Alcoa Marine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 1265 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ALCOA MARINE CORPORATION 1265
Alcoa Marine Corporation and International Organi-
zation of Masters, Mates & Pilots--ILA, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 23 RC-4706
March 8, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CAIRMAN FANNIN( AND MEMBERS JENKINS
ANr) Mt RPIIY
Upon a petition for representation filed on Sep-
tember 15, 1978, under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Robert L. Penrice on October
II and November 30, 1978. Following the hearing
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, and by direction of the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 23, this proceeding was transferred to
the Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were filed
by the Petitioner and the Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record' in this case the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is a Delaware corporation oper-
ating an oceangoing vessel known as the R/V Alcoa
Seaprohe, engaged in offshore geophysical and geo-
technical research, and which is alone involved in
this proceeding. While berthed in Woods Hole, Mas-
sachusetts, during the past year, the R/V Alcoa Sea-
probe purchased and received goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located
outside the State of Massachusetts.
The Seaprobe, a United States flag vessel, is a spe-
cialized vessel designed for drilling and for geophysi-
cal and oceanographic research. The ship can berth
50 people and operates with a minimum crew of 18.
The Employer entered into a contract with Petro-
bas, the national oil company of Brazil, to perform
offshore drilling and exploration on Brazil's conti-
nental shelf. The contract is for 1 year with possible
extensions totaling an additional 26 months. How-
ever, the Employer does not expect to return the ves-
Petitioner's motion to reopen the record for receipt of additional ex-
hihits is herebs denied. as no extraordinars circumstances exist and we are
not satisfied that the evidence would not have been discovered hb the exer-
cise of due diligence or wsas presiiously unasailable.
240 NLRB No. 18
sel to the United States because, it alleges, her tech-
nology is not needed here. It contends that as the
Seaprobe is, and is expected to remain, outside U.S.
territorial waters, the Board is without jurisdiction. It
argues that GTE Automatic Electric Incorporated, 226
NLRB 1222 (1976), and RCA OMS, Inc., 202 NLRB
228 (1973), are dispositive, holding that jurisdiction
of the Act is limited to the territorial boundaries of
the United States. It further contends, assuming, ar-
guendo, that the Board has jurisdiction, that the
Board should exercise its discretion and not assert it
because of the Employer's close relationship with the
Brazilian government.
The Petitioner contends, however, that the laws of
the United States apply to a U.S. flag vessel wherever
she is, and that GTE and RCA are inapposite since
they concern land-based operations where personnel
are subject to the laws of the country where they are
employed. We agree with the Petitioner. In RCA the
Board dismissed a petition for representation of em-
ployees at early warning sites in Greenland "particu-
larly [because] Greenland is a possession of Denmark
and governed as a county of that country, [and thus]
does not come within the jurisdiction of the Act."
202 NLRB at 228. In GTE the Board granted the
employer's request for clarification of a voluntarily
recognized unit and excluded equipment installers
employed in Iran. Citing RCA, the Board found that
employees in Iran are not within the Act's jurisdic-
tion. 226 NLRB at 1223.
Unlike the employees on the Seaprobe, the employ-
ees in RCA and GTE were subject to the laws of a
foreign country in which they lived and worked. But
the Seaprohe is, as noted, a U.S. flagship; thus she is,
for legal purposes, United States territory to which
the laws of the United States, including Coast Guard
regulations and our labor laws, apply. Hence, the
Seaprohe remains within reach of our national labor
laws notwithstanding her indefinite-even perma-
nent---stay outside United States territorial waters.
We are similarly unpersuaded by the Employer's
suggestions that we exercise our discretion to decline
jurisdiction because of her close relationship with the
Brazilian government. To the contrary, we have con-
cluded "that there is no public policy or policy of the
Act which, on the ground that the employer is dis-
closed to be an 'agency' or 'instrumentality' of a for-
eign state, justifies us . . . to decline jurisdiction in
cases affecting employees in our own country whose
employer engaged in commercial activity which
meets the Board's jurisdictional standards for such
enterprises." State Bank of India, 229 NLRB 838, 842
(1977.2 The Seaprobe is not "in our own country."
In reaching her decision, Member Murphy also finds relevant the views
Contlnuled
ALCOA MARINE CORPORATION
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but her crew is employed on dce jure United States
territory by a United States employer engaged in
commercial activity which satisfies our jurisdictional
standards. In all the relevant circumstances, and par-
ticularly the fact that a United States ship is subject
at all times to United States laws, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over the Employer herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(I) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all unlicensed
members of the crew employed by the Employer on
the vessel R/V Alcoa Seaproe., including ordinary
seamen, able-bodied seamen, wipers, chief stewards,
cooks, and messmen, but is willing to proceed to an
election in any other unit found appropriate. The
Employer disputes the inclusion of the stewards in
the unit on the ground that they are temporary em-
ployees. There is no collective-bargaining history.
The steward department consists of unlicensed
cooks, messmen, and stewards and is responsible for
all catering and hotel services aboard the ship, in-
cluding the preparation and service of meals, clean-
she expressed in her dissenting opin ion in Iihe .orih 4m .li ltl S.llr
League et .. 236 NLRB 1317 (1978). and her artille. " Mutinaliti llal ( rpol-
rations and Free ('oordinated ransnational Hargaining: An Alternaltive to
Protectionism?." lbhor I.a Journal, Commerce ('learing House (October
1977). pp. 619 631.
ing. and laundering. According to its contract with
Petrobas, the Employer is required to subcontract to
a Brazilian company the "accommodation, food and
hotel services" provided for 15 or so Petrobas per-
sonnel aboard the Searrohe. Thus, the Employer
avers that, upon arrival in Brazil, the 5-6 employees
in the steward department will be returned to the
United States and replaced with Brazilian employees.
The Employer argues that stewards should be ex-
cluded from the unit because they are temporary em-
ployees having no expectation of continued employ-
ment by virtue of its contractual obligation to
subcontract the stewards' work to a Brazilian compa-
ny and the lack of other steward positions within the
corporation. We disagree. It matters not whether the
stewards are replaced as a result of managerial deci-
sion or of normal attrition. The facts remain that
stewards will be used to perform certain services to
facilitate operations on the vessel, and do not appear
to have a community of interest distinct from other
crew members. Rather, they are an integral compo-
nent of the entire operation.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act:
All unlicensed members of the crew employed
by the Emplover on the vessel R/V Alcoa Sea-
probe, including ordinary seamen, able-bodied
seamen, wipers, chief stewards, cooks and mess-
men, but excluding, masters, chief mate, mates,
chief engineer and assistant engineers and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]