Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MCLEOD EX REL. NLRB v. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION

December 30, 1957

Ivan C. McLEOD, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Respondent



The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDELSTEIN

This matter came on to be heard upon the verified petition of Ivan C. McLeod, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l) (herein called the Act), pending the final disposition of the Board on the matter, and upon the issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in the petition. Respondent filed an answer. A hearing on the issues raised by the petition and answer was duly held on December 24, 1957. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues, and to argue and submit briefs on the evidence and the law. The court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, and arguments and briefs of counsel, and has made its findings of facts and conclusions of law upon the entire record.

Findings of Fact.

 1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Second Region of the Board, an agency of the United States, and filed the petition herein for and on behalf of the Board.

 2. Respondent, National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, an unin-corporated association, is a labor organization within the meaning of sections 2(5), 8(b) and 10(l) of the Act, and at all times material has maintained its principal office in the Borough of Manhattan, State of New York, and has been engaged within this judicial district in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members and in transacting business.

 3. On or about December 18, 1957, Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (herein called Moore-McCormack), pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed a charge with the Board alleging that respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(b), subsection (4)(C) of the Act.

 4. The charge was referred to petitioner as Regional Director of the Second Region of the Board for investigation, and was investigated by petitioner and under his supervision.

 5. There is and petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that:

 (a) Moore-McCormack is, and at all times material has been a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware engaged in the transportation of cargo and passengers in interstate and foreign commerce.

 (b) Pursuant to eight separate petitions filed by Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, AFL-CIO (herein called Seafarers), a labor organization within the meaning of sections 2(5) and 8(b) (4))(C) of the Act, the Board, on or about November 8, 1957, directed that eight separate elections by secret ballot among the following groups of employees be held:

 All unlicensed personnel, excluding pursers, radio operators, and supervisors as defined in the Act, employed on each of the following 8 vessels: (a) the SS. Robin Sherwood; (b) the SS. Robin Trent; (c) the S.S. Robin Hood; (d) the S.S. Robin Locksley; (e) the S.S. Robin Goodfellow; (f) the S.S. Robin Gray; (g) the S.S. Robin Kirk; (h) the S.S. Robin Mowbray;

 to determine whether the employees in each group wished to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by Seafarers, or by respondent.

 (c) On or about December 6, 1957, after elections conducted in accordance with the Board's direction as set forth in Finding of Fact 5(b), the Board pursuant to section 9 of the Act, certified Seafarers as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the units as determined by the Board, on each of the following vessels: (a) the S.S. Robin Kirk; (b) the S.S. Robin Gray; (c) the S.S. Robin Locksley; and (d) the S.S. Robin Sherwood.

 (d) Since (on or about) December 6, 1957, respondent had demanded that Moore-McCormack recognize and bargain with respondent as the representative of the employees aboard the S.S. Robin Kirk, the S.S. Robin Gray, the S.S. Robin Locksley, and the S.S. Robin Sherwood, in the units for which Seafarers has been certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative as set forth in Finding of Fact 5(c).

 (e) In furtherance and support of its demand set forth in Finding of Fact 5(d), and notwithstanding the certifications to Seafarers as set forth in Finding of Fact 5(c), since (on or about) December 17, 1957, respondent has picketed piers in the Ports of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Norfolk where a Moore-McCormack ship was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.