to the facts in the instant case , in Midwest, the engi-
neers assigned the oilers nonroutine duties, responsibly directed them in the
GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF., INC. 197
C. Validity of Authorization Cards
Having found that the first, second, and third assistant
engineers are not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, I find no merit in Respondent's contention that the
authorization cards are invalid because of any influence
exerted by any of the first, second, or third assistant engi-
neers on each other. There remains for consideration, how-
ever, the issue of whether the participation of Chief Engi-
neers Anthony and Stackhouse in obtaining the cards was
such that the cards are void. The 10 alleged discriminatees,
all of whom testified, comprised all of the first, second, and
third assistant engineers employed on the Hughes Glomar
Explorer from August 1 to October 1. Neither Chief Engi-
neer Anthony nor Chief Engineer Stackhouse testified.
Each of the 10 assistant engineers signed an authorization
card reading:
I hereby authorize The National MEBA to represent
me in any and all negotiations relative to collective
bargaining with my present or any future employer.
This authorization shall continue in full force and
effect until I have revoked same by written revocation
delivered to the secretary-treasurer of said union.
There is no evidence to indicate any of the authorizations
were revoked.
It appears from the record that First Assistant Engineer
Smith, a member of the MEBA for 25 years, was the most
active individual in organizing the engine department. He
testified to having attended three meetings about the
Union at the Brass Rail, a cocktail lounge near the Phila=
delphia Airport, in the latter part of April and early May.
His authorization card, along with those of Kell and Fred-
erickson, is dated May 9. Welty, whose card is undated,
testified that he signed his card at the same time Kell and
Frederickson signed. While Smith testified that Chief Engi-
neer Anthony also signed a card, attended union meetings,
and helped organize "to some extent," it appears from the
record that the extent of Anthony's involvement was limit-
ed to his signing a card and attendance at meetings. Chief
Engineer Stackhouse's activities appear to have been simi-
larly limited. Kell testified that while Anthony attended the
May 9 Brass Rail meeting, he didn't pass out authorization
cards, nor let it be known he favored the Union; that it was
not until a later date, after Kell had signed, that he learned
Anthony was in favor of the Union. Frederickson testified
that on May 9, Union Representative Kerestesy met with
Smith, Kell, Welty, Frederickson, and Chief Engineers An-
thony and Stackhouse at the Brass Rail, that "it was a
question and answer period with Mr. Kerestesy" answering
questions about the Union, that Kerestesy stated what the
performance of their duties, authorized extra payment for overtime and
penalty time, disciplined oilers for misconduct, and effectively recommend-
ed action as to hire, retention, transfer, or dismissal. In Globe Steamship
Company, el at, 85 NLRB 475 (1949), also cited by Respondent, the assis-
tant engineers possessed the authority to effectively recommend the hire,
discharge, disciplining, and promotion of the unlicensed engine department
personnel, and the settlement of their grievances.
Union had to offer; that he, Frederickson, asked Kerestesy
for an authorization card which he signed; that he thought
everyone asked for a card, but that he didn't know who
had signed. Welty's testimony substantially parallels that
of Frederickson. He asked Kerestesy for an authorization
card which he signed along with the five others in atten-
dance; and he didn't recall Chief Engineers Anthony or
Stackhouse saying anything about the Union. Sometime in
early June a meeting was held in the apartment which Kell
and Frederickson shared. Union Representative Kerestesy,
Kell, Frederickson, Brookshire, and Chief Engineers An-
thony and Stackhouse were in attendance. Brookshire testi-
fied that Kerestesy "explained about the Union and their
retirement and some of the pay scales," and was asked if he
would like to sign an authorization card, which he did. He
testified further that while Kell was the only other person
that talked to him about an authorization card prior to the
meeting, he concluded that everyone at the meeting was in
favor of the Union. McDonald, a member of the MEBA
since 1942, testified that he signed an authorization card
approximately 2 weeks after he boarded the Hughes Glo-
mar Explorer on June 18. Kell had asked McDonald and
David Lucky, an assistant engineer who left the ship prior
to its sailing for Bermuda, if they wanted to meet with
Kerestesy. Neither Anthony nor Stackhouse was present
when McDonald signed. Later, Anthony asked him ques-
tions about the Union. McDonald also discussed the bene-
fits of the Union with other assistant engineers who had
already signed authorization cards. Aikens, Adamis, Ah-
-bel, and Peel signed authorization cards on August 10. Ai-
kens obtained his card from Kell and signed it in the en-
gine control booth. He testified that he never attended any
union meetings and that he never discussed the Union with
the chief engineer. Ahbel, who had discussed the Union
previously with both McDonald and Kell, obtained his
card from Smith in the latter's stateroom while the vessel
was in Bermuda. Ahbel knew that the chief engineers had
already signed cards and were in favor of the Union. Ahbel
also discussed the Union with Adamis and Peel, and told
them if they were interested that they should contact
Smith. Adamis contacted Smith in his stateroom, asked for
a card, and signed it.-Peel testified that he also contacted
Smith who handed him an authorization card and asked
him to read it over and whether he wanted to sign it, assur-
ing him, "Well, if you don't want to, you don't have to."
After first declining, Peel returned in about an hour and
signed it. Peel testified that Chief Engineer Stackhouse
didn't talk to him about the Union.
Although all of the assistant engineers who signed cards
appeared as witnesses and were subject to cross-examina-
tion by Respondent, there is not the slightest suggestion in
the testimony of any of them that their designation of the
Union was influenced by anything Chief Engineers Antho-
ny or Stackhouse said or did. The evidence most favorable
to Respondent's position is the testimony of Smith, who
testified on cross-examination that Anthony signed an au-
thorization card, attended union meetings, and helped or-
ganize the crew "to some extent." The record, however,
does not reveal any extent of participation in organizing
efforts other than signing cards and attendance at union
meetings when Smith, Kell, Frederickson, Welty, and
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brookshire signed cards. The testimony of Kell, Freder-
ickson, Welty, and Brookshire is completely void of any
indication of influence exerted by either of the chief engi-
neers. Nor does the record show that either Anthony or
Stackhouse approached any employee for the purpose of
soliciting an authorization card. Therefore, the evidence
convinces me that Anthony and Stackhouse were "follow-
ers" rather than "leaders" in the organizational campaign
and that their influence on the others, if any, was minimal.
Enforcing the Board's decision in 190 NLRB 174 (1971),
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in N.L.R.B. v. WKRG-
TV, Inc., 470 F.2d 1302 (1973), stated at 1315:
It is actual pressure and coercion we are seeking to
avoid by our rule disallowing cards tainted by supervi-
sory influence. A mechanical rule that requires a find-
ing of supervisory solicitation in situations such as we
have here, where there is no hint of intimidation, is too
broad.
Before the Board invalidates a card because of pro-
union supervisory solicitation, there must be some
showing that the signing employee was subject to a
reasonable apprehension that his failure to sign could
have adverse consequences. Certainly a direct solicita-
tion by a known supervisor could give rise to the nec-
essary inference of reasonable apprehension. E. g.,
N.L.R.B. v. Hecks, Inc., supra, 386 F.2d at 321. Simi-
larly, active campaigning for the union by the supervi-
sor even without actual solicitation, could in many cir-
cumstances necessitate a finding of improper solicita-
tion. See Turner's Express, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., supra;
[fn. omitted] N.L.R.B. v. Heck's, Inc., supra, 386 F.2d
at 322.
s
There must be a more substantial exhibition of pres-
sure than a passing remark or a statement of prounion
conviction. So long as nothing in the words, deeds, or
atmosphere of the alleged "solicitation" contain the
seeds of potential reprisal, punishment,- or intimida-
tion, the involvement of the supervisors does not rise
to the levels of supervisory "solicitation" that we con-
demned in American Cable I, supra. Here the supervi-
sors attended a few union meetings and at various
times made rather tame statements regarding their ap-
proval of the union. There is not a sufficient showing
to throw out any of the cards, and the Board was cor-
rect in refusing to allow the minimal- supervisory parti-
cipation in this organization drive to frustrate the
union's otherwise valid majority.
On the basis of the foregoing facts and authorities, I
conclude and find that none of the authorization cards are
invalid, and that on August 10, Respondent had valid de-
signations as the collective-bargaining representative of all
10 assistant marine engineers.
D. Appropriate Unit
Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges that all first marine
engineers, second marine engineers, third marine engi-
neers, and oilers employed by the Respondent on the
Hughes Glomar Explorer, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, and further excluding all other employees
of the Respondent employed on the ship, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Paragraph 9
alleges that since on or about August 10, the Union has
been the majority representative of the employees in said
unit.
The record shows that by letter dated June 27, counsel
for the MEBA advised Respondent that it represented "the
vast majority of the marine engineers employed on your
vessel" and requested bargaining. The parties stipulated
that on the following day the counsel for Respondent, in a
telephone conversation with counsel for the MEBA, de-
clined to grant recognition. On October 1, the MEBA filed
a petition with the Region 31 of the Board requesting an
election in a unit limited to the marine engineers employed
aboard the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The petition was not
processed and, on October 9, the charge initiating this pro-
ceeding was filed.
Respondent contends it would not be proper to include
the engineers who are supervisors, with oilers, who are not
supervisors; that there is no community of interest between
the oilers and assistant engineers; and the assistant engi-
neers, in addition to being supervisors, are technical and/
or professional employees and the oilers are not: I, have
previously found the assistant engineers are not supervi-
sors. I further find that they are not professional employees
as that term is defined in Section 2(12) of the Act. It is
clear from the record that the work performed by the assis-
tant engineers, working either as watch engineers, mainte-
nance engineers, or oilers, is not "predominantly intellectu-
al and varied in character as opposed to routine mental,
manual, mechanical or physical work; (ii) involving the
constant exercise of discretion and judgment in its perfor-
mance; (iii) of such a character that the output produced
or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in rela-
tion to a given period of time; (iv) requiring knowledge of
an advanced type in a field of science or learning custom-
arily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellec-
tual instruction and study in an institution of higher learn-
ing . . . as distinguished from a general academic educa-
tion or from an apprenticeship or from training in the
performance of routine mental, manual, or physical pro-
cesses.. .." nor was it shown that the chief engineers are
professional persons so that working under their supervi-
sion would qualify the assistant engineers to become pro-
fessional employees. Moreover, the Board does not auto-
matically exclude technical employees from a unit of non-
technical employees. Instead, the Board looks to see if
there is a community of interest among the groups of em-
ployees, considering, among others, the following factors:
"Desires of the parties, history of bargaining, similarity of
skills and job functions, common supervision, contact and/
or interchange with other employees, similarity of working
conditions, type of industry, organization of plant, whether
the technical employees work in separately situated and
controlled areas, and whether any union seeks to represent
GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF., INC. 199
technical employees separately." The Sheffield Corporation,
134 NLRB 1101, 1103-1104 (1961). Thus, even if the assis-
tant engineers are technical employees, which I find they
are not, the overriding consideration and unit placement is
the community of interest, or lack thereof, between the
assistant engineers and the oilers. A consideration of all
relevant factors convinces me, and I find, that the assistant
engineers and oilers share a community of interest and
comprise an appropriate collective-bargaining unit. The as-
sistant engineers and oilers comprise all of the nonsupervi-
sory employees in the engine department, they work side
by side, each assisting the other, and are subject to the
same supervision. Ahbel's initial training aboard ship, prior
to assuming watch engineer status on the B crew, was as an
oiler on the A crew. Aikens likewise performed oiler work
prior to becoming a watch engineer on the A crew. Adamis
and Peel alternated on oiler and watch engineer duties on
the B crew. Thus, it is seen that the oilers and assistant
engineers possess many of the same job skills and there is a
constant interchange of job functions among some of the
oilers and assistant engineers. Except for the period the
watch engineer is on duty in the control room, the working
conditions of the oilers and assistant engineers are similar,
since they work together in the engineroom and related
spaces. The record further establishes that all employees
share the same dining room. While there was no showing
that the assistant engineers and oilers enjoy the same em-
ployee benefits, the dissimilarity of benefits, if any, is pecu-
liarly within the knowledge of Respondent who has chosen
not to show them. Although the MEBA did not request
recognition in a unit including the oilers, it is willing to
represent them along with the assistant engineers . Further,
there is no history of collective bargaining for the employ-
ees on the Hughes Glomar Explorer.
On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
the assistant engineers and oilers have a community of in-
terest and that together they comprise an appropriate col-
lective-bargaining unit. The unit, at times material to this
proceeding, consisted of four assistant marine engineers
and three oilers on the A crew, and six assistant engineers
and three oilers on the B crew, for a total of ten assistant
engineers and six oilers. The MEBA, with valid authoriza-
tion cards from each of the 10 assistant engineers, is and
has been since on or about August 10, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all first, second, and third assistant marine en-
gineers and oilers as alleged in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
complaint.-
E. Union Animus 14
agents Dean and Williams, promised employees improved
benefits in the nature of pension, stock option, and dental
plans if they refrained from supporting the MEBA, and
threatened that if the assistant marine engineers supported
and selected the MEBA as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative, Respondent would not bargain collectively
with the MEBA: 15
(2) On or about August 7, Respondent, through its
agents Crooke and Evans, promised employees improved
benefits in the nature of pension and stock option plans if
they refrained from supporting the Union, interrogated
employees as to their reasons for supporting the Union,
and threatened that if the assistant marine engineers sup-
ported and selected the MEBA as their collective-bargain-
ing representative, Respondent would not bargain collec-
tively with the MEBA; 6
(3) On or about August 9, Respondent, through its agent
Williams, told an employee that he should not sign any-
thing for the MEBA; 7
(4) On or about September 25, Respondent, through
Dean, promised employees improved benefits, including
pension and stock option plans if they refrained from sup-
porting the MEBA, told employees they did not want em-
ployees to affiliate with the MEBA, and threatened em-
ployees that if they continued in Respondent's employ they
must support Respondent's antiunion policy by not joining
MEBA;1
(5) On or about October 1, Respondent, through Dean
and Evans, told employees they were being terminated for
their failure to support the Respondent's antiunion poli-
cy;19
(6) In the first week in August, Respondent, through Ev-
ans and Crooke, interrogated employees as to their reasons
for supporting the MEBA, threatened them with discharge
if they continued to support the MEBA, and promised
them improved benefits if they refrained from supporting
the MEBA;20
(7) On or about September 25, Respondent discharged
Aikens, McDonald, Kell, and Frederickson, and on or
about October 1, discharged Welty, Ahbel, Peel, Smith,
Adamis, and Brookshire, because said employees joined or
assisted MEBA;21
By the acts and conduct set forth in subparagraphs (1)
through (6) above, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act;
and by the acts and conduct set forth in subparagfaph-(7)
above, Respondent discriminated against its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
It is clear, and I find, that Respondent engaged in the
conduct set forth above in order to undermine and destroy
While the Respondent's answer denied the 8(a)(1) and
(3) allegations of the complaint, it offered no evidence to
refute the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses.
Accordingly, I find that the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that:
(1) On or about August 6, Respondent,' through its
14 Respondent admits that the following individuals occupied the posi-
tions set opposite their names and are supervisors and its agents: Curtis
Crooke-president; John Evans-vice president of operations; James
Dean-operations manager ; Tom Williams-personnel director.
15 Based upon the credited testimony of Smith, Brookshire, Welty. and
Aikens. Respondent's Attorney Smith, present throughout the hearing, did
not deny the August 6 allegations although the testimony shows that he was
present when the threats and promises were made.
16 Based upon the credited testimony of McDonald, Ahbel, and Aikens.
17 Based upon the credited testimony or Peel.
la Based upon the credited testimony of Frederickson, Aikens, and Mc-
Donald.
19 Based upon the credited testimony of Smith, Peel, Ahbel, Welty.
Adamis, and Brookshire.
20 Based upon the credited testimony of Kell and Frederickson.
21 Based upon the credited testimony of all 10 assistant marine engineers.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the majority status of the MEBA in order to evade any
obligation to bargain with that labor organization.
Because of the extensive and flagrant nature of the
Respondent's unfair labor practices as found above,
whereby it dissipated the MEBA's majority and removed
any hope of a fair election pursuant to the MEBA's peti-
tion, I find it unnecessary to rule on whether or not there
was a technical 8(a)(5) violation as the MEBA contends
since, in either event, a bargaining order is appropriate.
The Supreme Court has approved the issuance of a bar-
gaining order even in the absence of an 8(a)(5) violation,
where, as here, the unfair labor practices are "outrageous"
and "pervasive" and of "such a nature that their coercive
effects cannot be eliminated by the application of tradi-
tional remedies, with the result that a fair and reliable elec-
tion cannot be had." N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc.,
395 U.S. 575, 613-614 (1968); Lincoln Supply Co., Inc., 198
NLRB 932 (1972). But for its unlawful conduct, the Re-
spondent would have been obliged to recognize and bar-
gain with the MEBA. I find, therefore, that, even in the
absence of an 8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order is re-
quired to fully restore the status quo ante and to remedy the
8(a)(l) violations committed by the Respondent.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section 111,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Leonard Aikens, Robert McDonald, Henry
Frederickson, and Gary Kell on September 25, and Tim
Welty, Robert Ahbel, Kirk Peel, John Smith , Daniel
Adamis, and Archie Brookshire on October 1, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed by each, dismissing, if nec-
essary, any employee hired since the date of termination of
each, having less seniority. It is further recommended that
Respondent make the above discriminatees whole for any
loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them. Said loss of pay shall be based
on the earnings.each would normally have earned from the
date of discharge until he is offered reinstatement less the
net earnings of each during such period. Said backpay shall
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1962). The interest on backpay shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Having found that Respondent's extensive and flagrant
unfair labor practices have dissipated the MEBA's majori-
ty and removed any hope of a fair election pursuant to the
MEBA's petition, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom, and bargain collectively with
the MEBA as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the unit set forth above, and, if an agreement is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to
make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll and
other records to facilitate checking the amount of earnings
due.
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor prac-
tices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent,
which indicate its determination to interfere aggressively
with its employees' rights of self-organization and its inter-
ference with the principle of collective bargaining, I shall
recommend a broad cease-and-desist order herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Global Marine Development of
California, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. District 1, Pacific Coast District, MEBA, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Leonard Aikens,
Robert McDonald, Henry Frederickson, and Gary Kell on
September 25, and Tim Welty, Robert Ahbel, Kirk Peel,
John Smith, Daniel Adamis, and Archie Brookshire on Oc-
tober 1, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. -
4. By promising employees improved benefits if they
abandoned or refrained from supporting the MEBA, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
5. By interrogating employees regarding their reasons
for supporting the MEBA, by threatening employees with
discharge if they continued to support the MEBA, and by
threatening that it would not bargain collectively with the
MEBA if the employees selected the MEBA as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(I) of the Act.
6. By telling employees they should not affiliate with or
sign anything for the MEBA, and that they must support
Respondent's antiunion policy by not joining the MEBA,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By telling employees that they were being terminated
for their failure to support Respondent's antiunion policy,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. On August 10, 1973, the MEBA was the exclusive
representative for collective-bargaining purposes of
Respondent's employees in the unit described as follows:
All first marine engineers, second marine engineers,
third marine engineers, and oilers employed by the
Respondent on the Hughes Glomar Explorer, exclud-
GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF., INC. 201
ing office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act, and
further excluding all other employees of the Respon-
dent employed on the ship.
The aforesaid unit was, and is, a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act; and any subsequent loss of such
status is the result of the Respondent's unfair labor practic-
es heretofore found above.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 12
Respondent , Global Marine Development of California,
Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting District 1, Pacific Coast District,
MEBA , AFL-CIO, or any other union.
(b) Promising employees improved benefits if they
abandoned or refrained from supporting the Union.
(c) Interrogating employees regarding their reasons for
supporting the Union , threatening employees with dis-
charge if they continued to support the Union , and threat-
ening that it would not bargain collectively with the Union
if the employees selected the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative.
(d) Telling employees they should not affiliate with or
sign anything for the Union, and that they must support
the Respondent 's antiunion policy by not joining the
Union.
(e) Telling employees that they were being terminated
for their failure to support Respondent 's antiunion policy.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain in good faith with District 1,
Pacific Coast District , MEBA, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appropri-
ate unit and embody in a signed agreement any under-
standing reached:
All first marine engineers , second marine engineers,
third marine engineers, and oilers employed by the
employer on the Hughes Glomar Explorer , excluding
office clerical employees , professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act, and
further excluding all other employees of the Respon-
dent employed on said ship;
(b) Offer Leonard Aikens, Robert McDonald, Henry
Frederickson , Gary Kell, Tim Welty, Robert Ahbel, Kirk
Peel, John Smith , Daniel Adamis , and Archie Brookshire
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
their jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make said employees whole as set forth
in the remedy section herein, for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and other reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze and determine the amounts of back-
pay due these employees under the terms of this recom-
mended order.
(d) Post at its offices in Los Angeles, California, and
aboard the Hughes Glomar Explorer, and all other places
where notices to marine engineers are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2J Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
where notices to marine engineers are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
22 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
23 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
"The hearing held in Los Angeles, California, on January
14, 15, 16, and February 19, 1974, in which we participated
and had a chance to give evidence, resulted in a decision
that we had committed certain unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and this notice is posted pur-
suant to that decision.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives
all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL bargain upon request with District 1, Pacif-
ic Coast District , MEBA, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all first marine engineers , second ma-
rine engineers , third marine engineers , and oilers em-
ployed on the Hughes Glomar Explorer , and put in
writing and sign any bargaining agreement reached.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Leonard Aikens , Robert McDonald , Henry Freder-
ickson , Gary Kell, Tim Welty, Robert Ahbel, Kirk
Peel, John Smith , Daniel Adamis , and Archie Brook-
shire and make them whole for any loss of earnings or
other benefits suffered because of the discrimination
against them.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against our employees for supporting District 1, Pacif-
ic Coast District , MEBA , AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees improved bene-
fits if they abandon or refrain from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding
their reasons for supporting the Union, threaten our
employees with discharge if they continue to support
the Union, or threaten our employees that we will not
bargain collectively with the Union if they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they should not
affiliate with or sign anything for the Union, and that
they must support an antiunion policy by not joining
the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of any
right guaranteed them by the Act.
GLOBAL MARINE DEVEL-
OPMENT OF CALIFORNIA, INC.