Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

64 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardmail campaign materials to the crewmen and to telephone orvisit the crewmen at home during their lengthy leave periods.Further, the union in the past had achieved sufficient success tofile a petition. The majority noted the geographical dispersion ofthe employees over 12 States, but found that this dispersion didnot rule out telephone calls and home visits as possible alternativemeans of communication. The majority stated:It may be that reasonable efforts to reach the crewmen bythese methods would not result in the Union's achieving personalcontact with all of them. As the Union, however, neitherattempted these methods nor demonstrated that, if diligentlytried, these methods would have failed, we cannot determinewhat the results would have been.Member Johansen, in his dissent, noted that face-to-face contactis an essential element of effective union organizing. In hisview, the alternative techniques advanced by the majority fellshort of offering a reasonable opportunity for face-to-face solicitation.The union did not know when individual crewmen wouldbe home. Further, 44 percent of the crewmen's addresses containedno street addresses; many were situated in isolated ruralcommunities and they lived in 12 different States. The techniquesof telemarketing representative appeals is well beyond the "usualchannels" of alternatives approved in NLRB v. Babcock & WilcoxCo. 25 Member Johansen found that the Section 7 interest outweighedthe property interest, and that the latter must yield.In G. W. Gladders Towing Co.," a panel concluded that theproperty right and the Section 7 right with respect to towboatswere relatively equal. It found that the union's request for accessto the boats was unlawfully denied in violation of Section 8(a)(1)because there were no other reasonable means of communicatingthe union's organizational message.The panel majority noted that this case was similar to SCNOBarge Lines, supra, in many respects. However, it concludedthere were two significant differences, stating:The Union asked the Respondent for its crewmen's names andaddresses, but the Respondent did not supply this informationand the Union had no other way to obtain it. Absent knowledgeof the crewmen's names and addresses, the Union couldnot attempt to visit or telephone the crewmen at their homes.Additionally, unlike SCNO, there is no record of prior unionsuccess in contacting the Respondent's crewmen that wouldindicate the availability of means of communicating with thecrewmen.Member Johansen concurred, finding that the Section 7 interestoutweighed the property interest. He noted his disagreement25 351 U.S. 105, 112 (1956).26 287 NLRB No. 30 (Members Babson and Stephens; Member Johansen concurring).