Mike Trama

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 17, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 151 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MIKE TRAMA ( F/V SANDY BOY) 151 There is, however, no correlation between the store groupings estab- lishedAfor purposes of supervision and the wage areas, as each store grouping contains stores from more than one wage area , and each wage area contains stores from more than one group It is clear, therefore, and we find , that the alternative units sought by the Peti- tioners do not conform to any administrative subdivision of the Em- ployer's operations , nor would the addition of the Renova store result in such conformity These stores do not , moreover, constitute any well- defined geographic area, as the stores at Williamsport and Mount Union, at the opposite ends of the wage area, are about 75 miles apart, whereas stores at Montgomery and Milton , outside the wage area, are only about 10 and 15 miles , respectively, from stores within that area We find, accordingly , that the alternative units sought are also in- appropriate 2 In these circumstances , and as the Petitioners do not seek elections in any other units which might be appropriate, we shall dismiss the petition 3 [The Board dismissed the petitions ] 2Father & Son Shoe Stores , Inc 117 NLRB 1479 , Kroger Company ( St Louis Branch Office), 88 NLRB 194 , C Pappas Company, Inc , 80 NLRB 1272 8 As it is unnecessary to our decision , we have not considered whether only ehainwide units are appropriate , as the Employer contends , or whether smaller units not sought herein might also be appropriate Mike Trama (F/V Sandy Boy) and Fishermen's Union, Local 33, ILWU, Case No 21-CA-92904 November 17, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On May 28, 1959, Trial Examiner Wallace E Royster issued his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report and a supporting brief Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins] The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner as modified herein 125 NLRB No 23 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's findings that jurisdiction should be asserted in this case under the Board's 1958 jurisdictional standards, contending that consideration should be given to the fact that its conduct alleged to be unlawful herein occurred in 1957, when his operations did not satisfy the jurisdictional standards then in effect, and that as late as March 21, 1958, the Board refused to assert jurisdiction over his business.' However, in adopting the 1958 jurisdictional standards, the Board stated that it would "apply the revised jurisdictional standards to all future and pending cases.'' 2 At the time this policy was announced, the present case was pending on appeal to the General Counsel from the action taken by the Regional Director on March 21, 1,958, in refusing to issue a complaint because the Respondent's operations did not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. This exception, therefore, lacks merit.3 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the complainants herein were discriminatorily terminated on December 31, 1957. However, in the exercise of our administrative discretion as to the remedy most appropriate in the circumstances, we find that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act if the provisions in our Order, that the Respond- ent make whole the discriminatorily discharged employees for any loss of earnings on their part, are limited to the period between the date of the discrimination and March 21, 1958, when the Regional Director dismissed the Respondent's representation petition and re- fused to issue a complaint herein because of lack of jurisdiction, and to the period subsequent to February 27, 1959, when the complaint issued herein and the Respondent was informed that the Board was no longer adhering to the prior administrative determination with regard to jurisdiction over his operations.' ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent Mike Trama, his agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 'As the Board may take official notice of its own records and proceedings , particularly those pertaining to employees of the same employer , we grant Respondent ' s motion that official notice be taken of the fact that on March 21 , 1958, his petition in Case No. 21-RM-471 was dismissed by the Regional Director for lack of jurisdiction . See Mount Hope Finishing Company , et al ., 106 NLRB 480, 483. 2 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 ( Member Jenkins concurring specially). a Wausau Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (Heiser Ready Mix Com- pany ), 123 NLRB 1484 , on which the Respondent relies, is a clearly distinguishable case. In that case, the General Counsel revived a charge which he had properly dismissed under existing jurisdictional standards . In the present case, the General Counsel never affirmed the Regional Director 's disposition of the charge. 4 See Baltimore Transit Company, et al., 47 NLRB 109, 112-113 , enfd. 140 F. 2d 51 (C.A. 4). MIKE TRAMA (F/ V SANDY BOY) 153 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Threatening employees with loss of employment unless they join a particular labor organization. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or the tenure of employment of any employee because he joins or fails to join any labor organization except in accord with the requirements of a collective-bargaining agreement as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Antoine Affidi, Vincenzo Bulone, Frank Ferrara, Sal Lucca, Rosario Rizza, and Nick Mudry immediate and full reinstate- ment, each to his former job aboard the Sandy Boy without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary, any replacements, and make each whole in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" for any loss they may have suffered between the date of the discrimination against them and March 21, 1958, and for the period subsequent to February 27,1959. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records of the Sandy Boy since January 1, 1958, indicating the extent of its fishing operations and the disposition of its catch and all other records necessary to an analysis of the amounts due under terms of this Order. (c) Post aboard the Sandy Boy copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by him inunediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by him for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in all places where notices to crew members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps he has taken in compliance. L In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL CREW MEMBERS 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, you are hereby notified that : I WILL NOT discourage membership in Fishermen's Union, Local 33, ILWU, or in any other labor organiaztion, by terminating any crew member or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. I WILL NOT threaten any crew member with discharge for failure to join Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro. I WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce crew members in the exercise of their rights to self-organ- ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organiaztion as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. I WILL offer to Antoine An, di, Vincenzo Bulone, Frank Ferrara, Sal Lucca, Rosario Rizza, and Nick Mudry immediate and full reinstatement to the positions they held before the discrimination against them, discharging, if necessary, any crew member hired since January 1, 1958, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and I will make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against them as set forth in the Order. All crew members are free to join, form, or assist any labor organi- zation, or to engage in self-organization, or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights are affected by an agreement made in con- formity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. MIKE TRAMA (F/V SANDY Boy), Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. MIKE TRAMA ( F/V SANDY BOY) INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER 155 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by Fishermen 's Union, Local 33, ILWU, herein called Local 33, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued his com- plaint alleging that Mike Trama, herein sometimes the Respondent , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. It is alleged that Mike Trama on one occasion told his employees that their employ- ment depended upon becoming members of Local 33, and on other and subsequent occasions , told them that they could not work unless they joined Seine and Line Fishermen 's Union of San Pedro, herein called Seine and Line. It is finally alleged that Trama discharged his six employees because of their refusal to join Seine and Line. Respondent 's answer traverses many of the factual allegations in the complaint, questions the jurisdiction of the Board in the premises, and denies the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Los Angeles , California , on April 13 and 15, 1959. All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Briefs have been received from counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The complaint bases assertion of jurisdiction upon the Respondent 's business operations in the calendar year 1958. Certain of the unfair labor practices , however, are alleged to have occurred in the closing months of 1957. It is argued that the operations of the Respondent in 1957 did not meet the Board's then effective jurisdic- tional standards, or, for that matter, did not meet the standards as they have since been changed . The business of the Respondent is deep -sea fishing . From a date in late September 1957 until the end of that year the Respondent delivered fish having a value in excess of $10,000 to Franco-Italian Packing Co ., herein called Franco- Italian. During the calendar year 1958 deliveries to Franco -Italian exceeded $78,000 in value. Franco-Italian is engaged at San Pedro , California , in the business of processing , cannig, and distributing sardines and other fish and in 1958, shipped products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to points outside of the State of California . As will more particularly appear, a labor dispute current in the latter months of 1957 curtailed Respondent 's fishing operations to such an extent that the period is not a representative one. As Respondent's operations during the year 1958 satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Board , I find that jurisdiction exists and that the purposes of the Act will be effectuated by its assertion.' II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 33 and Seine and Line are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act , admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For several years until sometime in the summer of 1957 Trama was the owner and master of the Fisherman , a deep-sea fishing vessel . In June of that year and at various times before that month his crew consisted of Antoine Affidi, Vincenzo Bulone, Sal Lucca , Rosario Rizza, and Frank Ferrara . The Respondent , in operat- ing the Fisherman , had an agreement with Seine and Line, and the crew were mem- 1 Abstention is indicated, it is argued , because in the fall of 1957 the Respondent, when seeking the aid of the Board in respect to a secondary boycott being pursued by Seine and Line, was informed that he did not meet jurisdictional standards . The argu- ment might be appealing were we now being asked to remedy an unfair labor practice occurring at that time and running between Seine and Line and the Respondent. That is not this case . The Respondent's inability to obtain relief from the Board in respect to Seine and Line does not license it to commit unfair labor practices affecting the individuals named in this complaint . Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bers or permit-holders of that organization. In the summer of 1957, another vessel, the Sandy Boy, was being constructed for the Respondent. The crew of the Fisher- man aided in the fitting out of the Sandy Boy without compensation but with the understanding that they would fish from the Sandy Boy after its launching. Also in June the Respondent hired Nicholas Mudry, a machinist, to handle the installa- tion of equipment in the Sandy Boy. Mudry worked full time on this task through- out the summer of 1957 until the vessel was ready to go fishing. It was understood between Mudry and the Respondent that when the vessel began fishing he would go along as engineer. For the time that he spent in installation work he was paid $100 a week. The sardine season off the California coast opened on September 1. Because no agreement had been reached with the canneries on the price to be paid for fish, none of the fishing vessels in the San Pedro harbor were working. The Sandy Boy was ready to go out in late September, and before that time came the Respondent man- aged to reach an agreement with Franco-Italian to take his catch at $80 a ton. Other canneries were offering $55. The Respondent, eager to try fishing at the $80 price, spoke to John Calise, a business agent for Seine and Line, in an attempt to reach agreement with Calise covering the crew of the Sandy Boy so that fishing could get under way. Calise said that the contract covering the Fisherman was applicable to the Sandy Boy but refused to give his approval to any fishing at that time by the Respondent. Trama then went to Local 33 to see what he could work out with that organization. He was told by John Royal, an official of Local 33. that if his crew desired to be represented by Local 33 a contract permitting fishing could be arranged. Mudry, who accompanied the Respondent on this visit, testi- fied that the Respondent told him to get the crew to join Local 33. Thereafter, according to Mudry, he and the Respondent told the crew that they could go fishing if they joined Local 33. Mudry, Bulone, and Ferrara signed dues-deduction authori- zations for Local 33, whereupon that local and the Respondent entered into a con- tract covering the crew of the Sandy Boy. On the evening of September 27 the Sandy Boy went fishing and returned the next day with its catch to Franco-Italian. There an indication of the troubles that were to beset the Respondent and his crew awaited them. A picket line was established at the discharge point by Seine and Line, and for a number of hours loading was delayed. Finally the catch was ac- cepted and the vessel delivered fish to Franco-Italian for the next several days. About October 17, a representative of Franco-Italian told Trama that his catch could not be accepted because the workers in the cannery, members of a labor organization affiliated with thet parent body of Seine and Line, would not handle it. In the following week Trama talked with officials of Seine and Line to learn why he was being stopped from fishing. Calise said that first the Respondent would have to sign a contract with Seine and Line and his crew members would have to pay substantial fines and penalties in order to be reinstated as Seine and Line members. The Respondent informed his crew that it appeared possible to continue fishing only if they became Seine and Line members and paid the penalties demanded. The crew refused to accept this ararngement. Trama told Calise of the decision of the crew members. Calise answered that Trama should force the crew to agree or get a crew that would. Trama then sought the aid of Local 33. He was advised that he could, with promise of success, bring an action in Federal court against Seine and Line for damages arising out of the boycott situation. He refused to take this action. On October 28 the crew members brought suit in a State court against Franco-Italian, Seine and Line, the Respondent, and others, for loss of earnings. After this suit was filed the Respondent again met with Calise in an effort to gain permission for the Sandy Boy to fish. Calise again stated the conditions he had imposed earlier and added that the lawsuit must be withdrawn. Literally and figuratively the Respondent and his crew were in the same boat. No matter what success they might have in catching fish this could not be translated. into earnings until the catch was sold. Seine and Line appears effectively to have prevented such sales. Certainly the Respondent violated no aspect of the Act in telling the crew members of the demands made by Calise and in listening to their reactions to the proposals of Seine and Line, but finally Respondent decided that the only way he would be permitted to use his vessel and to employ his crew was by capitulating to the terms of Seine and Line. In November he told the crew that unless they obtained reinstatement with Seine and Line and dropped their lawsuit he would discharge them. The vessel remained idle in November and for most of December while the Respondent obtained employment on the vessel of a relative. For a few days in December a temporary injunction secured by one of the canneries permitted the Sandy Boy to fish. When this opportunity came Affidi was off on a MIKE TRAMA ( F/ V SANDY BOY) 157 trip to Algiers and Mudry had found other employment. On December 31 the Respondent notified each crew member this his employment was terminated. In January 1958 Trama obtained a new crew and went fishing. From the begin- ning of its operations in 1958 the Respondent deducted from the earnings of each crew member those amounts paid by crews covered by contracts with Seine and Line. These deductions were different in amount from those made under the contract with Local 33. Several months later , assertedly at the request of the new crew members, Trama entered into a contract with Seine and Line covering the crew. It is urged on the part of the Respondent that the crew members were employed for the sardine season ending December 31 and that they had no expectation of employment beyond that date. Those of the crew who testified , however, said in effect that they were employed for no particular period with the anticipation that they would remain on the vessel as long as they cared to stay or until the Respondent decided to discharge them. Certainly it appears unlikely to me that the crew members would have worked without compensation for several months in the summer of 1957, preparing the Sandy Boy for fishing if belief existed that they would be permitted to work only for the sardine season . The Respondent admitted that his crew was competent enough but testified that he decided to replace them when they filed suit against him . The Respondent 's argument runs in effect that a fishing vessel is too small to house individuals whose dispute has ripened to the point of legal action. The crew members recognized that their problem was not with the Respondent but with Seine and Line. The Respondent concluded that if he ever wanted to put his vessel to the use for which it was designed and to realize some return on his very substantial investment he must find a way to make peace with Seine and Line. At first he discussed the problem with the crew in what appears to have been an earnest effort to find a solution and sought advice and assistance from Local 33. When all seemed unavailing , the attempt to get relief through the National Labor Relations Board foundered on the reef of jurisdictional policy, he decided that he must give in to Seine and Line and did so. From about November 9, 1957, through the end of the year he repeatedly told his crew that they could not work aboard the Sandy Boy unless they reached accommodation with Seine and Line. The Respond- ent's testimony that he lost confidence in his crew when they filed a suit in State court naming him as one of the defendants does not ring true. The question of bringing that action was discussed with him before filing and he was asked to join as a plaintiff . Only when he refused to do so was his name added as a defendant. In the circumstances existing he must have known that the suit did not reflect an attitude of animosity but rather an attempt to secure relief from a situation no less onerous to the Respondent than to the crew. I do not credit Respondent 's testimony that he discharged his crew at the end of 1957 because he could no longer trust them. I find that the Respondent discharged his crew and each of them because he believed that only by such action would Seine and Line permit him to deliver fish to the canneries . He then hired a new crew and began fishing in January. There is no direct evidence that the Sandy Boy sailed in January 1958 under any sort of agreement with Seine and Line, or that the crew members hired to replace those discharged were then Seine and Line members . From the fact that the deduc- tions from earnings were made in amounts required by Seine and Line contracts and from the further fact that the Sandy Boy in January and thereafter was able to market its catch without interference by Seine and Line, I infer that some sort of truce arrangement was reached. I credit the testimony of Mudry and Affidi that the Respondent commanded the crew to get reinstated in Seine and Line and to drop their lawsuit if they wished to continue fishing on the Sandy Boy. I also credit the undenied testimony of Bulone that shortly after January 1, 1958, when Bulone asked the Respondent to rehire him the Respondent said that he could not do so because Seine and Line would cause him trouble. In November 1957 and thereafter, the crew of the Sandy Boy was aware from what the Respondent had told them that they no longer would be employed aboard the vessel after the closing of the sardine season unless they became Seine and Line members. In this circumstance , and in view of the fact that the Sandy Boy did not fish in the remainder of 1957 except for a few days in December when an injunction permitted it to do so , I find that Affidi did not abandon his employment by going to Algiers and that Mudry did not abandon his by taking another job. Neither of these men had reason to believe that he would be called upon again to fish on the Sandy Boy. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondent is, of course, an employer. The selection of the crew is for him and their retention is at his pleasure. But in a very real sense both the master and the crew members are at the mercy of forces quite beyond the effective influence of either. In September 1957 the Respondent knew that he could sell sardines to Franco-Italian at a price he considered attractive. The question then obtrudes why did not he and his crew set about getting all the sardines they could and bringing them to that market. The answer is found in this record and it is obvious that both the Respondent and his crew believed that in order to do so they must first enter into some sort of contract arrangement either with Seine and Line or with Local 33. This belief was well founded and controlling. When Seine and Line refused to authorize fishing the Respondent asked Local 33 to do so. He was successful in circumstances already related. I do not consider this record to establish that in respect to Local 33 the Respondent did more than to tell the crew of the opportunity to fish and the willingness of Local 33 to give permission if the crew became members of that organization. No doubt he said that there could be no fishing otherwise and I think that he was reporting a fact which the crew well knew. I do not find this to be in the circumstances an interference with the right of the crew members to select their own bargaining representative. The Respondent did no more I think than advise them of the opportunity. The economic thrust which moved the crew toward membership in Local 33 was not generated by him. I find no violation of the Act in the arrangement with Local 33 or in respect to what the Respondent told the crew in that connection. I view the early conver- sations between the Respondent and his crew later, in respect to Seine and Line in the same light. Again an opportunity to fish seemed to exist and the Respondent at first did no more than advise his crew what action on their part would permit them to seize it. But the conversations did not long remain on a level of debate. Despairing of per- suading his crew of the facts of life as they seemed to operate in the San Pedro area the Respondent used his economic power as an employer first to threaten discharge if the crew members did not come within the fold of Seine and Line and finally to implement the threat when they failed to do so. I find that by threatening discharge to the crew members as found above the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced them in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act ancr that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By discharging Affidi, Bulone, Rizza, Ferrara, Lucca, and Mudry on December 31, 1957, the Respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment thus encouraging membership in Seine and Line and discouraging membership in Local 33 and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. By the discharges the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in respect to rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 88(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with its operations set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 it will be recommended that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has threatened the crew of the Sandy Boy with discharge unless they joined Seine and Line, and having found that the Respond- ent on December 31, 1957, discharged Antoine Affidi, Vincenzo Bulone, Frank Ferrara, Sal Lucca, Rosario Rizza, and Nick Mudry, because they refused to join Seine and Line, it will be recommended that the respondent, in addition to ceasing and desisting from such conduct, offer to each of these named individuals immediate reinstatement, each to his former position aboard the Sandy Boy, discharging if necessary any replacements, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings occasioned by the discrimination against them. The loss of earnings shall be com- puted in accordance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, all information concerning the fishing operations of the Sandy Boy from January 1, 1958, including information concerning sales and other dispositions of its catch in order to facilitate the compu- tation of the amount of back pay due. LOCAL 208 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 159 Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 33 and Seine and Line are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Respondent , Mike Trama, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By threatening to discharge the crew of the Sandy Boy unless they became members of Seine and Line, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By discharging the six named crew members on December 31, 1957, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a),(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America ; and Local 123, Furni- ture Workers, Upholsterers & Woodworkers Union and Sierra Furniture Company. Case No. 21-CB-1197. November 17, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On April 22, 1959, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that 'these allega- tions of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, only to the extent that they are consistent herewith. This is the second of two related cases. In the first case,' it was alleged that Sierra entered into a union-shop contract with Local 208 at a time when that union represented less than a majority of Sierra's employees. Therein, the Board found that Local 208, neither alone nor together with Local 123, the original organizer of the plant, represented a majority of Sierra's employees on August 6, 1958, the 1123 NLRB 1198. 125 NLRB No. 20.