Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/575/477/372020/
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 01:59:33
Document Index: 404365232

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8']

Newport Tankers Corporation, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent,international Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Intervenor,cove Shipping, Inc., Point Shipping Corp., California Andhawaiian Sugar Co., Pacific-gulf Marine, Inc. Andzapata Bulk Transport, Inc., Amicus Curiae, 575 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1978) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1978 › Newport Tankers Corporation, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent,international...
Newport Tankers Corporation, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent,international Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Intervenor,cove Shipping, Inc., Point Shipping Corp., California Andhawaiian Sugar Co., Pacific-gulf Marine, Inc. Andzapata Bulk Transport, Inc., Amicus Curiae, 575 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1978)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 575 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1978) Argued March 6, 1978. Decided May 10, 1978
Notwithstanding the contrary view of the administrative law judge, a majority of the Board in a split decision ruled that International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (MMP) did not violate § 8(b) (1) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (1) (B), when it picketed the S/T Achilles to require her operators, Newport Tankers Corporation (Newport), to employ an additional third mate. The Board therefore dismissed the complaint against MMP. On Newport's petition for review, we conclude that § 8(b) (1) (B) was violated. We therefore set aside the Board's order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.
In filing the charge, the general counsel contended that MMP's picketing violated § 8(b) (1) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (1) (B),3 because a third mate is a grievance adjustor and picketing to require the employment of a second third mate necessarily interferes with an operator's selection of its representatives for the purpose of adjustment of grievances.
The administrative law judge, relying upon prior decisions of the Board which had examined the organizational structure of MMP, concluded that MMP was a "labor organization" within the meaning of the Act,4 and that the picketing about which complaint was made violated § 8(b) (1) (B) because picketing to cause the hiring of an additional licensed deck officer interfered with Newport's right freely to designate its supervisors. The administrative law judge rejected the distinction pressed upon him that the hiring of an additional licensed deck officer, unlike picketing to accomplish the replacement of existing officers, was not proscribed by § 8(b) (1) (B). A majority of the Board reached a contrary conclusion. The majority held that since the object of the picketing was to have Newport hire an additional third mate of its own choosing, whether or not a member of MMP, and not to replace a third mate previously chosen, the picketing was not in violation of the Act. International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (Newport Tankers Corporation), 233 N.L.R.B. No. 42 (November 7, 1977).
Since 1972, the District of Columbia Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have held in three separate cases that MMP's picketing activities in this regard were in violation of § 8(b) (1) (B). See International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. N.L.R.B. (Marine & Marketing Int'l), 159 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 486 F.2d 1271 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 956, 94 S. Ct. 1970, 40 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1974); International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. N.L.R.B. (Westchester Marine Shipping), 539 F.2d 554 (5 Cir. 1976), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 98 S. Ct. 106, 54 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1977); International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. N.L.R.B. (Cove Tankers), --- U.S.App.D.C. ---, --- F.2d ---- (D.C. Cir. 1978). In each of these cases, MMP picketed vessels manned by MEBA deck officers for the purpose of having these deck officers replaced by MMP members. In each the basis of decision, briefly stated, was that MMP, because it has members who are "employees" within the meaning of the Act, is a "labor organization" for purposes of § 8(b) (1) (B). Deck officers are supervisors who, in their daily activities, represent the employer in adjusting grievances of unlicensed seamen. As a consequence, when MMP, a statutory "labor organization," pickets MEBA-manned vessels for the purpose of persuading employers to select MMP deck officers, it comes within the literal prohibition of § 8(b) (1) (B).5
The correctness of the conclusion we reach seems to have been recognized in Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 478 (International Builders of Florida, Inc.), 204 N.L.R.B. 357, enforced, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 503 F.2d 192 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 926, 95 S. Ct. 1122, 43 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1975). There the picketing was to require the employer to hire a certain Davis as an assistant foreman in lieu of or under a certain Wilson who was foreman. In holding the picketing violated § 8(b) (1) (B), the Board said, "(w) e are in agreement . . . that (the union), by insisting that Davis be hired as foreman either in Wilson's place or under Wilson, violated . . . the Act." 204 N.L.R.B. at 357. (Emphasis added.) We therefore cannot read Laborers' Int'l, as did the majority of the Board, as resting solely upon the union's attempt to require the employment of a particular individual, i. e. Davis. But even if it is so read, we agree with the dissenting member of the Board in the instant case who said that one cannot read Marine and Marketing, Westchester Marine, and Cove Tankers and not recognize the "fact of life" that the actual object of MMP's picketing was the eventual replacement of the ship's deck officers with MMP members.6
For these reasons, the order of the Board vacating dismissal of the complaint must be set aside. Under applicable law as we have declared it, the picketing by MMP was in violation of § 8(b) (1) (B), and we therefore remand the case to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Marine and Marketing Int'l, the first of these cases, was a split decision. Chief Judge Bazelon dissented from enforcement of the Board's order. In essence, his theory was that a union principally of supervisors is not a "labor organization" for purposes of § 8(b) (1) (B) even though it has some employee members, when it pickets an employer to affect the employer's choice of its supervisory personnel where none of the union's employee members are employees of the employer so picketed. 159 U.S.App.D.C. at 16-19, 486 F.2d at 1276-79. While Judge Bazelon's theory seemingly has some support in the legislative history of § 8(b) (1) (B), see Florida Power & Light v. Electrical Workers, 417 U.S. 790, 803-05, 94 S. Ct. 2737, 41 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1974), it has not been advanced by either the intervenor MMP or any of the other parties to this appeal. We therefore do not consider it. For the purpose of deciding this case, we assume the correctness of the conclusion reached by the majority in Marine and Marketing Int'l and the unanimous courts in Westchester Marine Shipping and Cove Tankers, and decide whether the picketing which occurred here also fell within the literal application of § 8(b) (1) (B)