National Labor Relations Board v. Waterman Steamship Corp.
Docket: 193
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 11, 1940; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Waterman Steamship Corporation focuses on the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) authority in addressing labor disputes. The lower court had set aside the NLRB's order, claiming it lacked substantial evidence and was based on suspicion. The NLRB challenged this conclusion, asserting there was "clear and overwhelming proof" of the Waterman Steamship Company's egregious discriminatory practices against employees, violating the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB argued that the appellate court had improperly interfered with its exclusive jurisdiction as granted by Congress, which intended for the Board's factual findings to be conclusive if supported by evidence.
The case involved allegations that Waterman Steamship Company unlawfully discharged crew members and interfered with employees' rights to select their bargaining representatives. Specific violations included the dismissal of the entire crew of the "Bienville" and most of the crew of the "Fairland" due to union membership, the firing of a second assistant engineer for union-related activities, and hindering the election process for union representation by restricting access to union representatives. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address these significant issues regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the NLRB in labor relations.
The Board's order was based on findings regarding the discharge of crews from the 'Bienville' and 'Fairland'. Federal law mandates that a written agreement, known as articles, be made with each seaman before embarking on foreign voyages. This agreement must detail voyage specifics, crew information, wages, and regulations, and penalties apply for failing to comply with these requirements. Seamen discharged in the U.S. must do so in the presence of a shipping commissioner, who records a mutual release of wage claims, effectively settling all wage demands for the past voyage.
The Waterman Company contends that the employment relationship ended when the crews signed off and received their wages in Mobile, creating vacancies that should be filled according to an existing contract with the I.S.U. However, the Board argues that signing off only concluded the employment for the past voyage, and it examined whether a continuing employment relationship existed post-voyage. The law protects seamen's rights to self-organization and prohibits discrimination affecting their employment terms. The statutes aim to safeguard seamen from coercion and mistreatment, allowing them the option to re-sign after a voyage ends, unless discharged for cause. Consequently, the Board appropriately considered evidence regarding the crews' ongoing employment status.
The Board's findings indicated that the crews of the 'Bienville' and 'Fairland' retained a customary term of employment, suggesting no vacancies existed when crew members signed off in Mobile. The respondent's contract with the I.S.U. only prioritized the I.S.U. A.F. of L. for filling vacancies and did not require the discharge of N.M.U. C.I.O. members from these ships. Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the crews had a continuing right to employment despite the temporary layup of their ships, which was unlawfully terminated by the Company due to the crews' C.I.O. affiliation. Testimonies from witnesses with extensive maritime experience confirmed the industry practice of retaining crew members during dry dock repairs, with examples of ships maintaining their crews for various durations while undergoing repairs. The chief steward affirmed that a crew's employment is not terminated simply by being paid off after a voyage, as long as they have not been discharged for cause. Additional testimonies reinforced that, despite temporary layoffs during repairs, the positions remained intact, indicating no vacancies existed.
A former I.S.U. member testified that he had never witnessed a complete crew discharge like that of the 'Bienville' and 'Fairland'. Unions maintain that no vacancy exists until a man resigns. A seaman with the Waterman Company since 1924 noted that crews typically remain on board during dry dock repairs, unless the ship is to be laid up for an extended period, in which case only a skeleton crew might be kept. He emphasized that the Waterman Company often recalls laid-off crew members who are still available. Another witness, a fireman who served during a dry dock period from November to Thanksgiving 1932, confirmed that the majority of the crew remained employed during repairs, with only a few allowed to leave temporarily. He also observed that out of approximately six hundred ships he had encountered in dry dock, only one crew had been completely discharged, but they were invited to return.
A marine engineer with the Waterman Company since 1929 corroborated that crews are usually re-employed after dry dock, unless the discharge is for cause. He recounted that engineers were retained during a layup in Mobile from December 1936 to January 1937. The executive vice-president of Waterman noted that only one other crew had been discharged en masse for repairs, and that crew was affiliated with the N.M.U. C.I.O. The captain of the 'Fairland', who had a long tenure with the company, stated he had never seen a ship in dry dock completely lay off its crew, and Waterman’s port captain also endorsed the practice of retaining crews for subsequent voyages.
The Waterman Company's contract with the I.S.U. specifies that employees may work eight hours daily with overtime and ensures that no employee will be discharged for choosing not to join the union. The contract allows for termination of employment independent of the articles, indicating that the company can dismiss unsatisfactory crew members. Evidence presented shows that experienced seamen testified that their employment is not terminated solely by the expiration of articles when a ship is laid up for repairs, a practice recognized by both the Waterman Company and the maritime community. The Waterman executive noted a rare exception to this custom, involving a mass firing of a C.I.O. crew. The Act prohibits employers from terminating employees' tenure or conditions of employment due to union activity, extending beyond formal contracts to customary employment relationships. The Board found that even during temporary lay-ups, an employment relationship existed, and the principle of at-will employment does not preclude claims of discrimination. If employees are customarily recognized for their job claims, discharging them to favor one union over another constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Act, protecting their rights against dismissal based on union affiliation.
The Board determined that an employment relationship under the Act persisted even after the 'Bienville' and 'Fairland' were temporarily laid up, making further examination of the Board's finding regarding the lay-up arrangements unnecessary. The critical issue is whether evidence substantiates the Board’s conclusion that the crews' employment was terminated due to their affiliation with the C.I.O.
On July 1, 1937, the entire crew of the 'Bienville' and most of the 'Fairland' transitioned from the I.S.U. A.F. of L. to the N.M.U. C.I.O. in Tampa, a decision made in June while in Le Havre, France. Following this transition, the A.F. of L. representative in Tampa notified their counterpart in Mobile, which in turn informed the Waterman Company. Subsequently, a memorandum was issued to lay up the 'Bienville' for about twenty days, purportedly written on July 1, after the crew's union change. The port captain asserted that the memorandum was created after the 'Bienville' began her return from Le Havre, indicating the lay-up was not pre-planned. In contrast, the 'Fairland' was laid up for scheduled repairs, with its master unaware of any prior lay-up plans and believing it was due to being behind schedule.
Testimony indicated that the 'Fairland' was equipped with radio and both ships arrived in Mobile by July 6. A crew member reported being questioned by the Waterman Company’s executive vice-president about the union switch, suggesting that employment was contingent upon returning to the I.S.U. Pelletier, a steward on the 'Bienville', was discharged after joining the N.M.U. C.I.O. The port steward from Waterman discussed the crew’s union change upon the 'Bienville's arrival in Mobile.
The port steward inquired about the status of the Steward's Department, learning that crew members, including Pelletier, had joined the National Maritime Union (N.M.U.), which prompted him to leave the ship. Two hours later, the port steward returned to charge Pelletier with incompetency and discharge him. Pelletier claimed the port steward stated that he had orders to lay off the entire crew due to their N.M.U. affiliation. Prior to this incident, Pelletier had received a promotion.
Another crew member testified that they were informed by a company official that they could not sail unless they resigned from the N.M.U., despite the captain's desire to retain the crew. An engineer, O'Conner, representing his fellow engineers, complained about working conditions and was promised a vacation, which was never granted. He was subsequently not called back for work despite availability.
The company's executive vice-president remained non-committal about reinstating N.M.U. members, linking their dismissal to the existence of a contract with the International Seamen's Union (I.S.U.). However, he later suggested that their removal was due to the vessels being laid up, indicating a shift in reasoning.
Evidence showed that discharged N.M.U. members faced discrimination regarding employment opportunities on the 'Bienville' and 'Fairland', reinforcing the Board's conclusion that their employment was terminated for exercising their right to unionize. A worker recalled being instructed to remove his N.M.U. badge if he wanted to remain employed, highlighting the pressure to disassociate from the N.M.U.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that crews O'Conner and Pelletier lost their jobs due to their affiliation and activities with the C.I.O. The Board determined that the respondent discriminated by issuing passes to I.S.U. representatives while denying equal access to N.M.U. representatives, thereby interfering with employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act. An election allowing crews to choose their bargaining agency has been ordered but remains pending. Testimony revealed that the Company’s executive vice-president denied N.M.U. requests for passes, citing the I.S.U. contract, which did not address ships' passes for other unions. I.S.U. representatives were allowed aboard the 'Bienville' at all times, yet there was uncertainty regarding compliance with conditions set for their access. The master of the 'Fairland' and the Company's port captain indicated that I.S.U. representatives were permitted on board without strict oversight, raising questions about the fairness of access for both unions. The Board concluded that equal opportunities must be granted to both the C.I.O. and A.F. of L. for a fair election, emphasizing that the control of election proceedings is solely within the Board's purview, and interference by the court was erroneous. The Court of Appeals' refusal to enforce the Board's order stemmed from improperly substituting its judgment for that of the Board, which is not permitted by Congress. The case is reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to fully enforce the Board's order.
Mr. Justice Murphy did not participate in the case's consideration or decision. The Board referenced several cases, including National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co., related to labor relations. The Board ordered the Waterman Company to stop issuing preferential ships' passes to the A.F. of L. over the C.I.O., to refrain from discriminating against C.I.O. members, and to respect employees' rights to organize and bargain collectively. The Company was directed to provide equal passes to both unions and to reinstate and compensate employees who faced discrimination, including making O'Connor whole for lost pay due to the Company's actions. Additionally, a contract section stipulates that U.S. citizen members of the International Seamen's Union receive employment preference without necessitating the discharge of non-union employees. The court affirmed that O'Connor had not been discharged and was entitled to vacation pay. The Board also mandated the Company to issue passes to representatives of the National Maritime Union under the same conditions as those for the International Seamen's Union. Various statutory references and past case law support the Board's findings and orders.
