The Curtis Bay Towing Co. of Pennsylvania

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1152 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE CURTIs BAY TOWING COMPANY OF PENNSYL-
VANIA, SHERIDAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, P. F. MARTIN, INC.,
BERNARD TUCKER 'S SONS, INDEPENDENT TOWING CO., CHARLES T.
BANKS TOWING LINE, AND TAYLOR & ANDERSON TOWING & LIGHTERAGE
COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 50, LOCAL
UNION 13039
Case No. 4-R-1849.-Decided March 25, 1946
Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for The Curtis
Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Robert G. Kelly, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Sheridan Trans-
portation Company, P. F. Martin, Inc., Bernard Tucker's Sons, Inde-
pendent Towing,Co., Charles T. Banks Towing Line, and Taylor &
Anderson Towing & Lighterage Company.
Mr. William E. Collins, of Philadelphia, Pa., for District 50.
Freedman, Landing & Lorry, by Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, of
Philadelphia, Pa., for Masters, Mates & Pilots.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Mine Workers of America,
District 50, Local Union 13039, herein called District 50, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Curtis Bay Towing Company, Sheridan
Transportation Company, P. F. Martin, Inc., Bernard Tucker's Sons,
Independent Towing Company, Charles T. Banks Towing Line, and
Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Company, all of Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, herein collectively called the Companies, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Herman Lazarus, Trial Examiner. The hear-
ing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 26, 1945.
The Companies, District 50, and National Organization of Masters,
66 N. L. R. B., No. 140.
1152
THE CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 1153
Mates and Pilots of America, Local No. 2, herein called Masters,
Mates & Pilots, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The motion to dismiss on the part of the
Masters, Mates & Pilots is hereby denied for reasons hereinafter
stated. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the
Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMP ANTIES
The record reveals that all the Companies involved herein are en-
gaged in and derive substantial income from the operation of tug-
boats used in the towing and docking of oceangoing vessels engaged
in foreign and interstate commerce.
The Companies admit, and we find, that they are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEI)
United Mine Workers of America , District 50, Local Union 13039,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Companies.
National Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of America,
Local No . 2, is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Companies.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Companies have refused to grant recognition to District 50
as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees
unless and until District 50 has been certified by the Board in an
appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that District 50 represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
' The Field Examiner reported that District 50 had submitted 38 cards bearing the
names of employees , among a total of approximately 65 employees in the claimed appro-
priate unit ; and that 36 cards were dated in August 1945 . 2 were undated
Masters, Mates & Pilots claims an interest in the proceeding by virtue of a bargaining
agreement with the Companies.
686572-46-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Companies, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
District 50 seeks a unit comprising all masters and mates employed
on board the tugboats of the Companies operating, except for tem-
porary or occasional operations elsewhere, exclusively upon the Dela-
ware River and Bay and their tributaries, and upon the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal. Masters, Mates & Pilots does not dispute the
appropriateness of the unit claimed by District 50, but contends that
inasmuch as District 50 is seeking to represent the unlicensed per-
sonnel of the Companies? it is, therefore, incompetent to represent
the licensed masters and mates who have supervisory authority over
the unlicensed personnel. The Companies take no position.
The issue raised by Masters, Mates & Pilots with respect to the
propriety of permitting the same or affiliated labor organizations to
represent both the supervisory and the non-supervisory employees of
a single employer has, in a recent case,-' been considered and deter-
mined by the Board in favor of allowing employees an unrestricted
choice in their selection of a bargaining representative. For the
reasons set forth in that case, we find that there is no impropriety in
representation by District 50 of separate units of licensed and un-
licensed personnel of the Companies. Accordingly, the contention of
Masters, Mates & Pilots to the contrary is rejected.
We find that all masters and mates employed on board the tugboats
of the Companies operating, except for temporary or occasional opera-
tions elsewhere, exclusively upon the Delaware River and Bay, and
their tributaries, and upon the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
z See Matter of the Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, et at, 64 N. L. R. B
1208, wherein the Board has, since the date of the hearing in the present proceeding,
directed an election and thereafter following the election certified District 50 as bargain-
ing representative for the unlicensed personnel of the Companies
a Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66
N. L. R. B. 386.
THE CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 1155
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Curtis Bay
Towing Company of Pennsylvania, Sheridan Transportation Com-
pany, P. F. Martin, Inc., Bernard Tucker's Sons, Independent Tow-
ing Company, Charles T. Banks Towing Line, and Taylor & Anderson
Towing & Lighterage Company, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible,
but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article Ill, Sections 10 and 11, of
said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the unit found ap-
propriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict 50, Local Union 13039, or by National Organization of Masters,
Mates and Pilots of America, Local No. 2, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D . REILLY, dissenting :
The Board has recognized in prior cases that the reasons stated in
the majority decisions in the Matter of The Maryland Drydock Com-
pany, 49 N. L. R. B. 733, and in my minority opinion in the Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, do not apply to
representation of licensed maritime officers by a labor organization
which does not admit unlicensed personnel to membership. I would
have no objection to an election in this case if the National Organiza-
tion of Masters, Mates and Pilots were the only labor organization
involved. Since the petitioner, in this case District 50, has been certi-
fied as representative of the unlicensed personnel (i. e., the seamen)
aboard these tugboats, it would seem to me completely contrary to
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
precedent to permit District 50 to go on the ballot as a representative
of the licensed masters and mates.
I feel that the grounds urged in my dissenting opinion in the
Matter of Jones ei Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal
Division, 66 N. L. R. B. 386, apply with even greater force in this
situation,4 taking into account the traditions of the sea and the tre-
mendous authority vested in masters under the admiralty laws of the
United States.
* See Delaware-New Jersey Ferry Company , 128 F . ( 2d) 130 (C. C. A. 3), where the
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Board 's order because licensed and unlicensed per-
sonnel were in the same unit. It would seem to me that the theory of the court would
be equally applicable to a case which permitted the licensed and unlicensed personnel to
be represented by the same union, even though separate bargaining untts were found