Wilson Line, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 1236 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of WILSON LINE, INC., A CORPORATION and NATIONAL
MARINE ENGINEERS ' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH COM-
MITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION and NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
In the Matter Of WILSON LINE, INC., A CORPORATION and HARBOR BOAT-
MEN'S UNION , AFFILIATED WITH COMMITTED FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGAN-
IZATION
Cases Nos. C-1277 and C-1.78, respectively. Decided May 07, 1940
Water Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-com-
pany-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and
administration of predecessor employee organization and support thereto ;
successor employee organization held to be continuation of predecessor company-
dominated union; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimina-
tion: as to tenure of employment ; discharge for union membership and activity ;
charges of, sustained as to 20 employees, dismissed as to 2-Revnstatement
Ordered: employees found to have been discriminated against-Back Pay:
awarded to employees discriminatorily discharged-Unit Appropriate for Col-
lective Bargaining: (1) licensed marine engineers; (2) licensed deck officers; (3)
unlicensed employees on vessels operating in the port of Philadelphia from New-
castle, Delaware, to Trenton, New Jersey-Rcpresentatives: proof of choice:
membership applications submitted by unions failed to prove majority-Collective
Bargaining: charges of failure to, dismissed upon failure to prove majority, at
one date, and upon absence of proof of refusal •at another.
Mr. Weldon P. Monson, for the Board.
Lewis, Wolff, Gourlay and Hemphill, by Mr. Otto Wolff, Jr. and
Mr. John Hemphill, of Philadelphia, Pa., 'for, the respondent.
Mr. Warren C. Evans, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the M. E. B. A., the
M. M. P., and the H. B. U.
Mr. Harry P. Joslyn, of Wilmington, Del., for the C. M. A.
Mr. John K. Odisho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by National Marine
Engineers' Beneficial Association, affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization,' herein called the M. E. B. A., National
' Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the C I 0
23 N. L. R. B., No. 129.
1236
WILSON LINE, INC. 1237
Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the M. M. P., and Harbor Boat-
men's Union, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion, herein called the H. B. U., the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Re-
gion (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint 2 and amended
complaint dated October 24 and December 10, 1937, respectively,
against Wilson Line, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent, the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the
H. B. U. With respect tt the unfair labor practices, the complaint,
as amended , alleged in substance, that the respondent (1) formed,
dominated, and interfered with the formation and administration of
and contributed financial and other support to the following labor
organizations of its employees : Marine Employees' Committee, repre-
senting the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc., herein called the
M. E. C.; Unlicensed Marine Employees' Committee of Wilson Line,
Inc., herein called the U. M. E. C.; John Emering, Herbert S. Hall,
William Campbell, William Peaper, Joel George Coffin, and Andrew
Anderson, representing the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc.,
herein called the Committee; and Christiana Marine Association,
herein called the C. M. A.; (2) discouraged membership in the M. E.
B. A. by discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate 4 named
employees,3 because they joined and assisted the M. E. B. A.; (3)
discouraged membership in the M. M. P. by discharging and thereafter
refusing to reinstate 8 named employees' because they joined and
assisted the M. M. P.; (4) discouraged membership in the H. B. U. by
discharging and refusing to reinstate 10 named employees 5 because
they joined and assisted the H. B. U.; (5) on and after July 2, 1937,
refused to bargain collectively with the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P.,
and the H. B. U. although each of them, respectively, had been
designated by the majority of the respondent's employees within an
2 On October 1, 19.18, the Board, acting pursuant to Article IT, Section 37 (b), of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations -Series 1, as amended , ordered
that the above cases be consolidated for the purpose of hearing, and for all other purposes.
3 Murray Cross, Victor S Buckworth, C. A. Fitzpatrick, and Venus M. Buckwortb.
4 F. L Turner, J A. Phillips, E. E Graham, I. W. Haywood, W. B. Jackson, S. W.
Bennett, John B Foster, and Raymond Miller.
5 C W. Hammond, M C Hoil, A G Singleton, W. A. Rittenhouse, LeRoy Cole, Herbert
Sapp, C. E. Coulbourn, A. E. Harris, C. D. Vickers, and Fred Peterman.
283034-41-vol 23 79
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR "RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining; and (6) by the foregoing acts, by urging, persuading,
and warning its employees to refrain from joining or assisting the
M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the H. B. U., by threatening its
employees with loss of employment if they joined or assisted said
labor organizations, and in other ways, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. The respondent duly filed an answer to the com-
plaint admitting that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the Act but denying the alleged unfair labor practices.
At the hearing it orally answered the amended complaint denying the
material allegations thereof.
Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, on November 21 and 23, and from November 28 to December 17,
1938, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. On November 28, 1938, the
C. M. A., appearing by counsel, presented to the Trial Examiner a
petition for intervention. The Trial Examiner denied the petition on
November 29, 19381 but on December 9, 1938, vacated and set aside his
former ruling and granted the petition to intervene. Thereafter, the
C. M. A. participated in the hearing. The C. M. A. contends that it
was prejudiced by the Trial Examiner's failure to grant its petition, for
intervention immediately upon presentation, arguing that it was there-
by denied the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses who testified
for the Board concerning the alleged unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. We note, however, that after
the C. M. A. was permitted to intervene its counsel called and examined
28 witnesses on its behalf, but neither requested that Board witnesses
who had completed their testimony be recalled for cross-examination,
nor attempted to cross-examine G. B. Junkin, the respondent's presi-
dent, who was recalled to the stand by the Trial Examiner late in the,
hearing. Upon due consideration we find that all parties, including
the C. M. A., were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues.
At the close of the Board's case, and again at the close of the hear-
ing, counsel for the respondent moved to strike certain testimony and
to dismiss the amended complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved rul-
ing on these motions at the hearing and disposed of them in his
Intermediate Report. At the close of the hearing counsel for the
Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, and moved that
the admissions contained in the respondent's answers to the complaint
and amended complaint be considered as evidence. The motions were
granted.
WILSON LINE , INC. 1239
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a num-
ber of rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence . The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 5, 1939 , the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within the
meaning of Section 8 ( 5) of the Act . He recommended that the re-
spondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices , withdraw
recognition from and disestablish the labor organizations alleged in
the complaint to have been employer-dominated , and reinstate with
back pay the 22 individuals alleged in the complaint to have been dis-
criminatorily discharged. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Ex-
aminer denied the respondent 's motions to strike certain testimony.
He also denied the respondent 's motion to dismiss the amended com-
plaint, except in so far as it related to that part of the amended com-
plaint which alleges a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. In this
latter respect , the motion was granted . Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and the various rulings and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner were thereafter filed by all parties. The respondent,
the M . E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the H. B. U. also filed briefs in
support of their exceptions . On August 11, 1939, the respondent filed
a petition "for re-submission of the above -entitled cases to a Trial
Examiner , with directions to take further testimony." On October
4, 1939, the Board denied said petition.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties , a hearing was held
before the Board in Washington , D. C., on October 26 , 1939, for the
purpose of oral argument . The respondent and the C. M. A. were rep-
resented by counsel , and the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the H. B. U.
by their representative ; all participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the parties to the Inter-
mediate Report and the briefs filed in support of the exceptions and,
except to the extent that the exceptions are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal office
and place of business at Wilmington , Delaware . Until December
1937 , the respondent was engaged in the transportation of freight and
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
passengers in all -year-around service on the Delaware River between
Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Chester, Pennsylvania , Wilmington, Del-
aware, and Penns Grove, New Jersey , and in connection with that
business owned and operated the steamers , "State of Pennsylvania,"
"City of Wilmington ," "City of Camden ," "City of Philadelphia"
(renamed the "Liberty Belle" in 1938 ), the freighter , "Christiana,"
and the tugboat , "J. C. Reichert ." The respondent also owned and,
during the summer excursion season, operated the steamer , "State of
Delaware ," on the Hudson River , the steamer , "Dixie," on Chesapeake
Bay, and the steamer, "City of Washington ," on the Potomac River.
On June 30 , 1937 , the freighter, "Christiana ," and the tugboat, "J. C.
Reichert ," were laid up and have not been operated since that date.
In September 1937 , the steamers , "State of Delaware," "Dixie," and
"City of Washington ," were laid up for the winter . On or about De-
cember 3, 1937, the respondent discontinued its freight business and
laid up the steamers, "State of Pennsylvania ," "City of Wilmington,"
and "City of Philadelphia ." From December 8,1937 , to April 29, 1938,
the respondent operated only one vessel , the steamer, "City of Camden,"
on a ferry service between Wilmington , Delaware , and Deepwater
Point, New Jersey . From about May 15 to September 15, 1938, the
respondent was engaged solely in the excursion business . During 1938,
the respondent's vessels carried approximately 900,000 passengers.
The respondent derived therefrom a gross income of $460,000.
In the operation of its business , the respondent owns and operates
a wharf at Wilmington, Delaware, and rents or leases wharves at other
points. It maintains branch offices in New York City, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and the District of Columbia.
The respondent has one subsidiary , the Delaware -New Jersey Ferry
Company, which in turn has one subsidiary , the Virginia Ferry
Corporation.
The respondent 's answer admits that it is engaged in interstate com-
merce. We find that the respondent is engaged in trade, traffic , trans-
portation , and commerce among the several States.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
National Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Association is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to its membership licensed marine engineers.
National Organization Masters , Mates and Pilots is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to its membership licensed marine deck officers.
Harbor Boatmen 's Union is a labor organization affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to its membership
WILSON LINE, INC. 1241
unlicensed marine employees in the port of Philadelphia, from New
Castle, Delaware, to Trenton, New Jersey.
Marine Employees' Committee, representing the licensed personnel
of Wilson Line, Inc., and John Emering, Herbert S. Hall, William
Campbell, William Peaper, Joel George Coffin, and Andrew Ander-
son, representing the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc., were
unaffiliated labor organizations, admitting to their membership li-
censed engineers and licensed deck officers of the respondent, exclud-
ing those employed on the respondent's vessels operating in the New
York district.
Christiana Marine Association is an unaffiliated labor organization,
admitting to its membership licensed engineers and licensed deck
officers of the respondent, excluding those employed on the respond-
ent's vessels operating in the New York district.
Unlicensed Marine Employees' Committee of Wilson Line, Inc., is
an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its membership un-
licensed marine employees of the respondent, excluding those
employed on the respondent's vessels operating in the NeW York
district.
III. THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The M. E. C.
1. Formation and domination of the M. E. C.
During the winter of 1936-7 the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. ,P.
began to organize the respondent's licensed employees. The respond-
ent soon became aware of their organizational activity. According
to the testimony of G. B. Junkin, the respondent's president, some of
the respondent's employees were not in sympathy with the M. E.
B. A. and the M. M. P. Junkin directed L. C. Campbell, the respond-
ent's vice president and general manager, to work out an agreement
directly with the respondent's employees along lilies similar to those
of a contract entered into between the respondent's subsidiary, Dela-
ware-New Jersey Ferry Company, and its employees.
Pursuant to these instructions Campbell called a meeting of the
respondent's eight captains s at the Hotel Dupont in Wilmington
in February 1937. John Emering, the respondent's senior captain,
who later became chairman of the M. E. C., testified concerning the
meeting as follows : "I took it that Mr. Campbell at that time, when
there was no dissent of any kind, wanted to have an agreement with
the men, and expected to give them at that time the best at hand."
Although the record is meagre as to what actually occurred at the
O Those present were : Campbell and Captains J. Emering , W. T. Hunton , E N. Savin,
C. J Turner, J. A. Phillips, I. W. Haywood, F. L. Turner, and C Al. Phillips.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting, the Trial Examiner found, and it is apparent from the fact
that it was held pursuant to Junkin's instructions to Campbell, from
Emering's quoted testimony, and from the events which followed,
that the M. E. C. was there conceived at the respondent's suggestion.
Campbell shortly afterwards prepared a form of agreement be-
tween the respondent and "Marine Employees Committee." The
agreement recited that the M. E. C. had been designated by the
licensed employees as their bargaining representative and established
the wages, hours, and working conditions applicable to the several
classes of deck officers and engineers. By its terms it was to be in
effect from April 1, 1937, to April 1, 1938, and from year to year there-
after unless terminated by proper notice by either party to the other.
With the assistance of Captains Emering, Hunton, and Savin, who
had attended the Hotel Dupont meeting, Campbell then circulated
the agreement among the licensed' employees for their inspection,
at the same time soliciting their signatures to a document authoriz-
ing the M. E. C. to represent the signers.
On March 3, 1937, during the course of these activities, the
M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. by joint letter notified the respondent
that they represented the majority of its licensed engineer and
licensed deck officers, respectively, and requested a conference for
the purpose of discussing collective bargaining agreements. The
respondent by letter dated March 5 acknowledged receipt of the
above letter and advised the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. that
Campbell was on his vacation and that their letter would be referred
to him upon his return on March 16. Thereafter, failing to receive
a response from Campbell, W. C. Evans, M. E. B. A. representative,
telephoned Campbell and was advised by him that "he would try to
get around to it in a short time."
Despite the claims asserted by the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.
and their requests for negotiations, the respondent continued its
promotion of the M. E. C. until some time in April when it executed
the agreement drafted by Campbell, which is dated "this ----------
day of April, A. D. 1937.'1 The agreement was signed by Campbell
on behalf of the respondent, and by Captain Emering, as chairman,
Captains Hunton and Savin, and Chief Engineers Hammond,
Leeds, and• Somers on behalf of the M. E. C. Junkin admitted at
the hearing that the agreement was the result of his instructions to
Campbell.
It is clear from the foregoing that Campbell interfered with the
formation of the M. E. C. We find, moreover, that although Emering,
Hunton, and Savin might properly have engaged in bona fide con-
certed activities toward self-organization, their activity in the forma-
tion of the M. E. C. was not the expression of their independent will
WILSON LINE, INC. 1243
but was undertaken by them at the request of the respondent and as
its agents, and must, equally with Campbell's, be attributed to the
respondent.?
The respondent contends that the M. E. C. was not a labor organiza-
tion. The minutes of the C.'M. A., the successor to the M. E. C., -state
that a meeting of the respondent's licensed employees was held on
April 14, 1937, for the purpose of organizing an association, that
Emering and H. S. Hall were elected chairman and secretary, respec-
tively, and that a committee of six was elected to negotiate a contract
with the respondent regarding wages, hours, and working conditions.
At the hearing, Hall testified that these minutes have reference to
the M. E. C. It is clear that the M. E. C. was a labor organization.
2. The consent elections
On April 21, 1937, the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. filed charges
of unfair4abor practices against the respondent with the Board's Re-
gional Office.8 On May 4 the' M. E. B. 'A. and the ' M. M. P. by Joint
letter advised the respondent that because no consideration had been
given to their request for a conference a cease-work order would be
issued if an agreement was not signed by May 8. Thereupon the re-
spondent met with the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. at the Regional
Office on May 8 and again on May 10. At the second meeting the
parties agreed that the Board's agents should conduct elections to
determine whether or not the respondent's engineers and deck officers
desired to be represented by the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P., re=
spectively. The respondent agreed to refrain from negotiations with
and recognition of any "committee of employees" theretofore organ-
ized. among its employees, and the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.
agreed to withdraw `their charges.
The consent elections were held from May 18 to May 21. In the
election among the deck officers 11 voted for, and 9 against, the
M. M. P. The election among the engineers was a tie, 11 voting
for, and 11 against, the M. E. B. A. The respondent treated the
election results as proof of majority designation of both organiza-
tions. On June 11, 1937, it entered into a joint collective bargaining
contract with the M. E. B. A. and M. M. P. The contract was made
retroactively effective as of June 1. It expired March 31, 1938.
7 Matter o f The Seri ick Corpoi ation and International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, Local No. 459, 8 N L. R. B . 621, enf 'd Int. Ass'n Machtni8t8 , et al. v. N. L R. B.
110 F. (2d) 29 (App. D C ), cert granted, 60 S. Ct. 721.
8 Although the charges of April 21, 1937, are not part of the record in the instant
case, the Board , taking notice of the content of the charges on file with it, observes that
they contain allegations of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), (3), and ( 5) of the Act.
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The consent-election agreement made no provision for the appear-
ance of the name of the M. E. C., on the ballot. Later, as we shall
show, the respondent violated its agreement to refrain from negotia-
tion with or recognition of any "committee of employees," actively
assisted, and extended recognition to a successor of the M. E. C.,5
and engaged in other unfair labor practices.10 Under these circum-
stances the agreement is no obstacle to our consideration of the respond-
ent's unfair labor practices which occurred prior to its execution."
We accordingly find that for the purpose of counteracting and de-
feating the organization of its licensed employees by the M. E. B. A.
and the M. M. P. the respondent, by the foregoing activities of
Campbell, Emering, Hunton, and Savin, dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the M. E. C., a labor
organization, and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire- and tenure of employment
1. Licensed employees
In May 1937, as we have shown, 11 engineers and 11 deck officers
voted to be represented by the M. E. B. A. and by the M. M. P.
respectively. During the term of the respondent's contract with those
organizations it eliminated from its employ all the engineers who
were members of the M. E. B. A. and all but two of the deck officers
who were members of the M. M. P., at the same time retaining the
services of engineers and deck officers who had joined the M. E. C.
The allegations of the complaint are that as to four engineers and
eight deck officers the respondent discriminated in the termination
of their employment. We shall consider first the engineers.
Victor S. Buckworth, C. A. Fitzpatrick, and Murray Cross served
as chief engineer, relief chief engineer, and assistant engineer, re-
spe.ctively, on the respondent's steamer, "State of Delaware," during
the 1937 excursion season. On September 29, 1937, the close of
the season, the ship was taken out of service and the three men were
laid off. They were not offered reassignment to duty on other ves-
sels still in operation nor were they retained to do repair work on
° Section III C, infra.
10 Sections III B and D, infra.
n See Matter of Chambers Corporation and Allied Stove Mounters and Stove Processors
International Union, Local No 36 (A F.. of L 21 N L R ' B 808. Cf 'Matter of
Shenandoah -Dives Minting Company and International Union of Mine, Mill d Smelter
Workeri, Local No '26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, In c. and Sugar
Mill Workers ' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 21188 affiliated with the'Ameriean Federation
.. Imof Labor, 12 N. L. R. B. 568.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1245
the vessels laid up as had been the practice in previous years. At
the start of the 1938 season and thereafter the respondent refused
to reemploy them.
Buckworth, entered the respondent's service in May 1910 as an
assistant engineer. He became a relief chief engineer in May 1912
and a chief engineer in December 1916, in which latter capacity he
served until his lay-off. In the early part of April 1937 Captains
Emering and Hunton requested Buckworth to join the M. E. C. This
he refused to do because of his affiliation with the M. E. B. A. On
about April 15 Captain Hunton again solicited Buckworth to join
the M. E. C. Buckworth persisted in his refusal, whereupon Hun-
ton stated : "How about letting me take you to see Mr. Campbell
about this company's agreement." Buckworth declined the invi-
tation.
Buckworth was laid off on September 29, 1937. Three chief en-
gineers and four relief chief engineers, appearing on the respondent's
pay roll of November 15, 1937, had less seniority, in those respective
positions, than had Buckworth. Including the licensed engineers on
the steamer, "State of Delaware," the respondent's pay roll of May 3,
1938, contains the names of five chief engineers and three relief chief
engineers who had less seniority in those respective positions than
had Buckworth. During the 1038 season the respondent employed
Chief Engineers Peaper, Somers, Gaulke, and Leeds. These four
men were members of the M. E. C. All four had less seniority than
had Buckworth.
On, February 28, 1938, a properly constituted board of arbitration,
acting under Section 212 of the agreement between the respondent
and the Al. E. B. A. and the M. M. P., awarded Buckworth 2 months'
pay at $214.50 per month for the violation by the respondent of
Section 13 13 of said agreement.
Fitzpatrick began to work for the respondent as an assistant engi-
neer in May 1924. He became a relief chief engineer in April 1926
and a chief engineer in June 1936. At the time of his lay-off he was
serving in the former capacity: In March 1937 Captain Hunton
"Section 2 is as follows :
There shall be no strikes, lockouts, or stoppage of schedules or work during the
period of this agreement for any cause. All disputes relating to the interpretation
of this agreement shall be determined by a Board consisting of two persons appointed
by the "Associations" and two persons appointed by the "Company." The parties
shall submit any such disputes to decision by such Board and they agree to be bound
by such decision. In the event that said Board shall not agree, an additional member
shall be appointed by the National Labor Relations Board whose decision shall be
final.
1e Section 13 provides that the, respondent shall prepare and post a seniority list of
classes of licensed officers, and that "assignments will be based on ability, fitness, and
seniority, subject to approval of the `Company' and a committee appointed by the
'Association.'"
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
requested Fitzpatrick to join the M. E. C. He refused, stating that
he was a member of the M. E. B. A., and that he would not "sign
an agreement of the Company."
Fitzpatrick was laid off with Buckworth on September 29, 1937.
The respondent's pay roll of November 15, 1937, contains the names
of 2 relief chief engineers and 4 assistant engineers with less senior-
ity, in those respective positions, than Fitzpatrick. The respondent's
pay roll of May 3, 1938, contains the names of 2 relief chief engineers
and 3 assistant engineers with less seniority, in those respective
positions, than Fitzpatrick. During the 1938 season the respondent
employed engineers Bason, Swann, Peterman, Inman, Anderson,
Jacobs, and Moore. These 8 employees are members of the C. M. A.,
the successor to the M. E. C. All 8 had less seniority than
Fitzpatrick.
On February 28, 1938, the arbitration board, referred to above,
awarded Fitzpatrick one month's pay at $176.00 per month for the
violation by the respondent of Section 13 14 of the M. E. B. A.
agreement.
Cross started to work for the respondent as an assistant engineer
in May 1935. He was a member of the M. E. B. A. and did not
join the M. E. C. Together with Buckworth and Fitzpatrick, he was
laid off on September 29, 1937. All the assistant engineers appearing
on the respondent's pay roll of November 15, 1937, had more seniority
than Cross. However, the 3 assistant engineers who appear on the
respondent's pay roll of May 3, 1938, had less seniority than had
Cross. Cross had greater seniority than had engineers Anderson,
Inman, Jacobs, and Moore, employed by the respondent during the
1938 season.
In its answer the respondent admitted that it discharged the 3
men as well as the 19 others named in the complaint, but alleged
that it did so solely because of lack of work 15 Specifically with
respect to Buckworth, Fitzpatrick, and Cross, it alleged further :
. . . In connection with the employees on the steamer "State
of Delaware," which was operated by it (the respondent) in
the waters of New York Bay and its tributaries, it was obliged
to recognize, and enter into an agreement with, a union in the
City of New York known as "Associated Marine Workers,"
which declined to permit the employment on said vessel of any-
14 See footnote 12, supra.
"The respondent 's answer alleges that all questions arising out of the discharge of the
12 licensed employees involved were submitted to a board of arbitration provided for in
an agreement entered into between the respondent , the Al . E. B. A., and the M. M. P.,
and that, therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine their cases With respect to
this latter contention , suffice it to say that under Section 10 (a) of the Act, the Board
has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practices affecting interstate commerce.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1247
one not affiliated with itself, and informed the respondent that
it would enforce its demand in that respect by coercive measures.
It (the respondent) further alleges that by reason of the mat-
ters aforesaid, it had no further need for the re-employment
of any of the several persons referred to .. .
We note that the respondent did not allege that its exclusion of
these men was pursuant to a closed-shop agreement with a union
representing a majority of the respondent's employees in an appro-
priate unit. Thus the pleadings alone support a finding of dis-
criminatory discharge.,, Moreover, the record contradicts the re-
spondent's plea that it discharged and replaced the three men under
duress. Like the M. E. B. A., Associated Marine Workers, herein
called the A. M. W., is an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations. Correspondence between the M. E. B. A. and the A.
M. W. in evidence reveals, and we find, that at the opening of the
1938 excursion season the respondent replaced Buckworth, Fitz-
patrick, and Cross not with A. M. W. members but with three non-
union engineers who thereafter joined the A. M. W., and that
although the A. M. W. opposed the reemployment of Buckworth and
his associates, its opposition was based upon a misapprehension as to
the circumstances.'
Finally, it appears that during the 1937 season Buckworth, Fitz-
patrick, and Cross, at the respondent's request and upon its assurance
that the step would not impair their rights under the M. E. B. A.
contract, joined the A. M. W. The respondent's defense that, because
of the A. M. W.'s demands, it had no further need for the services of
Buckworth, Fitzpatrick, and Cross must be rejected.
We find that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate
Buckworth, Fitzpatrick, and Cross because they were members of
the M. E. B. A. and had refused to join the M. E. C. All three men
desire reinstatement.
Venus M. Buckworth, a brother of Victor Buckworth, began to
work for the respondent as a relief chief engineer in 1922. He became
a chief engineer in 1923 and worked continuously from that year until
his lay-off in 1937. In April 1937 Captain Hunton asked him to join
16 See Matter of Star Publishing Company and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No 82,
4 N. L R B 498, enf'd. N L R B v Star Pub Co, 97 F (2d) 465 (C C A 9).
11 On July 23, 1938 the A. M. W. wrote the M. E. B A. as follows :
. Had we known that these engineers ( Buckworth , Fitzpatrick , and Cross)
were unjustly laid otr because of their union activities we certainly would not oppose
them coming to their former position as engineers of the steamer State of Delaware.
Now that we know the facts , we will be glad to cooperate with ,you in any way we
can, and we deeply regret that we were the cause , by our letter to the Wilson Line,
of an injustice to Mr. Buckworth and his assistants We wish to assure you and your
membership that our action in opposition to these engineers was based solely on
the information given to us by representatives of the company and not through any
desire to antagonize your association
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the M. E. C. and upon his refusal said, "How about letting me take
you up to see Mr. Campbell ?" Buckworth replied that if Campbell
wanted to see him he knew where to find him. Later in the same day
Campbell called Buckworth to his office and handed him the M. E. C.
agreement to read. Buckworth told Campbell, "I don't want to join
that as I belong to the M. E. B. A." Campbell replied that he be-
longed to an association too and that he "didn't see what difference
that made." He added that Buckworth would be "around here when
lots of the others are gone. You will be here when I am gone." Buck-
worth, however, persisted in his refusal to join the M. E. C. He is a
member of the M. E. B. A.
On December 21, 1937, Buckworth was engaged in repairing the
steamer, "State of Pennsylvania," which was then in laid-up status.
On that day Campbell laid Buckworth off, telling him : "When it is
time to get ready in the spring you come back here." On April 4 or 5,
1938, Buckworth telephoned Campbell regarding reemployment.
Campbell informed Buckworth that he had not made out the "slate"
yet, but that Buckworth would be hearing from him soon. On Api'il
6, 1938, Campbell sent chief engineer, W. Peaper, to offer R. I. Willits,
a former engineer in the respondent's employment, the position of
relief chief engineer on the steamer, "State of Pennsylvania." Willits
asked Peaper what the trouble was with Venus Buckworth and R.
Bedwell, both of whom had previously served as engineers on that
vessel. Peaper replied that the respondent was not going to take them
back. Buckworth was not reemployed by the respondent in 1938.
Four chief engineers and three relief chief engineers, appearing on
the respondent's pay roll of May 3, 1938, had less seniority in those
respective positions than had Buckworth. Buckworth was senior to
Chief Engineers Somers, Gaulke, and Leeds, employed by the respond-
ent during the 1938 season. We find that the respondent discharged
and refused to reinstate Venus M. Buckworth because he was a mem-
ber of the M. E. B. A. and had refused to join the M. E. C. Buckworth
desires reinstatement.
We find that by discharging and refusing to reinstate Victor S.
Buckworth, C. A. Fitzpatrick, Murray Cross, and Venus M. Buck-
worth, the respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the M. E. B A.
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We turn to the consideration of the cases of the 8 licensed deck
officers. F. L. Turner began to work for the respondent in 1925 as a
deck hand. He successively qualified for and was advanced to the
positions of mate, pilot, relief captain, and finally captain. He joined
the M. M. P. in 1927 and, after some lapse in his membership, was
WILSON LINE, INC. 1249
reinstated in 1936. Turner was one of the 8 captains who attended
the Hotel Dupont meeting called by Campbell in February 1937.18
In the spring of 1937 L. Bason, a relief chief engineer, handed Tur-
ner a copy of the M. E. C. agreement and stated that "Mr. Campbell
said to read it over, think it over, sleep on it, and ... He wanted us
to stick together." At about this time Hardenstine, respondent's gen-
eral passenger agent, called Turner to his office on two or three occa-
sions and attempted without avail to induce him to join the M. E. C.
Turner was laid off on June 30, 1937, when the freighter, "Christi-
ana," of which he was captain, was laid up. Upon his request for reas-
signment to duty, Campbell offered him the job of pilot on the "City
of Camden." Turner asked why he could not have the relief captain's
job on that vessel to which his seniority entitled him. Campbell replied
that the respondent had decided that Turner could not fill that job,
but offered no further explanation. Turner refused to accept the job
offered to him as pilot on the "City of Camden." Assignment to the
job of pilot would have meant a demotion in salary and rank for Tur-
ner. One captain and 6 relief captains appearing on the respondent's
pay roll of July 2, 1937, just subsequent to Turner's discharge, had less
seniority in those respective positions than had Turner. Inasmuch
as Turner's seniority entitled him to a better assignment, we are of
the opinion that Turner was justified in refusing the job offered to
him as pilot.
On February 28, 1938, the board of arbitration, referred to above,
awarded Turner 2 weeks' pay at $205.70 per month for the violation
by the respondent of Section 1,11 and one week's pay in accordance
with Section 8'21 of the agreement between the respondent and the
M. M. P.
Turner was senior in point of service to one captain and 4 relief
captains who appear on the respondent's pay roll of May 3, 1938.
We find that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate
F. L. Turner because he was a member of the M. M. P. and had
refused to join the M. E. C. Turner desires reinstatement.
John B. Foster entered the respondent's service as a pilot in 1931.
His work was seasonal in nature until May 1934 and continuous
thereafter until his lay-off in 1937. He joined the M. M. P. in
13 Of the 8 captains who attended the meeting , one (Carl Phillips ) is dead ; three
( F. L Turner, J. A Phillips , and I ' w. Haywood ) who were members of the M. Al. P.
and who did not espouse the M. E C ., were discharged later in that year ; and four
(Clarence Turner , E N Savin , W T Hunton , and John Emering ) who were members
of the M E C and who are now members of the C. Al. A , were still in the employ of the
respondent at the time of the hearing
19 Section 1 provides : The "Company " recognizes the "associations " as the sole repre-
sentatives of all the "Company ' s" licensed othcers for the purpose of collective bargaining.
20 Section 8 piovides for annual vacations with pay.
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1928 and, after a lapse in his membership, was reinstated in 1931.
He did not join the M. E. C.
Foster served as pilot on the steamer, "State of Pennsylvania,"
during the 1937 season. On September 8 he left the steamer for a
short vacation, returning on September 22. He reported to Camp-
bell the next day and was informed by the latter that the "State of
Pennsylvania" was laid up and that there was no more work for
him. Campbell added, however, that there might be some work for
him later in the yard. On September 24 Foster wrote Campbell,
requesting reassignment to duty on the basis of his seniority in
accordance with the agreement between the respondent and the
M. M. P. Campbell replied on September 28, stating that he would
be pleased to have Foster advise him whether Foster had reference
to an officer's position or to a position as a member of the crew.
Foster answered on September 29, requesting an officer's position.
The record does not show whether Campbell replied to this last com-
munication but Foster has not been reinstated.
Foster was senior in point of service to W. Carrow, a pilot, who
appears on the respondent's pay rolls of November 15, 1937, and
May 3, 1938, and who worked during the 1938 excursion season.
Carrow was a member of the M. E. C. and is now a member of the
C. M. A. W. T. Hart, secretary of the C. M. A., replaced Foster
at the opening of the 1938 season. Foster was senior in point of
service to Hart.
We find that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate
John B. Foster because he was a member of the M. M. P. and had
refused to join the M. E. C. Foster desires reinstatement.
Raymond Miller started to work for the respondent in 1936 first
as a watchman and then as a mate. In April 1937 Captains Emering
and Hunton requested him to join the M. E. C. Miller testified that
he refused to join the M. E. C. because "I already belonged to one
organization (M. M. P.) and I didn't care to belong to a company
organization." He further testified that while employed by the re-
spondent he actively solicited other officers to join the M. M. P., and
that he always wore a union button in the lapel of his coat.
Miller served as mate on the steamer, "State of Pennsylvania,"
during the 1937 excursion season. As in the case of Foster, Miller left
for a vacation on September 8 and reported back to work on September
23 at which time Campbell informed him that there was no more work.
On September 24 Miller wrote Campbell, requesting reassignment to
duty on the basis of his seniority. Campbell replied on September
28, stating that he would be pleased to have Miller advise him in regard
to the particular position Miller was interested in. Although Miller
WILSON LINE , INC. 1251
admitted that he did not reply to Campbell's letter, we are satisfied
from the respondent's failure to offer employment to Foster, who re-
ceived and answered a similar letter from Campbell, and from the
respondent's consistent policy, as portrayed by the record, of excluding
from its employment substantially all the members of the M. E. B. A.
and the M. M. P., that it would have been futile for him to do so.
In any event numerous applications for Miller's reinstatement were
thereafter made on his behalf by the M. M. P. without avail.
It appears that Miller had less seniority than had the mates appear-
ing on the respondent's pay rolls of November 15, 1937, and May 3,
1938. However, Miller was senior to W. P. Barnes, E. O. Sheridan,
and Briggs, employed by the respondent as mates during the 1938
season. Sheridan is a member of the C. M. A. Barnes expressed a
desire at the hearing to join the C. M. A. The affiliation, if any, of
Briggs does not appear from the record.
We are of the opinion and accordingly find that the respondent
discharged and refused to reinstate Raymond Miller because he was
a member of the M. M. P. and had refused to join the M. E. C. Miller
desires reinstatement.
S. W. Bennett entered the respondent's employment as a mate in
1927. He joined the M. M. P. in the latter part of 1936. In April
1937 Captain Emering asked him to join the M. E. C. but he refused.
A few days later Chillas, Campbell's assistant, requested him to join
the M. E. C. and he again refused.
Bennett served as pilot under Captain Emering on the steamer,
"City of Philadelphia," during the 1937 season and until his lay-off
on November 23, 1937. Bennett was senior in point of service to pilots
W. Carrow, H. A. Bohannon, and J. Cropper, members of the C. M. A.,
who worked for the respondent during the 1938 season. Cropper was
hired by the respondent for the first time in June 1938.
Campbell, the general manager , told Bennett at the time of his dis-
charge "you can have your job in the spring." Bennett was not
reemployed in 1938 in spite of efforts on the part of the M. M. P. to
secure his reinstatement. We find that the respondent discharged and
refused to reinstate S. W. Bennett because he was a member of the
M. M. P. and had refused to join the M. E. C. Bennett desires rein-
statement.
During the 1937 season J. A. Phillips, I. W. Haywood, E. E. Graham,
and W. B. Jackson served on the steamer, "City of Camden," as
captain, relief captain, pilot, and mate, respectively. During that
season the "City of Camden" was the only vessel in the respondent's
service which was successfully organized by the M. E. B. A., the
M. M. P., and the H. B. U. On December 4, 1937, the "City of Camden"
was taken off the Philadelphia-Wilmington run and placed in laid-
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
up status, and her union crew was discharged. On December 8, four
days later, the "City of Camden" was put on the Deepwater Point run
with a new crew of licensed and unlicensed employees.
Phillips began to work for the respondent in 1911 as a deck hand.
He successfully qualified for and was advanced to the positions of
mate, pilot, relief captain, and finally captain. From 1917 until his
lay-off on December 7, 1938, his work was continuous the year around.
He joined the M. M. P. in 1915 and, after a lapse of 3 years in his mem-
bership, was reinstated in 1936. Phillips was one of the 8 captains
who attended the Hotel Dupont meeting called by Campbell in Febru-
ary 1937. At about that time, he circulated a letter, prepared by him-
self, addressed to the licensed officers of the respondent, urging them
to join the M. M. P. , Shortly thereafter he received a letter from
Campbell, dated March 1, 1937, placing him and his two assistants,
Graham and Jackson, on furlough "in the interest of the reduction
in our expenses." Phillips, Graham, and Jackson were subsequently
reinstated with back pay on May 21, 1937, in consideration of the with-
holding by the M. E. B. A. and the Al. M. P. of a threatened cease-
work order.
On February 28, 1938, the arbitration board awarded Phillips 6
weeks' pay at $211.00 per month for the violation by the respondent
of Section 13 21 of the union agreement, referred to above.
Three captains and three relief captains appearing on the respond-
ent's pay roll of December 15, 1937, just subsequent to Phillips' dis-
charge, and four captains and four relief captains appearing on the
May 3, 1938 pay roll had less seniority in those respective positions
than had Phillips. Captains Hall, Savin, and Hunton, members of
the M. E. C. and the C. Al. A., worked during the 1938 season. They
had less seniority than had Phillips.
Haywood began to work for the respondent as a mate in 1930. He
worked continuously from April 1933 until his lay-off on December
4, 1937. He joined the M. M. P. in December 1936. Haywood was
one of the 8 captains who attended the Hotel Dupont meeting called
by Campbell in February 1937. While serving as a relief captain
on the steamer, "State of Pennsylvania," in the latter part of March
1937, he was requested by Captains Emering and Hunton to join the
M. E. C. but he refused. A week after this, Haywood was trans-
ferred to the tugboat, "J. C. Reichert," as captain. He served in this
capacity until his lay-off on June 30, 1937. Thereafter, as a result
of a conference with Campbell, he accepted a job as relief captain on
the steamer, "City of Camden." He served in the latter capacity
until his lay-off on December 4, 1937.
21 Bee footnote 12, supra
WILSON LINE, INC. 1253
On February 28, 1938, the arbitration board awarded Haywood 2
weeks' pay at $180.40 per month for the violation by the respondent
of Section 1 of the union agreement.22
Haywood was senior in point of service to W. S. Cox who appears
on the respondent's pay rolls of December 15, 1937, and May 3, 1938,
and who worked during the 1938 season. Cox was a member of the
M. E. C., and, at the time of the hearing, was president of the
C. M. A. Haywood was not reemployed during the 1938 season.
Graham started to work for the respondent as a mate in 1929. He
joined the M. M. P. in the latter part of 1936 and did not join the
M. E. C. Graham was laid off with Phillips and Jackson on March
1, and was reinstated with them on May 21, 1937. Thereafter he
served as pilot on the steamer, "City of Camden," until his lay-off
on December 4, 1937.
Graham was senior in point of service to pilot W. Carrow, who
appears on the respondent's pay rolls of December 15, 1937, and May
3, 1938, and who worked during the 1938 season. Graham was also
senior to H. A. Bohannon and J. Cropper, who worked during the
1938 season.
Jackson began to work for the respondent in 1912. At the time of
his lay-off he had ratings as captain, relief captain, pilot, and mate.
He is a member of the M. M. P. As stated above, he was laid off
with Phillips and Graham on March 1 to May 21, 1937. During this
lay-off Captain Hunton visited him at his home and asked him to
join the M. E. C. but he refused. Later Captain Savin asked him
to joint the M. E. C. and he again refused.
Two relief captains, 2 pilots, and 1 mate appearing on the respond-
ent's pay roll of December 15, 1937, and 4 relief captains, 2 pilots, and 1
mate appearing on the May 3, 1938, pay roll had less seniority than
had Jackson. He was a senior to mates W. Campbell, W. B. Barnes,
Briggs, and E. O. Sheridan, who worked during the 1938 season.
The changes in the licensed personnel of the crew of the "City of
Camden" which occurred in December 1937 were as follows : John
Emering, chairman of the M. E. C., replaced Phillips as captain ;
W. T. Hunton, who signed the M. E. C. agreement as a committeeman
and who was active in organizing the M. E. C., replaced Haywood
as relief captain ; E. N. Savin, who signed the M. E. C. agreement as
a committeeman and who was active in organizing the M. E. C., re-
placed Graham as pilot; and N. Lore, a member of the M. E. C.,
replaced Jackson as mate. H. B. Hammond, who signed the M. E. C.
agreement as a committeeman, was retained as chief engineer ; O. E.
Leeds, who signed the M. E. C. agreement as a committeeman, re-
22 See footnote 18, supra
283034-41-vol. 23-80
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
placed relief chief engineer L. Bason, a former member of the M. E.
B. A.; and G. Gaulke, a member of the M. E. C., replaced assistant
engineer A. Deakyne, a member of the M. E. B. A. As thus changed,
the licensed personnel of the "City of Camden" on December 8 and
thereafter consisted of 7 M. E. C. members, of whom 3 had been active
in assisting Campbell in organizing the M. E. C.,23 and 5, as members
of a committee of 6, had signed the M. E. C. agreement with the
respondent.24
The respondent states that in making the replacements with respect
to Phillips, Haywood, Graham, and Jackson, seniority in point of
service was observed. We have shown, however, that these men had
seniority over other licensed employees retained by the respondent.
Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion, and we find, that
the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Phillips, Hay-
wood, Graham, and Jackson because they were members of the M. M. P.
and had refused to join the M. E. C. All four men desire rein-
statement.
We find that by discharging and refusing to reinstate F. L. Turner,
John B. Foster, Raymond Miller, S. W. Bennett J. A. Phillips, I. W.
Haywood, E. E. Graham, and W. B. Jackson, the respondent discrimi-
nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the M. M. P., and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Unlicensed employees
The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard
to the tenure of employment of 10 unlicensed employees because they
joined and assisted the H. B. U.
The respondent entered into a contract with the H. B. U. on June
30, 1937, wherein it recognized the H. B. U. as the sole representative
of its unlicensed employees on the Delaware River, and agreed to
employ only members of the H. B. U. in good standing. The contract
was made retroactively effective as of June 1, 1937. It expired March
31, 1938.
C. iTT. Hammond, C. E. Coulbourn, Herbert Sapp, LeRoy Cole,
A. G. Singleton, W. A. Rittenhouse, and M. C. Hoil served on the
steamer, "City of Camden," during the 1937 season. As stated above,
the "City of Camden" was placed in laid-up status on December 4,
1937. At that time the unlicensed personnel of said vessel consisted
23 See Section A, supra
u See Section A, supra . The sixth member of the committee , I. S. Somers , appears on
the respondent's pay roll of December 15, 1937.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1255
of 19 employees, of whom 17 were members of the H. B. U. With one
exception the entire unlicensed crew was laid off during the period
between December 4 and December S. On the latter date the "City
of Camden" was put on the Deepwater Point run with a new unli-
censed crew of.14. It appears from the respondent's pay rolls that
8 of the 14 employiees were formerly on the "City of Philadelphia,"
that 4 were formerly on the "City of Wilmington," that one was
formerly on the "City of Washington," and that one, the exception
noted above, was carried over from the old crew of the "City of
Camden." Of this new crew of 14 unlicensed employees, 7 were
members of the H. B. U., while 7 were non-union men. The 7 H. B.
U. members subsequently joined the U. M. E. C., hereinafter found to
be company dominated.
Hammond worked for the respondent as a fireman and oiler con-
tinuously from May 1935 until his lay-off on December 7, 1937. He
joined the H. B. U. in May 1937 and was active in soliciting new
members and collecting dues. The respondent reemployed him in
1938 from July 22 to October 1. The record does not establish that
the respondent's second lay-off of Hammond was influenced by his
union affiliations or activities.
Coulbourn started to work for the respondent as watchman in 1924.
His service was continuous until his lay-off on December 7, 1937. In
April 1937 Captain Savin asked him if he had joined a union. Coul-
bourn answered ix the negative. Savin then said, "Don't do that
because if you do you will lose your job," and added, "They are
always causing trouble." Despite this intimidation, Coulbourn there-
after joined the H. B. U. in May 1937.
Sapp worked for the respondent continuously from 1935 until his
lay-off on December 4, 1937, first as a deck hand and then as a watch-
man. He joined the H. B. U. in May 1937.
Cole worked for the respondent as a deck hand and as a cook from
April 1934 until his lay-off on December 4, 1937. He joined the
H. B. U. in August 1937. He testified that the union activities of the
crew of the "City of Camden," of which he was a member, consisted
of "keeping our boat 100 per cent union."
Singleton began to work for the respondent as a deck hand in 1925.
He joined the H. B. U. in May 1937. He was laid off on December 4,
1937.
Rittenhouse started to work for the respondent in July 1936. He
joined the H. B. U. in May 1937. He was working as a deck hand
at the time of his lay-off on December 4, 1937.
. Hoil began to work for the respondent as a cook in 1927. He joined
the H. B. U. in September 1937. He was working as a cook at the
time of his lay-off on December 4, 1937. In July 1938, when he applied
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for reemployment , F. F. James, manager of the respondent's com-
missary division , told him that "The boss says he wants nobody around
that will cause trouble , agitators."
The foregoing seven employees were laid off allegedly as a result
of the lay-up of the "City of Camden" on December 4, 1937. Within
a period of 4 days their places were filled by other employees. The
respondent offered no explanation for this sudden change in the
personnel of the unlicensed crew. Notwithstanding the fact that the
'replacements included H. B. U. members , we are of the opinion that
the respondent replaced these men because it desired to break the
union character of the crew . We accordingly find that the respondent,
by laying off Hammond , Coulbourn , Sapp, Cole, Singleton , Ritten-
house, and Hoil on or about December 4 , 1937, discriminatorily dis-
charged them . With the exception of Hammond , none of these men
has been recalled to employment . They desire reinstatement.
A. E. Harris started to work for the respondent in 1922 as a cook
and waiter . In June 1937 Captain Savin asked him if he was a mem-
ber of the H. B. U. Harris responded in the negative . Savin then
stated that he did not want any union member on his boat. While
employed on the steamer , "City of Camden ," in November 1937, Harris.
was solicited by members of the crew to join the H. B. U. He sought
an interview with Campbell about the matter of union affiliation and
was referred by Campbell to F. F . James, manager of the commissary
division . He conferred with James who told him that the respondent
had nothing against the organization , and that he should "pay up."
Thereafter , Marshall, one of James' assistants , advised him , "If I was
you I would pay $1 to drag along and keep their mouth closed, that
they will soon be going up the street." Harris joined the H. B. U.
on November 10, 1937.
It is not clear from the record on which vessel Harris was working
at the time of his lay-off on December 6, 1937. Captain Savin, after
informing him of his dismissal , said : "Now, go see your union man-
ager, see whatfhe has to do for you." In March 1938 Harris went to
see James in regard to reemployment. At that time James stated,
among other things, that the respondent was not recognizing the
H. B. U. any more , and that notices to that effect had been posted.
He said that in the coming season the respondent was going to use a
"different system," and that only qualified men would be employed.
He added, significantly , that Harris and others had let a "matter of
a few dollars" cause them to lose their jobs, referring to the increase
in wages secured by the unlicensed employees through the H. B. U.
contract with the respondent . We find that the respondent discharged
and refused to reinstate A. E. Harris because he was a member of
the H . B. U. He desires reinstatement.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1257
We find that by discharging C. W. Hammond, C. E. Coulbourn,
Herbert Sapp, LeRoy Cole, A. G. Singleton, W. A. Rittenhouse, M. C.
Hoil, and A. E. Harris, the respondent discriminated in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the H. B. U., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Fred Peterman worked for the. respondent intermittently from
1915 until his lay-off on December 8, 1937. He joined the H. B. U.
in July 1937. At the time of his lay-off, he was working as a fire-
man on the steamer, "City of Philadelphia," which was then in
laid-up status. It appears that the other unlicensed employees in
the engine room of said vessel were also laid off at this time. No
unlicensed employees appear on the respondent's pay roll of Decem-
ber 15, 1937, for the "City of Philadelphia." The respondent re-
called Peterman for a period of 5 days in August 1938.
C. D. Vickers started to work for the respondent as an oiler in
1926. He joined the H. B. U. in May 1937. He testified without
contradiction that on one occasion Peaper, his chief engineer, in-
quired whether he was a member of the H. B. U. and that he an-
swered affirmatively. At the time of his lay-off on January 29, 1938,
Vickers was working on the steamer, "City of Wilmington," which
was in laid-up status. Vickers wrote to G. Coffin, relief chief
engineer, in the spring of 1938 regarding reemployment. Coffin
replied that he had a full crew and that there was no opening.
The Trial Examiner found that Peterman and Vickers were dis-
criminatorily discharged, basing his finding in part upon the fact
that Jesse Morris, business agent of the H. B. U., testified that upon
organizing visits to the vessels upon which these men were working,
he was poorly received by the masters thereof. We are of the
opinion, however, that although the respondent's hostility toward
the H. B. U. is well established by the record, the evidence insuf-
ficiently supports the allegation that the respondent discriminated
against Peterman and Vickers. We shall accordingly dismiss their
cases.
C. Domination of the Committee and of the C. H. A.
On February 28, 1938, the respondent wrote to the M. E. B. A., the
M. M. P., and the H. B. U. announcing its intention of terminating
its contracts with those labor organizations on March 31, 1938. On
the same day the respondent posted on its bulletin boards copies
of its letters to the unions.25 This action by the respondent had the
25 The copies remained posted , at the time of the hearing in this proceeding , 10 months
later.
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effect of reviving the M. E. C. On March 11, 1938, pursuant to call
by Emering, who had been chairman of the M. E. C., a number of
licensed employees, who in 1937 had joined the M. E. C., held a meet-
ing on the steamer, "City of Camden," for the purpose of "consider-
ing a new agreement" with the respondent. With the exception of
Emering, who was continued as chairman, a new executive committee
was elected.26 It is the body which was so elected which is herein
called the Committee.
Prior to this meeting when Emering had sought to negotiate for the
licensed employees with Campbell the latter insisted that Emering
retain an attorney. At the meeting those present instructed Emering
to engage an attorney for the purpose of negotiating a contract with
the respondent. Emering thereafter engaged the service of H. P.
Joslyn, an attorney, and directed him to negotiate contracts with the
respondent in behalf of the unlicensed as well as the licensed em-
ployees. Joslyn wrote the respondent on April 21, 1938, advising it
that a majority of its licensed employees had designated a "Representa-
tive Committee to negotiate with your Company as to wages and terms
of employment." Joslyn, subsequently, addressed a similar letter to
the respondent with respect to the unlicensed employees. Following
negotiations between counsel for the respondent and Joslyn, the re-
spondent, on May 3, 1938, entered into separate contracts with the Com-
mittee, representing the licensed employees, and with the U. M. E. C.,.
representing the unlicensed employees. For Joslyn's services in negoti-
ating said contracts Emering paid $150 out of his personal funds.
Although this sum has become an obligation of the C. Al. A., the
successor to the Committee, Emering had not, by the time of the
hearing, been reimbursed.
A comparison of the M. E. C. contract of 1937 with the Committee
contract of 1938 reveals that the two are identical in phraseology,
organization, and content, except with respect to the wage scale and
grievance sections. The wage-scale provision of the 1938 contract,
however, is identical with that contained in the contract between the
respondent and the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. We note that,
although the respondent's alleged reason for its termination of its
contract with the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. was the financial diffi-
culty of-operating under the wage scale provided therein, the respond-
ent, within 2 months of its termination of that contract, agreed to the,
incorporation of the same wage-scale provision in the contract with
the Committee, and thereafter paid those rates during the 1938 season.
26 The new committee consisted of the following six licensed employees : John Emering,.
Herbert S Hall, William Campbell, William Peaper , Joel George Coffin , and Andrew
Anderson.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1259
After the March 11 , 1938, meeting the Committee did not meet again
until October 20, 1938. At this time a secretary -treasurer was elected,
the name "Christiana Marine Association" was adopted , and the first
collection of dues was begun. At a subsequent meeting of the C. M. A.
on November 1, 1938, a president was elected and a constitution
and bylaws were adopted . The minutes of the C. M. A. are a con-
tinuous record , in one volume , of the proceedings of the M. E. C., the
Committee , and the C. M. A. The minutes for November 1, 1938,
reflect the following entry :
A heartfelt vote of thanks was extended to John Emer-
ing, who since the organization of the Association on April 14,
1937 , has been the acting head , for his untiring efforts in behalf
of the entire personnel of Wilson Line, Inc.
It is clear from the testimony of Emering , as well as that of O. E.
Leeds, N. H. Lore, G. B. Chase, and E. L. Dodson , members of the
C. M. A. and of the Committee , who testified on behalf of the C. M. A.,
that the Committee of 1938 was merely a revival of the old M. E. C.
It is undisputed also that "Christiana Marine Association" is merely
the new name of the Committee.
We have found in Section A above that the respondent in its deter-
mination to oppose the organization of its licensed employees by the
M. E. B. A . and the M. M. P. sponsored and encouraged the M. E. C.
in 1937. The respondent was not altogether successful in such opposi-
tion as is evidenced by the fact that a majority of its licensed deck
officers and half of its licensed engineers voted in favor of the M. M. P.
and the M. E. B. A., respectively , in the consent election of May 1937.
Although the respondent thereafter entered into a joint contract with
the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. in June 1937, during the remainder of
that year it eliminated from its service all its licensed engineers who
were members of the M. E. B. A. and all but two of its licensed deck
officers who were members of the M. Al . P. With the majority of the
M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P. thus dissipated , and the term of their
contracts drawing to a close, the respondent felt free to resume rela-
tions with the labor organization which it had fostered and which it
dominated . Emering's renewed activities on behalf of the unaffiliated
organization confirms our view that the respondent wished to revive it
for, as we have found, Emering acted as the respondent 's agent in its
labor relations , and not as an ordinary employee.
• We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with- the
formation and administration of the Committee and of the C. M. A.
and contributed support to them, thereby interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Dominnatio'ii 6f the U. M. E. C.
On May 3, 1938, as has been stated, the respondent entered into
collective bargaining contracts with the Committee and the U. M.
E. C., representing, respectively, the respondent's licensed and un-
licensed employees.
Although the record is otherwise meagre regarding the U. M. E. C.,
its contract with the respondent, in evidence, and the circumstances
surrounding the procurement of that contract require the conclusion
that the U. M. E. C. is a labor organization and that the respondent
dominated it.
The contract is dated May 3, 1938, and is signed by Junkin on
behalf of the respondent and by five unlicensed employees '21 desig-
nated as "Committee," on behalf of the U. M. E. C. It recites that
the Unlicensed Marine Employees Committee has been designated
by the respondent's unlicensed employees as their bargaining repre-
sentative and purports to establish the wages, hours, and working
conditions applicable to the several classes of unlicensed employees.
By its terms the contract was to be in effect for 1 year from April 1,
1938, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated by proper
notice by either party to the other. The contract bears the endorsed
approval of 62 unlicensed employees.
The record clearly establishes the origin of this contract. When
Captain Emering, pursuant to instructions of the Committee, en-
gaged Attorney Joslyn to negotiate a contract with the respondent
for its licensed employees, he instructed Joslyn to perform a similar
service for the respondent's unlicensed employees. Joslyn complied
with these instructions. The $150 which Emering paid him covered
services rendered in connection with both contracts.
We have found that in his participation in the self-organization
of the respondent's licensed employees Emering acted as the respond-
ent's agent. The considerations which underlie that finding are
equally applicable to Emering's activities on behalf of the unlicensed
employees. His action in engaging and paying an attorney to nego-
tiate a contract for them constituted an unwarranted interference
with the right of the unlicensed employees to self -organization.
It is not shown that the U. M. E. C. had any independent exist-
ence prior to or apart from the execution of the contract under dis-
cussion. In this connection we note that Joslyn wrote to the
respondent on May 4, 1938, that a majority of the respondent's
unlicensed employees had designated a committee to negotiate with it
' C. wbittick, F. White, C. S. Hartman, L. Harris, and B Bolden.
28 The only evidence that any unlicensed employee actually authorized Emering's act is
the testimony of Captain Hart, admittedly based upon hearsay, that some of those
employees had requested Emering to procure a contract for them.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1261
as to wages and terms of employment, whereas the contract with the
U. M. E. C. bears the date of May 3, 1938. The entire transaction
is reminiscent of the respondent's actions in 1937 whereby it pro-
cured its contract with the M. E. C., and bears no resemblance to
bona fide arm's length negotiations with freely chosen collective bar-
gaining representatives.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the U. M. E. C., a labor organiza-
tion of its employees, and contributed support to it, thereby inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The alleged refusals to bargain in July 1937
1. The M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.
As stated previously, the respondent on June 11, 1937, entered
into a joint collective bargaining contract with the M. E. B. A. and
the M. M. P. wherein it recognized said labor organizations as the
sole representatives of its licensed engineers and licensed deck officers,
respectively. On June 30 the respondent tied up the freighter,
"Christiana," and the tugboat, "J. C. Reichert," and laid off several
licensed employees. On July 2 the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.
by joint letter requested the respondent "In accordance with Section
14 of the agreement 29 . . . (to) grant a hearing for the discussions
of the questions involved through the unemployment of deck officers
Haywood, Turner, and Boyer, and engineer officlers Gaulke and
Lockwood." The respondent did not answer this letter. W. Evans,
M. E. B. A. representative, after waiting for a period of 10 days,
telephoned Campbell with reference to the letter, and was advised
by the latter that the particular employees involved should make
individual requests for conferences. Evans testified that ". . . in
accordance with his (Campbell's) request, each of these men were
instructed, and they did, make their individual request to Mr. Camp-
bell, although our agreement, section 1 of our agreement, provided
that the Associations (The M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.) were
recognized by Wilson Line, Incorporated, as the representatives of
the licensed officers for collective bargaining. We were denied that
?B Section 14 is as follows :
It is mutually agreed and understood that any licensed officer employed by the
"Company" who has been disciplined or who shall consider himself unjustly treated
shall be accorded a bearing upon written request to the General Manager within five
(5) days of the date of advice of such discipline , and such hearing shall be held
within ten ( 10) days of the request therefor. Appeal from the action of the General
Manager may be taken to the Joint Board within five (5 ) days from the date of
notice of a decision of the General Manager. The decision of the Joint Board shall
be final according to Section 2 of this agreement.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition at that particular point on account of the refusal to
bargain by Wilson Line, Incorporated."
From the foregoing it appears that the M. E. B. A. and the M. M. P.
merely requested the respondent to grant a hearing in accordance
with Section 14 of the contract. Section 14 provides only that the
aggrieved officer shall be accorded a hearing upon written request to
the General Manager. In the circumstances we do not view Camp-
bell's insistence that the men involved make individual requests for
conferences as a refusal to bargain collectively. Evans contended
further that the respondent refused to bargain at this time by its
alleged violation of Section 13 30 of the contract. He testified as
follows : "Section No. 13 of our agreement provided for seniority
and for assignment of the men by seniority and the committee of the
Associations, with the management, would decide on the assignment
of men in accordance with our agreement. But that was denied us."
The M. E. B. A: and the M. M. P. however, requested a hearing in
accordance with Section 14 of the contract. The record does not
indicate that they sought to invoke Section 13. Moreover, the ques-
tion concerning the reassignment to duty of these men, as well as
the other employees involved in this proceeding, was, after extended
negotiations, submitted to a board of arbitration as provided in Sec-
tion 2 of the contract. We find that the respondent did not refuse
to bargain with either the M. E. B. A. or the M. M. P. in July 1937,
and shall adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the alle-
gation of the complaint to that effect be dismissed.
2. The H. B. U.
The • respondent entered into a collective bargaining contract with
the H. B. U. on June 30, 1937. J. T. Morris, H. B. U. representative,
testified that the respondent, thereafter, violated said contract "in
the treatment of the men." He explained this by stating that "in
the agreement it says that the man would be given a chance to be
heard if he was laid off and they didn't live up to it, and in the agree-
ment it says that they would give the union men preference of em-
ployment and they hired anyone they saw fit without calling up the
union or trying to get in touch with us in any way, shape, or form."
Morris testified further that shortly after the agreement had been
signed, he phoned Campbell regarding the discharge of a member of
the H. B. U., and asked him "if he would not look why this man was
discharged and let me know, or I would thank him to arrange a con-
ference and take up the question of the man being discharged, and
m Section 13 provides, among other things, that "Assignments will be based on ability,
fitness, and seniority, subject to approval of the 'Company' and a committee appointed by
the 'Association.'"
WILSON LINE, INC. 1263
he told me he would look it up and let me know, but I waited a long
while and heard nothing from him." Morris later went to see Camp-
bell with reference to the discharge and was unsuccessful in his at-
tempt to secure the reinstatement of the discharged employee. The
record, in so far as it bears on this issue, is scanty and does not
support a finding that the respondent, in July 1937, refused to bar-
gain collectively with the H. B. U.
F. The alleged refusals to bargain in March 1938
1. The appropriate units
a. Licensed employees
The complaint alleges that the respondent's licensed engineers and
licensed deck officers constitute separate appropriate units for the
purposes of collective bargaining: The respondent,, in -its, answer,
alleges that the licensed engineers and the licensed deck officers con-
stitute a single appropriate unit. The M. E. B. A., claiming juris-
diction over licensed marine engineers, and the M. M. P., claiming
jurisdiction over licensed marine deck officers, desire separate units.
The respondent agreed to separate units of its licensed engineers and
licensed deck officers in its contract with the M. E. B. A. and the
M. M. P.
The qualifications, responsibilities, and duties of licensed engineers
differ in kind from those of licensed deck officers. Deck officers nav-
igate the ship while engineers confine their activities almost wholly
to the operation and maintenance of the engine department. The
chief engineer is subordinate to, takes orders from, and receives a
wage rate lower than that paid to the captain.
We find that the licensed engineers and licensed deck officers of
the respondent at all times material herein constituted and that they
now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and that said unit insures to
the employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates
the policies of the Act.sl
b. Unlicensed employees
The H. B. U. admits to membership unlicensed marine employees
in the port of Philadelphia from Newcastle, Delaware, to Trenton,
'See Matter of Newcastle Mercantile Marine Co . et at., and International Union of
'Operating Engineers, Local No 3, 1 N. L. R. B. 884 ; Matter of Lykes Brothers Steamship
-Co, Inc, et al and National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, et at ., 2 N. L. R. B.
102; and Matter of Black Diamond Steamship Corporation and Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association, Local No. 33, 2 N. L. R . B. 241.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Jersey . In its contract with the respondent-the H . B. U wag
recognized as the sole representative of all the unlicensed employees
on the respondent 's vessels operating on the Delaware River.
We find that the respondent 's unlicensed employees on its vessels
operating in the port of Philadelphia from Newcastle, Delaware, to
Trenton, New Jersey, at all times material herein constituted and
that they now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment , and that said unit
insures to the employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Majority representation
In March 1938, the M. E. B. A ., the M . M. P., and the H. B. U.
sought to negotiate with the respondent concerning a renewal or
modification of their contracts . In his Intermediate Report the.
Trial Examiner found that said labor ' organizations did not at that
time represent a majority of the respondent's employees within the
units we have found to be appropriate . The M . E. B. A., the
M. M. P., and the H. B. U. filed exceptions to said finding of the
Trial Examiner and a brief in support of the exceptions . In their
brief the. unions state that their respective majorities in the appro-
priate units were destroyed by the respondent 's discriminatory dis-
charge of union members. This argument proceeds on the assump-
tion that the respondent 's discharge of a number of union members
not named in the complaint was discriminatory . The Board, how-
ever, will not assume that discharges which are not in issue before it
were violative of the Act. Even if the four licensed engineers who
are members of the M. E. B. A ., the eight licensed deck officers who
are members of the M. M. P., and the eight unlicensed employees
who are members of the H . B. U., whose discharges we have found.to
be discriminatory , are included in the computation of the respective
unions' majority in March 1938, and an equal number of persons in
each category who were employed at that time in the places formerly
occupied by such union members are excluded from the respective
appropriate units, the result confirms the finding of the Trial Ex-
aminer, that the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the H. B. U. did
not represent a majority of the employees within the appropriate
units in March 1938. 'Accordingly , it will be unnecessary to deter-
mine whether the - respondent then refused to bargain with those
labor organizations.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1265
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act, and restore as nearly as possible the condition that existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of a number of labor organi-
zations of its employees. Of these only the C. M. A. and the U. M.
E. C. continued in existence at the time of the hearing. In order to
effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees of the re-
spondent from such interference and domination and the effects
thereof which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the
employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order
the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the C. M. A. and
the U. M. E. C. as the representatives of any of the respondent's
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and conditions of work, and to disestablish them as such repre-
sentatives.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of the employees listed in Appendix
A hereof. With the exception of C. W. Hammond, these employees
were denied reemployment by the respondent and are entitled to rein-
statement with back pay. We shall order the respondent to offer all
except Hammond immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their sen-
iority and other rights and privileges and further, to make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them by payment to them of a
sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned
as wages, including the reasonable value of their maintenance on
shipboard, from the date of the discrimination to the date of the
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings 32 during
said period, and further, less any amount paid to them by the respond-
ent as a result of arbitration proceedings.
C. W. Hammond was reemployed by the respondent following
his lay-off. Accordingly, we shall not order the respondent to rein-
state him. He is entitled to back pay, however. We shall order the
respondent to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages, including the reasonable value
of his maintenance on shipboard, from the date of his lay-off to
the date upon which the respondent reemployed him, less his net
earnings during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association; National
Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots; Harbor Boatmen's Union;
Marine Employees' Committee, representing the licensed personnel
of Wilson Line, Inc.; John Emering, Herbert S. Hall, William Camp-
bell, William Peaper, Joel George Coffin, and Andrew Anderson,
representing the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc.; Christiana.
Marine Association ; and Unlicensed Marine Employees' Committee
of Wilson Line, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Marine Employees' Committee, representing the licensed
personnel of Wilson Line, Inc.; John Emering, Herbert S. Hall,
William Campbell, William Peaper, Joel George Coffin, and Andrew
Anderson, representing the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc. ;
Christiana Marine Association, and Unlicensed Marine Employees'
Committee of Wilson Line, Inc., and contributing support to them,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
as By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by such employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his
unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere-
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jotiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2.590, 8 N L . B. B 440 . Monies
received for work performed upon Feder al, State, county , municipal , or other work -relief
projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be.
deducted from the sum due the employees ; and the amount thereof shall be paid over
to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal , or other gov-
ernment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
WILSON LINE, INC. 1267
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the individuals named in Appendix A hereof and thereby
discouraging membership in the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the
H. B. U., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7)
of the Act.
6. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Fred Peterman and C. D. Vickers, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
7. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with
the representatives of its employees , within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Wilson Line, Inc., and its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Marine
Employees ' Committee , representing the licensed personnel of Wilson
Line, Inc.; John Emering, Herbert S. Hall, William Campbell, Wil-
liam Peaper, Joel George Coffin , and Andrew Anderson , representing
the licensed personnel of Wilson Line, Inc.; Christiana Marine Asso-
ciation, and Unlicensed Marine Employees ' Committee of Wilson
organization of its employees , or contributing support to Christiana
Marine Association or Unlicensed Marine Employees ' Committee, or
to any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Discouraging membership in the M. E. B. A ., the M. M. P.,
and the H. B. U., or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any terms or conditions of employment because of
membership in or activity in connection with any labor organization;
. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act:
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Christiana Marine Associa-
tion and Unlicensed Marine Employees' Committee of Wilson Line,
Inc., as representatives of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely; disestablish Christiana Marine Association
and Unlicensed Marine Employees' Committee as such representatives;
(b) Offer to the individuals named in Appendix A hereof, with
the exception of C. W. Hammond, immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole the individuals named in Appendix A hereof for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment by pay-
ment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they would
normally have earned as wages, including the reasonable value of
their maintenance on shipboard, during the period from the date of
their discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, 33
less their net earnings during that period, and further, less any
amount paid to them by the respondent as a result of arbitration pro-
ceedings; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due, monies
received by said employees during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other work-relief projects;
and pay over the amount so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency
of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or gov-
ernments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places on its docks and on its
vessels, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of the posting, notices to its employees stating :
(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c)
of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondents' employees are free to become or remain members
of the M. E. B. A., the M. M. P., and the H. B. U. and the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of his membership
or activity in those organizations;
83 July 22, 1938, in the case of Hammond
WILSON LINE, INC. 1269
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
,that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Fred Peterman and C. D. Vickers, and that the
respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the representatives
of its employees, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
Victor S.Buckworth
C. A. Fitzpatrick
Murray Cross
Venus M. Buckworth
F. L. Turner
John B..Foster
Raymond Miller
S. W. Bennett
J. A. Phillips
I. W. Haywood
E. E. Graham
W. B. Jackson
C. W. Hammond
U. E. Coulbourn
Herbert Sapp
Leroy Cole
A. G. Singleton
W. A. Rittenhouse
M. C. Hoil
A. E. Harris
2Q: (W34- 4 1-vol. 23- 81