Keystone Shipping Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 892
Keystone Shipping Co., and its affiliate Keystone
Barge Services, Inc., Joint Employers and
Southeast Regional Fleet Tankermens Associa-
tion (SERF)

Keystone Shipping Co., and its affiliate Keystone
Barge Services, Inc., Joint Employers and Dis-
trict No. 4, NMU/MEBA (AFL–CIO) and South-
east Regional Fleet Tankermens Association
(SERF). Cases 16–CA–17550, 16–CA–17830, and
16–CB–4895
March 18, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
HURTGEN AND BRAME
Upon charges and amended charges filed by Southeast
Regional Fleet Tankermens Association (SERF) the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued an order consolidating cases, amended consoli-
dated complaint and notice of hearing on March 29,
1996. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that
Keystone Shipping Co., and its affiliate Keystone Barge
Services, Inc., Joint Employers (Keystone) violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing District
No. 4, NMU/MEBA (AFL–CIO) (NMU) as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit employees even
though NMU did not represent an uncoerced majority in
the bargaining unit, and by encouraging its employees to
join NMU. The complaint also alleges that NMU vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by acting as
the collective-bargaining representative of the bargaining
unit employees and by requiring those employees to pay
union dues or equivalent fees. Respondent NMU filed an
answer to the complaint. Respondent Keystone takes no
position.
On September 23, 1996, the parties jointly filed a mo-
tion to transfer the proceeding to the Board together with
a stipulation of facts signed by the parties. The parties
waived a hearing before an administrative law judge and
the issuance of an administrative law judge’s decision
and recommended Order. The parties agreed that the
stipulation, with attached exhibits, including the charges
and amended charges, the complaint and amended con-
solidated complaint, and the answer, shall constitute the
entire record in this case and that no oral testimony is
necessary or desired by any of the parties.
On December 18, 1996, the Board issued an order ap-
proving the stipulation of facts and transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board. The General Counsel, NMU, and
SERF filed briefs. SERF filed an attachment. NMU also
filed a motion to strike SERF’s brief and attachment and
a brief in support of the motion and in answer to the
General Counsel’s and SERF’s briefs. SERF filed an
opposition to NMU’s motion to strike.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent Keystone is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the operation of oceangoing tanker vessels,
cargo vessels, and tug/barge vessels from its offices lo-
cated at One Bala Plaza East, Suite 600, Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania. Since July 17, 1995, Keystone, in con-
ducting its business operations, provided services valued
in excess of $50,000 for Texaco Marine Services, Inc.
(Texaco), an enterprise directly engaged in interstate
commerce. We find that Keystone is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
We also find that Respondent NMU and Charging
Party SERF are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Keystone operates various vessels as managing agent
for other companies—20 United States flag oceangoing
tanker vessels of various sizes and configurations carry-
ing petroleum related products and chemicals; 2 foreign
flag tanker vessels; 6 United States flag dry-cargo vessels
operated under contract with the United States Maritime
Administration; and 2 United States flag tug/barge ves-
sels. These last two vessels are the Victory/Texas and
Valiant/Pennsylvania and it is their crews that both NMU
and SERF seek to represent.
Bulkfleet Marine constructed the two tug/barges at is-
sue here in 1979 and operated them under a charter
agreement with Gulf Oil from 1981 to 1986. From 1986
to 1988, Bulkfleet Marine operated the vessels under
charters from Mobil Oil and the United States Govern-
ment. From 1981 to 1988, the Seafarers’ International
Union of North America (SIU) represented all licensed
and unlicensed employees on the two tug/barges in two
separate units but negotiated agreements simultaneously.
In 1988, Bulkfleet Marine entered into an agreement
with Texaco whereby Texaco assumed operation of the
two tug/barges. Under this agreement, most of the sea-
going personnel on the tug/barge vessels were retained as
Texaco employees, but were no longer represented by
SIU.

1 NMU’s motion to strike SERF’s brief and attachment is denied.
NMU contends that SERF’s brief was untimely filed and cites facts
beyond those stipulated to by the parties. We note that SERF’s opposi-
tion attests to SERF’s deposit of its brief in the mail in a timely fashion.
We also note that we rely only on those facts to which the parties stipu-
lated in making our findings here. In these circumstances, we find it
unnecessary to strike SERF’s brief and attachment.
327 NLRB No. 163
KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO. 893
In 1989, SERF filed a petition with the Board seeking
to represent the employees of the two tug/barges in a
single unit.2 NMU intervened in the proceeding and ar-
gued that the employees had been accreted into a multi-
employer unit of unlicensed seamen represented by
NMU and covered by the master agreement between
NMU and the multiemployer association, Tanker Service
Committee/Maritime Service Committee (TSC/MSC), of
which Texaco was a member.3 The Regional Director
for Region 16 rejected NMU’s arguments and found the
petitioned-for unit appropriate. He also invited NMU to
make the required showing of interest to appear on the
ballot, but NMU failed to do so. NMU requested review
of the Regional Director’s decision, but the Board denied
this request. On October 16, 1989, the Board certified
SERF as the representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing unit:

INCLUDED: All senior mechanic tankermen,
mechanic tankermen, and cooks employed at
the Employer’s Port Arthur, Texas, facility
aboard the tug boat Valiant and barge Penn-
sylvania and the tug boat Victory and barge
Texas.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.

Thereafter, from October 16, 1989, to July 17, 1995,
SERF and Texaco entered a series of collective-
bargaining agreements covering the Board-certified unit.
On July 17, 1995, with the consent of Bulkfleet Ma-
rine, Keystone entered into an agreement with Texaco
under which Keystone assumed the operation of the Vic-
tory/Texas and the Valiant/Pennsylvania. Keystone of-
fered employment to all the seagoing personnel working
for Texaco on the two tug/barges. In a letter dated July
17, 1995, SERF requested that Keystone recognize it as
the collective-bargaining representative of the licensed
and unlicensed crewmembers of the two tug/barges.
Prior to that date, NMU informed Keystone that the em-
ployees has been accreted into the TSC/MSC multi-
employer unit represented by NMU and covered by
NMU’s master agreement with TSC/MSC and its mem-
ber, Keystone.4 NMU also cited the 1989 arbitration

2 Although there were two prior units (one for each tug/barge) when
SIU represented the employees, the significant point is that those
tug/barge units were separated from the rest of the fleet.
3 NMU has had a collective-bargaining relationship with the
TSC/MSC since the 1950s. NMU filed a grievance against Texaco for
its failure to apply the TSC/MSC master agreement to the employees of
the two tug/barges. On September 15, 1989, Arbitrator Jesse Simons
found that the two tug/barges were encompassed within the description
of the vessels covered by the TSC/MSC master agreement’s recogni-
tion clause, but provided no remedy in light of the Board’s determina-
tion of an alternative bargaining unit.
4 Keystone is the largest Employer in the TSC/MSC with whom
NMU maintains its master agreement. The Victory/Texas and Val-
iant/Pennsylvania are the sole tug/barge vessels in the Keystone fleet.
There are other tug/barge vessels operated by employers other than
award which found the two tug/barges were encom-
passed within the description of vessels covered by the
TSC/MSC master agreement’s recognition clause. As
provided for in the master agreement, Keystone and
NMU entered into a memorandum of understanding,
effective July 19, 1995, which adapted the master agree-
ment to the special needs and characteristics of the
tug/barge vessel unit. At no time did NMU demonstrate
to Keystone that it represented an uncoerced majority of
the employees in the unit set forth above. Keystone and
NMU gave the crews of the two tug/barges copies of the
TSC/MSC master agreement and supplemental memo-
randum of understanding regarding the tug/barge vessels.
NMU also notified the crewmembers in writing of their
obligations under the union-security clause, including the
obligation to pay union dues, and of NMU’s intention to
enforce the clause by, inter alia, seeking the crewmem-
bers’ discharge if they failed to comply.5
The employees complied with NMU’s requests under
duress. They signed a petition announcing that they
wished “to be represented for collective bargaining pur-
poses by Southeast Regional Fleet Association (SERF).”
They also mailed a formal protest to NMU announcing:
··
• That SERF is the sole and exclusive bargain-
ing agent for Tug/Barges;
• That all the seamen on the Victory are cur-
rently paid up members of SERF;
• That over 95% of the all seamen on the Val-
iant are currently paid up SERF members.
• That SERF members are not joining NMU;
• That SERF or the unlicensed seamen are not
recognizing NMU;
• That a service charge* is being tender [sic]
under protest and subject to repayment; and
• That this action is being taken to prevent
breach of the peace and promote efficient
business operations and is being taken with-
out prejudice to any and all rights of unli-
censed seamen in their individual capacities,
and in their represented capacities, and with-
out waiver of their existing, private vested

Keystone in the TSC/MSC. NMU has represented crewmen on
tug/barges in Amoco, Gulf Oil, and Marine Transport Lines fleets.
5 NMU provided employees with authorizations to allow Keystone
to deduct dues and fees from their wages and remit the moneys to
NMU. There have been some disputes about the failure of certain
employees to pay dues and Keystone’s failure to enforce its contractual
obligation to discharge these employees. On September 22, 1995,
NMU notified Paul Curran, Martin Garcia, and Donald Walsh that
NMU would ask Keystone to discharge them if they failed to remit
dues and fees pursuant to the TSC/MSC agreement. The following
month, these employees executed written authorizations and Keystone
deducted dues and fees from their wages. At the same time, NMU
pursued the matter through the contractual grievance machinery, in-
cluding a request for expedited arbitration. Keystone agreed to take
measures to ensure that all dues were paid by November 3, 1995.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 894
and guaranteed contractual employment
rights.
* for a disservice

Keystone operates all its vessels from its facility in
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The marine personnel de-
partment engages the personnel for all vessels, provides
transportation for crewmembers, relief for crewmen leav-
ing the vessels for vacations, handles labor relations mat-
ters such as grievances and arbitrations, and generally
deals with the requirements of staffing the vessels
through the NMU hiring hall. The traffic department
communicates voyage orders to the vessels after receiv-
ing these orders from the charter customer. The voyage
order delineates the cargo to be loaded or discharged,
ports of call, bunkers (fuel oil) to take on board for the
voyage, and agents to utilize. The accounting depart-
ment prepares and/or audits payrolls for the personnel on
all Keystone vessels. The personnel department receives
the payroll information from the vessel captains and pro-
vides it to the accounting department for the tug/barge
vessels and certain other vessels. All other personnel,
including crewmembers of the oceangoing tankers, are
paid on their respective vessels. The operations depart-
ment monitors the loading and discharge of all cargo,
purchases and delivers supplies, and handles problems
encountered by the vessels while at sea. Keystone does
not have a shipyard for the docking of vessels. Vessel
repairs are performed pursuant to a nationwide bid.
Keystone retained the same crew complement as Tex-
aco for the two tug/barges at issue here although it dis-
continued the occasional use of painters. There are 11
berths on each tug/barge—4 deck officers (cap-
tain/master; first, second and third mate); 3 engine de-
partment officers (chief engineer; first and second engi-
neer); and 4 unlicensed seamen (3 tankermen and 1
cook). There is a relief crew for each tug/barge for a
total of 44 seamen. Since Keystone commenced operat-
ing the two tug/barges, Keystone filled three permanent
and two relief vacancies with seamen referred by NMU
hiring halls. The TSC/MSC master agreement allows
Keystone to go outside the hiring hall when no employee
is available through the hall. Keystone has done this for
one permanent and one relief position on the two
tug/barges. The employees referred by the NMU hiring
halls have experience working on vessels other than
tugs/barges.6 The NMU hiring hall makes no distinction
between vessels for accumulating seniority. Further-
more, NMU’s National Shipping Rules pursuant to the
TSC/MSC master agreement allow unit employees to bid

6 Keystone typically looks for individuals with tug/barge experience
to work on the tug/barge crews and individuals with tanker experience
to work on tanker crews.
on any job available aboard any fleet vessel if the unit
employee is qualified.7
The two tug/barges carry clean petroleum products for
various oil companies or companies that buy and resell
oil products. Victory/Texas operates primarily along the
East Coast and across the Gulf of Mexico. Val-
iant/Pennsylvania operates primarily between Louisiana
and Puerto Rico. Other Keystone vessels perform the
same type of service as the two tug/barges although these
vessels are not tug/barges (see fn. 4, supra). These ves-
sels service different routes. The crewmembers on the
tug/barge vessels load and discharge petroleum products,
as do employees on Keystone’s other vessels. The
crewmembers perform their work according to standard
maritime practice and procedures. Prior to Keystone’s
assumption of operations, the crewmembers worked a
30-day, on-off cycle. They earn 1 day of compensated
time off for each day they work on the tug/barges. Key-
stone negotiated with NMU to allow Keystone to in-
crease the work cycle to 45 days if Keystone deems it
necessary. Unlicensed crewmembers on Keystone’s
tankers receive 13 days of paid vacation for every 30
days worked and work tours of duty ranging from 30
days to 6 months, with an average of 3 to 4 months. The
total annual earnings including wages, overtime, and
vacation pay for unlicensed seamen aboard tanker vessels
is approximately the same as those for seamen aboard the
two tug/barges. The difference in the distribution of
earnings between actual wages, overtime, and vacation
pay between seamen on tanker vessels and seamen on the
two tug/barges is primarily due to differences in the
length of voyages made by the respective vessels.
The basic tasks performed by the unlicensed seamen
on the two tug/barges are comparable to those of seamen
working on tankers, freighters, or other vessels of Key-
stone. Nevertheless, tug/barge work is different due to
the close living quarters shared by the entire crew. On
the tug/barge vessels, the licensed and unlicensed crew
members share a common mess room. The crews on
Keystone’s tanker vessels have separate rooms and the
unlicensed and licensed crewmembers eat in separate
mess rooms. Moreover, the tug/barge vessels provide a
less stable ride than that of the generally considerably
larger tankers.
B. Issues
The issue is whether Respondent Keystone violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing NMU
as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees on the two tug/barges, Victory/Texas and Val-
iant/Pennsylvania, and by encouraging the employees to
join NMU, even though NMU did not represent an unco-
7 While Texaco operated the two tug/barges from 1988 to 1995,
there was no interchange of employees between these vessels and other
vessels in the TSC/MSC multiemployer bargaining unit of multiple
vessels of various types.
KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO. 895
erced majority in the bargaining unit; and whether Re-
spondent NMU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act by applying its TSC/MSC master agreement to the
employees on the two tug/barges.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent NMU contends that the employees on the
two tug/barges accreted to the fleetwide bargaining unit
represented by NMU pursuant to its TSC/MSC master
agreement. NMU maintains that three factors validate its
position: (1) the Board’s presumption in favor of a fleet-
wide unit in the maritime industry; (2) the TSC/MSC
master agreement’s specific application to tug/barges
pursuant to its recognition clause and the arbitral finding
to this effect; and (3) the Board’s standard accretion fac-
tors and their satisfaction here.
SERF and the General Counsel contend that the sepa-
rate unit bargaining history of the two tug/barges’ em-
ployees constitutes a valid exception to the fleetwide
presumption and precludes accretion here. They main-
tain that the unit’s approximately 15-year history of sepa-
rate representation from the outset, including 5 years in a
Board-certified unit, warrants finding the Victory/Texas
and Valiant/Pennsylvania unit appropriate.
D. Discussion
It is well-established that, as a general proposition,
units of seagoing personnel should be fleetwide in
scope.8 Such a pattern prevails in the maritime industry
for its obvious advantages: it eliminates interunion ri-
valry with respect to similar employees of the same em-
ployer employed on different vessels, thereby diminish-
ing conflicts and possible work stoppages; and it facili-
tates the transfer of personnel between ships of the same
employer and ships belonging to different shipowners.9
However, it is also well-established that the reasons for
finding a fleetwide unit appropriate may be overborne in
a particular case by special circumstances that indicate
the injustice or the unsuitability of applying the general
rule.10 Indeed, the seminal Moore-McCormack case il-
lustrated just such special circumstances. There a union
petitioned the Board for a fleetwide unit. The Moore-
McCormack Board found the unit inappropriate because
seven of the vessels in the petitioned-for unit had a 5-
year history of separate bargaining in a Board-sanctioned
unit following a 1957 Board election. That history had
begun as follows. The seven vessels had been trans-
ferred from one employer to another. The union that
represented the employees on the seven vessels peti-
tioned for continued representation. The rival union,
representing the new employer’s employees, opposed the
petition on the ground that the seven vessels were an
accretion to the new employer’s fleet. The Board re-

8 Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 139 NLRB 796, 798 (1962).
9 Id. at 798–799.
10 Moore-McCormack, supra at 799.
jected the rival union’s contention, and conducted the
election in the seven-vessel unit in 1957. The petitioning
union won the election and was certified. By the time of
the Moore-McCormack decision in 1962, that certifica-
tion and representation were 5 years’ old. In rejecting
the petitioned-for fleetwide unit in 1962, the Moore-
McCormack Board emphasized its own prior determina-
tion in sanctioning the separate unit and the bargaining
history based on that determination.11 The Board there-
fore affirmed the Regional Director’s dismissal of the
union’s petition for a fleetwide unit, citing “the special
facts of this case.”12
We find striking similarities here. When Texaco as-
sumed operation of the Victory/Texas and Val-
iant/Pennsylvania, SERF filed a petition with the Board
seeking to represent the crews of the two tug/barges as a
single unit, and NMU intervened arguing that these
crews had accreted to Texaco’s fleetwide unit which
NMU represented.13 The Board certified SERF as the
representative of the crews of the two tug/barges on Oc-
tober 16, 1989, and SERF successfully negotiated collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with Texaco for this separate
unit until July 17, 1995. When Keystone assumed opera-
tion of the Victory/Texas and the Valiant/Pennsylvania
on July 17, 1995, Keystone and NMU applied the
TSC/MSC master agreement to the two tug/barges as
part of Keystone’s fleetwide unit. As a result, SERF
filed the unfair labor practice charges at issue here.
Thus, in this case, just as in Moore-McCormack, the
Board has made a prior determination that the crews of
the two tug/barges constitute a separate appropriate unit
apart from a fleetwide unit, and there has been a period
of bargaining with agreements between the parties based
on that prior determination.14
Finally, we note that NMU contends that the 1989 cer-
tification should be revoked because, subsequent thereto,
11 Moore-McCormack, supra at 799. In Moore-McCormack the
Board noted two other facts: (1) the employer, which was the party
most likely to be the most inconvenienced by the separate seven-ship
unit, was not seeking to abolish it; and (2) an arbitrator found the union
seeking the fleetwide unit to be in violation of the AFL–CIO no-raiding
agreement. We particularly note that the Moore-McCormack Board
found the bargaining history in a separate Board-sanctioned unit to be
sufficiently compelling to warrant bypassing an analysis of standard
accretion factors.
12 Moore-McCormack, supra at 799–800.
13 As we stated in fn. 3, supra, in 1989 NMU won an arbitration
award pursuant to the TSC/MSC master agreement’s recognition
clause. NMU now contends that this warrants a finding that the fleet-
wide unit is appropriate here. It is clear that the Board does not defer to
arbitral awards in cases involving the issue of appropriateness of bar-
gaining units. In this case, NMU ignores the almost 15 years that the
employees of the two tug/barges existed as a separate bargaining unit.
Such overwhelming bargaining history in a separate bargaining unit
overrides the TSC/MSC master agreement’s recognition clause and the
arbitral award, and NMU’s reliance on these is misplaced.
14 We also note that Keystone, like the employer in Moore-
McCormack, does not seek to abolish the separate two tug/barge unit
represented by SERF.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 896
supervisors have served on SERF’s executive committee
and as SERF presidents and treasurers. However, this
case does not raise the issue of whether SERF should be
disqualified from representation. It raises only the issue
of whether NMU is the appropriate representative. For
the reasons set forth above, we conclude that it is not.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Employer Keystone Shipping Co., and
its affiliate Keystone Barge Services, Inc., Joint Employ-
ers is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union District No. 4, NMU/MEBA
(AFL–CIO) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing NMU and enforcing the union-
security provisions of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between NMU and Keystone with respect to em-
ployees in a unit of all senior mechanic tankermen, me-
chanic tankermen, and cooks aboard the tugboat Victory
and barge Texas and tugboat Valiant and barge Pennsyl-
vania, excluding all other employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act, when NMU did not repre-
sent an uncoerced majority of employees in the unit, Re-
spondent Keystone has rendered and is rendering unlaw-
ful assistance and support to a labor organization, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. By accepting exclusive recognition as the represen-
tative of Respondent Keystone’s employees in the desig-
nated unit at a time when it did not represent an unco-
erced majority of these employees; by notifying the des-
ignated unit employees that it would ask Keystone to
discharge them if they did not pay dues and fees; by re-
questing Keystone to discharge employees Donald
Walsh, Paul Curran, and Martin Garcia because these
employees failed to remit dues and fees; by grieving to
arbitration Keystone’s failure to enforce its contractual
obligation to discharge the designated unit employees
who failed to remit dues and fees; and by receiving aid,
assistance, and support in the form of moneys which
Keystone deducted from the wages of the employees in
the designated unit and remitted to it, Respondent NMU
has restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coerc-
ing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents Keystone and NMU
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, we
shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take
the following affirmative actions which are necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. In order to dissipate
the effect of these unfair labor practices, Respondent
Keystone shall withdraw and withhold recognition from
Respondent NMU; NMU shall cease accepting recogni-
tion from Keystone; and both NMU and Keystone shall
cease enforcing the union-security provisions of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between them, or any suc-
cessor, concerning the employees in the designated unit,
unless and until such time as NMU shall have been certi-
fied by the Board; provided, however, that nothing in the
remedial order shall require Keystone to withdraw or
eliminate any wage increases or other benefits, terms, or
conditions of employment which may have been estab-
lished pursuant to any such agreement.
By virtue of the fact that Respondents Keystone and
NMU have given effect to an invalid union-security pro-
vision requiring payment of union dues as a condition of
employment or continued employment and that the
clause has also improperly authorized checkoff of union
dues from the pay of unit employees, Respondents Key-
stone and NMU shall jointly and severally be required to
reimburse all the designated unit employees for fees and
moneys deducted from their pay in requiring them to
execute union applications and checkoff authorization
cards on behalf of NMU, with interest added to such re-
imbursements in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
A. Respondent Employer Keystone Shipping Co., and
its affiliate Keystone Barge Services, Inc., Joint Employ-
ers, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing and assisting and supporting Respon-
dent District No. 4, NMU/MEBA (AFL–CIO), by
enforcing the union-security provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement between NMU and Keystone with
respect to its employees in the unit of all senior mechanic
tankermen, mechanic tankermen, and cooks aboard the
tugboat Valiant and barge Pennsylvania and the tugboat
Victory and barge Texas, excluding all other employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, unless and
until NMU is certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees pursuant
to Section 9(c) of the Act; provided, however, that noth-
ing in this Order shall require the withdrawal or elimina-
tion of any wage increases or other benefits, terms, or
conditions of employment which may have been estab-
lished pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Re-
spondent NMU as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the designated unit employees, unless and until
KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO. 897
NMU has been duly certified by the Board as the exclu-
sive representative of such employees.
(b) Jointly and severally, with Respondent NMU, re-
imburse its past and present employees, for all dues and
fees and other moneys withheld from their pay pursuant
to the collective-bargaining agreement between NMU
and Keystone, or any successor agreement, plus interest,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of reim-
bursement of dues or fees or other moneys.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania office and aboard the
tugboat Valiant and barge Pennsylvania and tugboat Vic-
tory and barge Texas, copies of the attached notices
marked “Appendix A.”15 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being signed by Keystone’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by Keystone and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Keystone to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, Keystone has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, Keystone shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex-
pense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by Keystone at any time
since July 19, 1995.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions set forth in (d) above, as they are forwarded by the
Regional Director, copies of Respondent NMU’s notice
marked “Appendix B.”
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail
signed copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix
A” to the Regional Director for posting at Respondent
NMU’s offices and meeting halls.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent Keystone has taken
to comply.
B. Respondent Union District No. 4, NMU/MEBA
(AFL–CIO) its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Accepting exclusive recognition as the representa-
tive of Respondent Keystone’s employees in the desig-

15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
nated unit by enforcing the union-security provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement between NMU and
Keystone; notifying the designated employees that it will
ask Keystone to discharge them if they did not pay dues
and fees; requesting Keystone to discharge employees
Donald Walsh, Paul Curran, and Martin Garcia because
these employees failed to remit dues and fees, grieving to
arbitration Keystone’s failure to enforce its contractual
obligation to discharge the designated unit employees
who failed to remit dues and fees; and receiving aid, as-
sistance, and support in the form of moneys which Key-
stone deducted from the wages of the employees in the
designated unit and remitted to it, at a time when NMU
does not represent an uncoerced majority of employees
in the unit.
(b) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the unit unless and until NMU has
been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing Keystone’s employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Keystone,
reimburse its past and present employees, for all dues or
fees or other moneys withheld from their pay pursuant to
the agreement between NMU and Keystone, or any suc-
cessor agreement, plus interest, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B.”16 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being signed by NMU’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by NMU and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by NMU to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed its offices and meeting halls involved in these
proceedings, NMU shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent Key-
stone at any time since July 19, 1995.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in (b) above, as they are forwarded by
the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Keystone’s
notice marked “Appendix A.”
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail
signed copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix
B” to the Regional Director for posting at Respondent
16 See fn. 15, supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 898
Keystone’s offices and aboard the tugboat Valiant and
barge Pennsylvania and tugboat Victory and barge Texas.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent NMU has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT recognize and assist and support Dis-
trict No. 4, NMU/MEBA (AFL–CIO) (NMU) by enforc-
ing the union-security provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement between us and NMU with respect
to the employees in the unit of all senior mechanic
tankermen, tankermen and cooks aboard the tugboat Val-
iant and barge Pennsylvania and the tugboat Victory and
barge Texas, excluding all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, unless and until NMU
is certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the designated unit employees pursuant to
Section 9(c) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
NMU as the collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the designated unit unless and until NMU
has been duly certified by the Board as their exclusive
representative.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with NMU, reimburse
our past and present employees for all dues and fees and
other moneys withheld from their pay pursuant to our
collective-bargaining agreement with NMU, or any suc-
cessor agreement, plus interest.

KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO., AND ITS
AFFILIATE KEYSTONE BARGE
SERVICES, INC., JOINT EMPLOYERS

APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protetion
To choose not to engage in any of these prtected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT accept exclusive recognition as the
representative of employees of Keystone Shipping Co.,
and its affiliate Keystone Barge Services, Inc., Joint Em-
ployers, by enforcing the union-security provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreement between us and Key-
stone with respect to the unit of all senior mechanic
tankermen, tankermen, and cooks aboard the tugboat
Valiant and barge Pennsylvania and the tugboat Victory
and barge Texas, excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, unless and until we
are certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the designated unit employees pursuant
to Section 9(c) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT notify employees in the designated
unit that we will ask Keystone to discharge them if they
do not pay dues and fees.
WE WILL NOT ask Keystone to discharge employees
Donald Walsh, Paul Curran, and Martin Garcia because
these employees failed to remit dues and fees.
WE WILL NOT grieve to arbitration Keystone’s fail-
ure to enforce its contractual obligation to discharge the
designated unit employees who failed to remit dues and
fees.
WE WILL NOT receive aid, assistance, and support in
the form of moneys which Keystone deducted from the
wages of the employees in the designated unit and remit-
ted to us, at a time when we did not represent an unco-
erced majority of employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed you by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Keystone, reim-
burse its past and present employees for all dues and fees
and other moneys withheld from their pay pursuant to
our collective-bargaining agreement with Keystone, or
any successor agreement, plus interest.

DISTRICT NO. 4, NMU/MEBA (AFL–
CIO)
KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO. 899