Boat companies, unions spar on worker access

New Orleans CityBusiness, Jun 24, 2002 by Stephen Stuart

Ongoing struggles to organize offshore boat workers could hinge on rulings from the National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the court system, on union demands for greater access to docks and boats. Union organizers claim the nature of the offshore industry, in which boat workers spend two weeks or more on vessels servicing rigs and platforms, makes it difficult to contact workers.

In addition, the boats dock at several different ports and workers disperse to homes throughout the Gulf Coast. Boat companies argue union organizers have other means of contacting workers besides trying to reach them at the docks and boats, the companies' private property. These range from advertising to the Internet to personal visits at home. The labor board case involves Offshore Mariners United, the Houma-based coalition of maritime unions formed in 2000 to spearhead the organizing drive. The board is now investigating the group's charge against boat company Trico Marine Services Inc. of Houma that it has been denied access to docks and boats for organizing. The legal debate gets complicated because the organizers are generally outsiders rather than company employees. If they were employees, then their access to other employees is guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act. The labor board's New Orleans office enforced this in a complaint against Guidry Bros. Towing in Harvey for firing pro-union employees, making threats and other unfair labor practices, says James Paulsen, acting regional director. In the proposed settlement, Guidry Bros. does not admit violations but agrees to reinstate fired employees, allow union access at Guidry's docks for meetings, release names and addresses of employees to unions, inform employees of their organizing rights and refrain from future threats. Offshore Mariners United and the AFL- CIO have appealed the settlement, however, calling for additional access to Guidry's boats and a longer settlement term of one year instead of 90 days, Paulsen says. The labor board's Washington, D.C. headquarters is reviewing the appeal. Key court decisions have covered the access of non-employee union organizers to company workers in difficult or remote locations. One critical case involved a union drive in the 1950s at boilermaker Babcock & Wilcox Co., today a division of McDermott International Inc., a New Orleans energy services company. In 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the company could keep non-employee union organizers off its property, even though it was secluded, because the union could reach them at their homes in nearby towns. Thus workers were not "beyond the reach of reasonable efforts" to communicate with them, the court decided. The court added that because the U.S. government grants both company property rights and workers' organization rights, they must be balanced. But courts have been reluctant to grant outside organizers special access to company property except in cases of unfair labor practices, says Jim Morgan, partner in the New Orleans office of Fisher & Phillips LLP. The courts have found that unions generally have other means of attracting attention, from billboards to personal contact. Morgan's law firm represents management in labor lawsuits but is not involved in the boat worker cases. "What the union is looking for here would represent a change in the approach that's been taken up to now," he says. The balance tipped in favor of companies' property rights after the Supreme Court's 1992 decision allowing retail store Lechmere Inc. to bar non- employee union organizers from its parking lot, says Bill Quigley, Loyola University law professor. Quigley participated in a panel hearing held in November 2000 by union supporters to discuss the offshore boat workers' unique situation. He says their industry presents a possible exception to the courts' approach. It's a question of the remoteness of the workers and how this complicates the union's efforts to reach them, says Louis Robein, attorney at Robein, Urann & Lurye LLP law firm in Metairie representing Offshore Mariners United in the Trico case. Robein says the workers are not collected in a fixed location, as with the Lechmere store. Instead, they work throughout the Gulf of Mexico. When they return to shore, they disperse through several docks and drive to their homes in different states. "The problem with the industry is that it's so far-flung," he says. Thomas Hubert, attorney at Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre LLP law firm in New Orleans representing Trico, declined comment because the cases are still pending. He said only that Offshore Mariners United's charge "has absolutely no merit and we're seeking to have it dismissed." Trico has filed its own charges against Offshore Mariners United and the International Transport Workers Federation. It alleges the unions worked with another union, the Norwegian Oil, Petrochemical & Energy Federation, to pressure Trico's customers and suppliers in the North Sea not to do business with Trico. The labor board regional office in New Orleans dismissed the charges for lack of evidence, and the company lost on appeal. However, the labor board's Office of the General Counsel in March reopened the case for further investigation.*