05/23/2024: Union Election Coming at Alamo Drafthouse

Supervisory status, single-facility presumption, exception to fleet-wide maritime units.

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., 12-RM-327039 (Regional Election Decision)

On October 2, 2023, Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OSG) filed a petition in response to a demand for recognition by MMP as the representative of licensed deck officers on U.S. Flag vessels operated by OSG Ship Management, Inc. OSG argued for a fleet-wide unit including employees from both OSG and its subsidiary, Alaska Tanker Company, LLC (ATC). MMP and MEBA argued for excluding ATC employees and including Chief Mates in the unit.

Legal Analysis:

1. Supervisory Status of Chief Mates:

   • Board Law: Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act excludes supervisors from the Act's protections. Supervisory status is defined by the authority to perform specific functions (e.g., hire, transfer, discipline) using independent judgment.

   • Findings:

     • Promotions and Evaluations: Chief mates prepare evaluations but do not independently influence promotions or other employment terms.

     • Discipline: Chief mates report conduct issues to captains who then investigate and decide on disciplinary actions. This does not equate to independent supervisory authority.

     • Assignment of Duties: Chief mates provide detailed task instructions based on pre-set guidelines rather than independent judgment.

     • Responsible Direction: There is no evidence chief mates are held accountable for the performance of subordinates.

2. Appropriate Unit Determination:

   • Single Employer: OSG and ATC are considered a single employer due to shared management and administrative functions.

   • Fleet-Wide Unit Presumption: Historically, bargaining units in the maritime industry are presumed to be fleet-wide.

   • Special Circumstances: Significant differences in ship size, cargo, operations, work conditions, and limited interchange of personnel justified separate units for OSG and ATC LDOs.

Decision:

• Chief mates are not statutory supervisors and will be included in the unit.

• A separate unit of Licensed Deck Officers (LDOs) employed on OSG U.S. Flag vessels is appropriate.

• A mail ballot election is directed for the unit consisting of all full-time and regular part-time licensed deck officers employed by OSG, excluding other employees, captains, deck cadets, non-licensed deck officers, and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.

Significant Cases Applied:

1. American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022) — The employer must show that employees in a petitioned-for unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in a larger proposed unit.

2. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006) — Defined the criteria for establishing supervisory status under Section 2(11) of the Act.

3. NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) — Clarified that supervisory status may be established if the individual has the authority to perform or effectively recommend supervisory functions without independent investigation by superiors.

Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 27-RC-332770 (Regional Election Decision)

The primary issue in this case was whether the appropriate bargaining unit should be limited to employees at the Employer’s Westminster, Colorado facility or should include employees from all three of the Employer's facilities in the Denver area (Westminster, Sloan’s Lake, and Littleton). The parties also disputed the inclusion of Technical Engineers and Supervisors in the bargaining unit.

Legal Analysis:

1. Appropriate Unit Determination:

   • Single-Facility Unit Presumption: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) presumes a single-facility unit to be appropriate unless effectively merged or functionally integrated.

   • Factors Considered:

     • Central Control over Daily Operations and Labor Relations: Despite centralized policies, significant local autonomy existed at each facility regarding hiring, training, scheduling, and discipline.

     • Similarity of Skills, Functions, and Working Conditions: Job functions, training, skills, wages, and benefits were similar across facilities but did not negate the appropriateness of a single-facility unit.

     • Employee Interchange: Limited and voluntary employee interchange between facilities did not support a multi-facility unit.

     • Geographical Proximity: Distances between facilities (8.1 to 16.5 miles) were not substantial enough to mandate a combined unit.

     • Bargaining History: The absence of a bargaining history did not affect the appropriateness of the single-facility unit.

Decision:

• The petitioned-for single-facility unit at Westminster is appropriate for collective bargaining.

• Technical Engineers and Supervisors will vote subject to challenge procedures due to unresolved eligibility.

• An election is directed to be held at the Westminster facility on May 31, 2024.

Significant Cases Applied:

1. California Pacific Medical Center, 357 NLRB 197 (2011) — Centralized control over some labor relations policies does not negate the appropriateness of a single-facility unit if there is significant local autonomy.

2. Hilander Foods, 348 NLRB 1200 (2006) — Centralized administration does not rebut the single-facility presumption if employees perform their daily work under local supervision.

3. Starbucks Corp., 371 NLRB No. 71 (2022) — Stores spread across a geographic area with substantial distances are not so proximate as to weigh strongly in favor of a larger combined unit.

4. New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999) — Significant employee interchange and centralized operations are necessary to rebut the presumption of a single-facility unit.