Sign in Subscribe
News

🗞️ Captain Overboard: Federal Labor Board Rules Foss Maritime's Ocean Tug Officers Are Supervisors, Dismisses Union Petition

An NLRB regional director ruled that ocean tug captains and chief mates at Foss Maritime are statutory supervisors under the NLRA, dismissing a union representation petition filed by the Masters, Mates & Pilots.

onthelaborfront

onthelaborfront

— 6 min read
Share
🗞️ Captain Overboard: Federal Labor Board Rules Foss Maritime's Ocean Tug Officers Are Supervisors, Dismisses Union Petition

A federal labor official has ruled that the captains and chief mates who command Foss Maritime Company's ocean towing vessels hold enough authority over their crews to be classified as statutory supervisors under federal law — a designation that places them outside the scope of union organizing protections under the National Labor Relations Act.

Ronald K. Hooks, the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board's Region 19 office in Seattle, issued the decision on April 27, 2026, dismissing a representation petition brought by the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots. The union had sought to organize roughly 45 captains and chief mates working in Foss Maritime's Oceans/Project Services Division, a distinct operation from the company's short-haul harbor tug business that sends crews on voyages stretching up to 120 days through some of the most remote and unforgiving stretches of ocean on the planet, including the Canadian and American Arctic.

The case turned on a deceptively simple question with significant consequences for both sides: do these officers exercise enough independent authority over the people working beneath them to qualify as "supervisors" under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act? Supervisors are excluded from the Act's protections, meaning they cannot be included in a collective bargaining unit. For Foss, a finding of supervisory status meant the petition would be dismissed. For the MM&P, it meant the officers could not be organized into the standalone unit the union had sought.

To answer that question, Director Hooks applied the controlling three-part standard set out in Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006), which requires that an individual hold authority over at least one of 12 enumerated supervisory functions, that the exercise of that authority require genuine independent judgment rather than rote or clerical action, and that the authority be exercised in the interest of the employer. Proof of just one qualifying function is enough to seal the outcome.

The evidence presented at a three-day hearing in January and February 2026 supported the employer's position on several fronts. Foss's own management witnesses testified that no candidate is hired without a captain or chief mate sitting in on the interview, and that when a captain recommends someone for hire, the company follows that recommendation as a matter of practice. In one instance described in the record, a manager hired a new captain over his own reservations specifically because a sitting captain had vouched for the candidate. In another, a chief mate's recommendation alone was enough to put a prospective chief engineer on the company's payroll. That kind of influence, the director found, constitutes an effective recommendation to hire within the meaning of the law.

On performance evaluations, the record showed that captains write the annual reviews that determine whether crew members receive bonuses, qualify for tuition reimbursement, or earn promotions. Shore-based managers, who never sail with the crew, acknowledged they have no independent basis on which to assess individual performance and rely entirely on what the captains tell them. A single positive review from a captain, the record established, has overridden standard eligibility requirements for the company's tuition assistance program. A single negative one has resulted in immediate termination.

The question of work assignment drew the most detailed legal analysis. The union leaned heavily on Brusco Tug and Barge, Inc., 359 NLRB 486 (2012), in which the Board found that tugboat mates overseeing a crew of just one deckhand and one engineer did not exercise independent judgment in assigning work because there was, in essence, only one obvious choice for every task. Director Hooks found Foss's situation meaningfully different. The company's ocean vessels carry an average of roughly nine non-supervisory crew members reporting to a single captain and chief mate, drawn from multiple departments including deck officers, engineers, able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen, and cooks. Distributing watches, overtime, emergency assignments, and maintenance tasks across that workforce, in the middle of a months-long Arctic voyage with no shore-based manager anywhere nearby, is not a clerical exercise. It requires exactly the kind of judgment, the director concluded, that the law contemplates.

Captains also hold what the company's own safety management documents call "overriding authority," a maritime regulatory concept that empowers them to deviate from company policy, override instructions from shore, and shut down an entire operation if they judge conditions to be unsafe. The record included a vivid illustration of that authority in practice: a captain who, contrary to explicit direction from management, refused to navigate his vessel through an ice concentration in the Arctic Ocean he deemed dangerous and simply waited until the ice cleared. The company did not overrule him. Notably, both a captain and a chief mate in the record had received written disciplinary warnings not for abusing that authority, but for failing to invoke it when conditions warranted.

Chief mates, the decision found, share in that supervisory status. Under the vessel's watch schedule, captains stand two four-hour watches each day — from 8 a.m. to noon and again from 8 p.m. to midnight — leaving the chief mate in command for the remaining hours, following a regular and predictable rotation that can repeat across voyages lasting up to four months. Beyond that, the record established that chief mates have served as the only manager aboard during extended dockside periods, including month-long maintenance and repair stints, on more than four occasions in the past year alone. That regularity, the director found, distinguishes Foss's chief mates from the sporadic relief-captain role that the Board declined to treat as supervisory in Brusco.

The director did not find the evidence sufficient to establish supervisory status on several other statutory functions, including suspension, discharge, layoff, transfer, and grievance adjustment. Those gaps, however, were legally irrelevant. Under the Act, establishing even a single qualifying supervisory function closes the matter.

The MM&P has until May 11, 2026 to file a request for review with the NLRB's Executive Secretary in Washington.

Key Points

  • The MM&P sought to represent roughly 26 captains and 19 chief mates in Foss Maritime's Oceans/Project Services Division, a group distinct from the deck and engine crew the union already represents at the company under a separate bargaining agreement.
  • Foss argued all 45 officers are statutory supervisors under NLRA §2(11), a classification that would bar them from union representation entirely.
  • Director Hooks applied the Oakwood Healthcare (2006) three-part test, requiring authority over a statutory supervisory function, exercised with independent judgment, in the employer's interest.
  • Supervisory status was established on four independent grounds: effective recommendation to hire, performance-based rewards and promotions, work assignment and responsible direction, and discipline.
  • The case was distinguished from Brusco Tug and Barge (2012), where a near 1:1 supervisor-to-crew ratio on small harbor vessels cut against supervisory status. Foss ocean vessels average roughly 11 total crew with only 2 supervisory officers.
  • Chief mates qualified as independent supervisors because they are in command during the hours the captain is off watch — a regular, predictable rotation — and serve as the sole officer in charge during multi-week dockside maintenance periods with no captain present.
  • Voyages lasting up to 120 days in Arctic and international waters mean captains and chief mates are the only management presence aboard for months at a time, with shore-based supervisors having no practical ability to direct day-to-day operations.
  • Captains hold "overriding authority" under the International Safety Management Code, including the right to countermand shoreside orders and halt all vessel operations for safety reasons. The record shows they have been formally disciplined for failing to exercise that authority.
  • The petition was dismissed. The union may seek review before the full Board in Washington no later than May 11, 2026.
  • The ruling adds to a growing body of post-Brusco decisions in which crew size, voyage length, and the practical absence of shoreside oversight have proven decisive in maritime supervisory status cases.

Primary Source Author: Ronald K. Hooks, Regional Director, NLRB Region 19

Primary Source: Foss Maritime Company, LLC, Case 19-RC-379479, Decision and Order (NLRB Region 19, April 27, 2026)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 19-RC-379479

Supplemental Sources

Read more