Local 1291, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1785 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC . 1785
resolve the question adversely to the Union while rejecting the Union's offer
to prove its majority again. It had no reasonable foundation for its conclusion.
In these circumstances, not only was its unilateral action an out and out bypass-
ing of the Union, but Price's repetitive assertions in his communications with
Shippey, that the Union did not represent the employees served all the more to
render what negotiations did take place only meaningless words.
It seems to me, in the instant case, that it cannot be said that the Respondent "carried
on its affairs, conducted its business and managed the employees without regard to
any consideration of the employees' chosen representative."
Here, those employees on the payroll as of the certification date all ultimately lost
their jobs when they all were replaced and when they lost the strike; and, because the
Union continued to represent the strikers and did not claim to represent the replace-
ments in the bargaining unit, the Respondent was not precluded from continuing to
conduct its business as it did.
The Respondent has met the obligations of Section 8(d) of the Act. The totality of
its conduct shows that it bargained in good faith but was unable to arrive at an
acceptable agreement with the Union which would actually apply to the employees
in the bargaining unit. The impasse reached on the questions of wages and union
security on July 3, 1963, the day of the strike, was real; the bargaining conduct there-
after shows no bad faith on the part of the Respondent. For the Respondent to have
itself drawn, and then entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union
would, under the unusual circumstances of this case, have been for it to complete a
nullity. "The right to represent employees ... is not a permanent relationship which
should continue without regard to changing conditions, and the Board, in a proper
proceeding upon proper showing [would] take necessary steps to recognize changed
conditions including any [uncoerced] shift in the attitude of the employees." N.L.R.B.
v. J. C. Hamilton, et al., d/b/a J. C. Hamilton Company, 220 F. 2d 492, 494
(C.A. 10).
The preponderance of the evidence being considered, including all facts going to
the Respondent's totality of conduct, it does not appear that the General Counsel has
proven the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The complaint, therefore,
should be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Alva Allen Industries, Inc., Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 814, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Respondent
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
4. The complaint should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed.
Local 1291 , International Longshoremen's Association , AFL-CIO
and Pocahontas Steamship Company
Local 1291 , International Longshoremen's Association , AFL-CIO
and Northern Contracting Company . Cases Nos. 4-CD-119 and
4-CD-125-1. September 29, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Pocahontas Steamship Company, herein
called Pocahontas, in Case No. 4-CD-119 and by Northern Contract-
ing Company, herein called Northern, in Case No. 4-CD-125-1, the
154 NLRB No. 136.
1786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region, issued an order consolidating the two
cases and a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on June 9,
1965, against Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent or ILA. The. complaint
alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii)
(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by picketing
and other conduct which had an object of forcing Pocahontas and
Northern and/or Marine Transport Lines, Inc., to assign the work
of opening and closing hatches on certain vessels to employees repre-
sented by Respondent rather than to employees represented by
another labor organization. Respondent filed an answer to the com-
plaint denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, on July 13, 1965, Pocahontas Steamship Company,
Northern Contracting Company, ILA, and the Genera Counsel of
the Board entered into a stipulation in the consolidated proceeding.
The parties waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner, the baking of
findings of fact and conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the
issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision and submitted the proceedings
for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the issuance of a Decision
and Order by the Board. It was agreed that the entire record :n this
case shall consist of the stipulation, transcripts of testimony, and
exhibits in two matters before the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, both entitled "Bernard Samoff,
Regional Director of the Fourth Region for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board.
Petitioner v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO," filed as Civil No. 36626 and 37184, respectively,' and the
petition, order to show cause, Respondent's answer thereto, and the
opinions and orders of the court in each of said proceedings, the tran-
scripts of testimony and exhibits in Cases Nos. 4-CD-119 and 4-CD-
125-1, both entitled "Local 1291 International Longshoremen's Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO" and the Decision and Determination of Dispute
by the National Labor Relations Board in each of said proceedings,2
together with the formal papers herein, namely the charges, consoli-
dated complaint and notice of hearing, and Respondent's answer. On
July 23, 1965, the Board issued an order approving the stipulation and
transferring this proceeding to the Board. Thereafter, briefs were
filed by Respondent, the Charging Parties, and General Counsel.
i Local 1242 , International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO, was involved in
Civil No. 37184 , but not in the alleged 8(b) (4) (D) violations.
2 152 NLRB 676: 152 NLRB 735.
LOCAL 1291 , INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN ., ETC. 1787
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board.
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Pocahontas Steamship Company, a Delaware corporation, is a sub-
sidiary of Consolidation Coal Company. Pocahontas is engaged in
the shipment of coal produced at Consolidation's mines in the State
of West Virginia from ports in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to ports in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the past
year, shipments were valued in excess of $50,000.
Northern Contracting Company is a Delaware corporation with its
offices located at 623 Six Penn Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Northern operates pier 124 in South Philadelphia. The pier, which
is owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, is used solely for
the loading of coal aboard vessels. During the past year Northern's
gross receipts were approximately $590,000, and of this sum an amount
in excess of $150,000 was derived from the handling and loading of
coal on ships destined for ports outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
We find that both Northern Contracting Company and Pocahontas
Steamship Company are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. 'THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1291, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO,
and the National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO ( referred to herein as
NMU), are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
ITT. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On May 18, 1965, the Board issued its Decision and Determination
of Dispute in Case No. 4-CD-119 in which an assignment of certain
work in dispute was made to employees employed by Pocahontas
Steamship Company, currently represented by NMU, rather than to
longshoremen represented by Local 12913 On May 20, 1965, the
Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute in Case No.
4-CD-125-1 in which an assignment of the work in dispute was made
to employees employed by Marine Transport Lines, Inc., currently
,3152 NLRB 676.
1788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by NMU, rather than to longshoremen represented by
Respondent.4 In both cases , the Board held that the ILA was not
entitled to force or require the employers concerned , by means pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the disputed work to its
members. ILA thereupon advised the Regional Director for Region 4
that it would not comply with either of the Board's Decisions.
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that if tre Respondent has com-
plied with the Board's determination, the 8(b) (4) (D) charge must be
dismissed. As the Respondent has not complied with the 10(k) deter-
mination, the proceeding is properly before us and we must determine
the merits of the complaint. Although the legal issues in both cases
are essentially the same, for the purpose of clarity we consider each
case separately.
A. Pocahontas Steamship Company, Case No. 4-CD-119
The work in dispute in this matter rises out of the loading of coal
aboard Pocahontas ships at pier 18 , Port Richmond , Philadelphia.
The pier is owned and operated by the Reading Co. Longshore work
is contracted by Reading to E. W . Coslett and Sons, Inc., whose
employees are represented by various locals of the International Long-
shoremen's Association. Reading pays Coslett on a cost-plus basis
and is not reimbursed for the costs by Pocahontas.
In order to prepare a ship to receive coal or move out to sea, it is
necessary to open and close the ship's hatches (known as hatch and
beam work). The hatches on the Pocahontas ships that have docked
at pier 18 are opened and closed by turning an electrical switch. It is
this Rork, the opening and closing of the hatches, which ILA demanded
that Pocahontas assign to its members rather than to members of the
ships ' crews.
Pocahontas, as a member of the Collier Owners' Association, is
party to a collective-bargaining contract with the NMU covering the
unlicensed deck department aboard each of its ships . The contract
calls for a monthly salary and provides for the deck department to
perform a variety of work including the opening and closing of
hatches. Both Reading and Coslett are members of the Philadelphia
Marine Trade Association ( referred to as PMTA ). PMTA's contract
with ILA assigns hatch and beam work to that union. Pocahontas
is neither a member of PMTA nor a party to the contract with ILA.
The incidents in issue occurred when Pocahontas ships docked at
pier 18 on April 16, 196, and again on May 16, June 17, and August 22,
1964. On each occasion members of the ships' crews opened and closed
the hatches and an ILA hatch and beam gang was not hired. Respond-
ent's members picketed the entrance to the pier on each of the days in
4 152 NLRB 735.
LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 1789
question with signs stating that Pocahontas was unfair to ILA. Cos-
lett's employees refused to cross the lines and Coslett was advised by
officials of the ILA that the picketing was in protest of the failure to
hire a hatch and beam gang. Each time the loading operations ceased
until a hatch and beam gang was hired.
As indicated above, charges were thereupon filed by Pocahontas, and
the Board subsequently issued its Determination of Dispute, finding
that the ships' crews represented by NMU were entitled to perform
the disputed work. As in that case, Respondent again argues that
because of a statement by NMU purporting to disclaim any affirmative
demand for the work, the picketing did not arise from a dispute
between two unions or groups of employees and Sections 8(b) (4) (D)
and 10(k) of the Act do not apply. Respondent's brief further ques-
tions the correctness of the 10(k) award. These arguments raise no
issues that were not discussed and disposed of in our prior Decision
and Determination of Dispute. We adhere to that determination.
Accordingly, our sole concern here is whether Respondent has engaged
in the unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D).5
The evidence is clear that Respondent authorized or ratified the
action of its members in picketing for the purpose of causing the work
stoppage which was intended to force the assignment of the work to
employees who were members of ILA rather than members of the
ships' crews. Respondent's contention that the picketing is, neverthe-
less, protected on the ground that it sought only to restore to the ILA
by picketing in a peaceful manner work that its members were rightly
entitled to perform, again goes only to the merits of the earlier award.
Accordingly, we conclude that in causing such work stoppages and
threatening to continue such activity against Pocahontas' ships for the
purpose of forcing the reassignment of hatch and beam work, Respond-
ent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act."
B. Northern Contracting Co., Case No. 4-CD-125-1
Northern's employees operated coal loading equipment on pier 124.
On November 19, 1964, the SS Marine Electric, a ship operated by
Marine Transport Lines, Inc., docked at the pier for the purpose of
taking on coal. The ship was equipped with a mechanical hatch cover
which, in accordance with past practice on the ship, had been opened
before the ship docked by members of the ship's crew represented by
NMU. As a result, no ILA hatch and beam gang was hired.
5Local 991 , International Longshoremen's Association, et al. (Union Carbide Chemical
Company ), 139 NLRB 1152.
°Local 28 , International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union of North America
(Capital Electrotype Company, Inc.), 140 NLRB 480.
1790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Northern's representatives on the pier were approached that evening
by two ILA delegates who declared that there would be picketing in
the event an ILA hatch and beam gang was not hired? Northern's
employees are not members of Local 1291 and it is normal practice for
hatch and beam gangs to be hired at the request of the ship owner or
operator.8 Nevertheless, Northern agreed to hire the additional steve-
dores. The hatch and beam gang performed no services since the
ship's crew continued to operate the hatches.
As in the Pocahontas case, and in the 10 (k) decision herein, Respond-
ent again argues that the Act does not apply because of the NMU's
purported disclaimer of the hatch and beam work and that, in any
event, the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute was erro-
neous. Both arguments were rejected by the Board in the 10(k) pro-
ceeding. We adhere to that determination.
It is clear that since Respondent threatened a work stoppage for
the purpose of forcing the assignment of hatch and beam work to its
members, the elements of an unfair labor practice under Section
8(b) (4) (D) are present and we accordingly find that the Respondent
violated that section of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operation of the companies involved, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation 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
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
At the hearing, the Respondent 's delegates denied that they threatened to picket and
asserted that they merely advised Northern that they had been contacted by an anonymous
member of their local who told them that no hatch and beam gang had been hired and
threatened to picket by himself if this were not done at once. However, they did not
disavow union responsibility for, or otherwise disassociate the Union from, the threat,
but rather , even according to their version of the incident, utilized the threat as a tool for
inducing Northern to take on the otherwise unnecessary hatch and beam gang . Id. at 483.
8 Neither Northern nor Marine Transport is a party to the PMTA contract with Local
1291 referred to above. Northern 's employees are not involved in this matter . Marine
Transport , though not a member of the Collier Owners' Association , has adopted the
collective-bargaining contract between that organization and NMU covering the unlicensed
deck department of its ships.
LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSN., ETC. 1791
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of E. W.
Coslett and Sons, Inc., Pocahontas Steamship Company, Northern
Contracting Company, and/or Marine Transport Lines, Inc., or other
persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services;
or threatening, coercing, or restraining Pocahontas Steamship Com-
pany, Marine Transport Lines, Inc., and/or Northern Contracting
Company, or other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring Pocahontas
Steamship Company, Northern Contracting Company, and/or Marine
Transport Lines, Inc., to assign the work of opening and closing cargo
hatches on Pocahontas Steamship Company ships docking at pier 18,
Port Richmond, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and of opening and
closing cargo hatches on the SS Marine Electric when docking at pier
124 South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to members of Respondent
rather than to the employees of Pocahontas Steamship Company and
Marine Transport Lines, Inc., respectively, which employees are cur-
rently represented by National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, where
Marine Transport Lines, Inc., and Pocahontas Steampship Company
or either of them is not failing to conform to an order or certification
of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees
performing such work, Respondents did commit unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 1291, Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall :
1. Cease and desist from engaging in or inducing or encouraging
employees of Pocahontas Steamship Company, Northern Contracting
1792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, E. W. Coslett and Sons, Inc., and/or Marine Transport
Lines, Inc., or other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Poca-
hontas Steamship Company, Northern Contracting Company, E. W.
Coslett and Sons, Inc., and/or Marine Transport Lines, Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, with an object of forcing or requiring Pocahontas Steamship
Company, Northern Contracting Company, E. W. Coslett and Sons,
Inc., and/or Marine Transport Lines, Inc. to assign the work of (as
to Case No. 4-CD-119) opening and closing of cargo hatches on ships
operated by Pocahontas Steamship Company that dock at pier 18,
Port Richmond, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and (as to Case No.
4-CD-125-1) opening and closing of cargo hatches on the SS Marine
Electric when docking at pier 124, South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
to employees represented by the Respondent rather than to employees
employed (as to Case No. 4-CD-119) as members of the unlicensed
deck department of Pocahontas Steamship Company, currently repre-
sented by National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, and (as to Case No.
4-CD-125-1) employees employed by Marine Transport Lines, Inc.,
as members of the unlicensed deck department aboard the SS Marine
Electric currently represented by National Maritime Union, AFL-
CIO, unless (as to Case No. 4-CD-119) the said Pocahontas Steamship
Company or (as to Case No. 4-CD-125-1) the said Northern Contract-
ing Company is failing to conform to an order or certification of the
Board determining the bargaining representative of employees per-
forming such work.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their business offices and meeting
halls in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notices
marked "Appendix 1" (as to Case No. 4-CD-119) and "Appendix 2"
(as to Case No. 4-CD-125-1).9 Copies of said notices, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed
by the Union's representative, be posted by the Union immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
9In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order".
LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 1793
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the Regional
Director for Region 4 for posting by Pocahontas Steamship Company,
Northern Contracting Company, E. W. Coslett and Sons, Inc., Marine
Transport Lines, Inc., and all other persons involved in this proceed-
ing, who are willing, at all locations upon their or other premises
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX 1
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LoNGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF POCA-
HONTAS STEAMSHIP COMPANY AND E. W. COSLETT AND SONS, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees
of E. W. Coslett and Sons, Inc., or Pocahontas Steamship Com-
pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in any indus-
try affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, material,
or commodities, or to perform services; or threaten, restrain, or
coerce Pocahontas Steamship Company, E. W. Coslett and Sons,
Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry
affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to
force or require Pocahontas Steamship Company to assign the
work of opening and closing of cargo hatches (hatch and beam
work) on ships operated by Pocahontas Steamship Company
that dock at pier 18, Port Richmond, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
to employees represented by our labor organization rather than
to employees employed as members of the unlicensed deck depart-
ment by Pocahontas Steamship Company, currently represented
by National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, where Pocahontas
Steamship Company is not failing to conform to an order or
certification of the Board determining the bargaining represent-
ative for the employees performing the above-mentioned work.
LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, AFl'CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
206-446-66-vo1. 154-114
1794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Security Building, Juniper and Walnut
Streets. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. 597-7617.
APPENDIX 2
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF NORTHERN
CONTRACTING COMPANY AND MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act., as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of
Northern Contracting Company, Marine Transport Lines, Inc.,
or any other person engaged in commerce or any industry affecting
commerce, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, material, or commodities,
or to perform services; or threaten, restrain, or coerce Northern
Contracting Company, Marine Transport Lines, Inc., or any other
person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require
Northern Contracting Company or Marine Transport Lines, Inc..
to assign the work of opening and closing of cargo hatches
(hatch and beam work) on the SS Marine Electric when docking
at pier 124 South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to employees repre-
sented by our labor organization rather than to employees
employed by Marine Transport Lines, Inc., as members of the
unlicensed deck department aboard the SS Marine Electric, repre-
sented currently by National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, where
Northern Contracting Company or Marine Transport Lines, Inc.,
is not failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board
determining the bargaining representative for the employees
performing the above-mentioned work.
LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
GALLANT MAN 1795
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Security Building, Juniper and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. 597-7617.
Patterson Menhaden Corporation , d/b/a Gallant Man, and
Fletcher Miller, Agent ; Surprise , Inc., d/b/a Surprise, and
Fletcher Miller , Agent and Fishermen's Union Local 300, Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-92475. September 29,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 11, 1965, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications
and exceptions.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, except to the extent that the Trial Examiner found that Respond-
ent violated the Act by reducing the wages of Matthew J. Hooper and
refusing to employ Hooper and Desire Bishop because of their activi-
ties on behalf of the Union. The record establishes and it is undis-
puted that Hooper and Bishop are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. The Board has consistently held that
154 NLRB No. 144.