International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 11, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union ; Local 13, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union ; and Local 63 , Inter- national Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union and California Cartage Company , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Teamsters Local 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America and Pacific Maritime Association and International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse- men's Union. Cases 21-CD-298, 21-CD-308, and 21-CD-314 February 11, 1974 DECISION AND DETERMINATIONS OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by the Employer, California Cartage Company, Inc., alleging that International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union; Local 13, International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union; and Local 63, International Long- shoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union (hereafter collectively called ILWU), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. This case was consolidated with Cases 21-CD-308 and 21-CD-314, wherein charges were filed by the Employer, Pacific Maritime Association (herein PMA), alleging that Teamsters Local 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called Teamsters), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held in Case 21-CD-298 on March 20, 1972, and, following consolidation, hearings were held in the consolidated cases on various dates from May 15, 1972, to June 21, 1972, before Hearing Officer David G. Weber. All parties appeared at the hearings and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs in support of their positions. On September 13, 1973, oral argument was heard before the Boards in the instant cases and in Cases 21-CC-1326 and 21-CE-103, -112, -109, -111, and -116, in which Charging Parties California Cartage Company, Inc., and AMA and Respondents ILWU and Teamsters participated. Also participating were other parties involved in the CC and CE cases who are not parties in the instant proceeding. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS California Cartage Company, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the transportation of freight by motor- truck and in the operation of warehouses, storage yards, and a container freight station. It was stipulated that it transports freight originating directly outside of the State of California, that it annually receives in excess of $50,000 from the performance of said services, and that it is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Pacific Maritime Association is an employer association whose members are stevedore, terminal, and shipping companies, or a combination thereof, which was organized for the purpose of negotiating and entering into collective-bargaining agreements with the representatives of the employees of its member companies, including the ILWU and its Locals. In the course and conduct of their business operations described above, the members of PMA which bargain collectively on a multiemployer basis through PMA annually derive gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from the transportation of goods and passengers between the State of California and other States and foreign countries. Pacific Maritime Association is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. We find that the Employers are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union, and its Locals 13 and 63, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and its Local 692, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. FHE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The dispute herein involves the stuffing and unstuffing of containers used in overseas shipping, and whether this work should be done by employees i Without objection from any of the parties Board Member Howard the Senate, was invited to sit with the Board during oral argument Jenkins, Jr, then nominated for reappointment, but not yet confirmed by 208 NLRB No. 129 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION represented by the ILWU or by those represented by the Teamsters. Prior to the 1960's, cargo to be shipped overseas was loaded on board ship as "break bulk" cargo by longshoremen. Throughout the years, this method of handling cargo resulted in discord and controversy between PMA and the ILWU, with the former attempting to introduce new, more efficient methods of loading cargo, and the latter insisting on make- work practices. An attempt was made in 1960 to resolve these difficulties when PMA and the ILWU entered into the Modernization and Mechanization Agreement whereby the shipping industry gained the right to use new equipment to improve the efficiency of handling cargo in exchange for which the longshoremen were to have jurisdiction over the operation of any new equipment. Further, the agreement provided for the introduction of a mechanization fund supported by PMA and used as a pension and unemployment fund for longshoremen who had lost work as a result of mechanization. Among the changes which have taken place since the parties entered into that agreement was the introduction of the large-scale use of standardized "containers," self-contained enclosures in which cargo is placed for shipment on the seas. Although the use of rigid, reusable containers for certain cargo long predated the 1960 agreement, the last 12 or 13 years have seen a great increase in their use and in the introduction of ships specifically designed for their transport. Also increasing during those years was the size of the containers used, so that containers generally 8 by 8 by 20 or 40 feet are now used routinely to transport virtually all types of cargo aboard both standard cargo vessels and the specially designed container ships. A variety of cargo may be stuffed inside a container before the ship on which it is to sail arrives, thus shortening the time the ship must spend in port. Similarly, containers may be unloaded from a ship more rapidly than individual pieces of cargo. The savings in labor and port fees, as well as in the time during which the vessel may be gainfully employed at sea, are obvious. However, the amount of traditional longshore work available is thus necessar- ily reduced. In the early years of containerization, cargo was either stuffed into the containers on the docks by longshoremen or arrived at the docks having been stuffed by the shipper of the goods, or the containers were stuffed away from the docks by trucking companies or other employers employing teamsters. Although this practice whereby containers were stuffed by each of the three types of employees 987 continued, the increase in the use of containers brought about the rise of "container freight stations," facilities away from the docks, operated by trucking companies employing teamsters. Pacific Motor Trucking opened the first such container freight station in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area about 1960. California Cartage, which has approximately 365 employees; employs about 70 to 75 primarily to stuff and unstuff containers. Since the early 1950's, it has stuffed containers for various steamship companies and, since 1968, has had agreements to stuff containers for a Japanese consortium of steamship lines which owns, and loads its ships through, Los Angeles Container Terminal (LACT), in San Pedro, California. California Cartage also stuffs containers under agreement with other lines which have their terminal and stevedoring work done through Matson Terminals ° at Terminal Island. Under these agree- ments (which are nonexclusive and terminable on written notice), California Cartage stuffs containers owned by the steamship companies at its container freight station in Wilmington, California (about 3 miles from LACT), and transports the containers on chassis (also owned by the steamship companies), to the marine terminals where they are loaded aboard ship by stevedoring employees who are longshore- men. Pacific Motor Trucking employs about 25 employ- ees primarily for stuffing (and sometimes uses as many as 35 casuals). It has performed stuffing and unstuffing services for Matson Navigation since about 1958, and from about 1960 until October 1971 it stuffed about 50 percent of Matson's containers using employees who are teamsters. Although for years Pacific Motor Trucking operated container freight station facilities at various locations away from the docks, it had a facility about 300 yards from Matson's terminal from 1966 until 1970. Since 1970, Matson's terminal has been several miles from Pacific Motor Trucking's container freight station. Since about 1934, PMA (or its predecessor) and the ILWU have had a bargaining relationship concern- ing the longshoremen and marine clerks and, in 1938, the Board certified as an appropriate unit for bargaining a unit of longshoremen employed by members of the predecessors of PMA.2 Since 1961, both longshoremen and marine clerks have been covered under the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Longshore and, Clerks Agreement or Document (PCLCA or PCLCD). Prior to 1970, this PCLCA contained no provisions concerning container freight station work despite the existence of such container freight stations operated 2 Shipowners ' Association of The Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938). 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by non-PMA members which did, stuffing for the shipping company members of PMA . ILWU Local 13, which negotiates the PCLCA on behalf of the ILWU, had, however, entered into separate agree- ments in the late 1960 's with three companies (two of which were members of PMA) covering the stuffing of containers for shipping companies . Under these agreements the employees utilized were not part of the longshore work force , but belonged to a separate classification known as "terminal warehousemen" or "W's" and did not work under the terms of the PCLCA. In January 1970, PMA and the ILWU entered into the Container Freight Station Supplement to the PCLCA. The main thrust of this agreement provided that all container freight station work , other than shippers' loads and door-to-door deliveries, were to be brought to the dock or areas adjacent to the dock to be performed by longshore personnel. This agreement also provided for a transition period for PMA members who, had contracts with companies employing nonlongshoremen up to the expiration dates of such contracts, plus the time necessary for these PMA members to build or expand facilities to handle this container stuffing work. These transition periods were not to extend past June 30, 1971. The Container Freight Station Supplement also spelled out the wages , hours, and working conditions of the individuals working at container freight station facilities, . which are much different from those concerning longshoremen under the PCLCA. Fur- ther, men who are not in the registered longshore work force are permitted to acquire regular . "utility men" positions at these container freight station facilities, even though no such privilege exists for such men under the PCLCA. Since the execution of the Container Freight Station Supplement, a few container freight stations have been opened by PMA members, and are manned by members of the ILWU. On June 14,1971, ILWU's Harry Bridges informed various locals of the ILWU that the plan not to load containers aboard ship after 12:01 a.m. June 30, 1971, that were not stuffed by members of the ILWU was still in effect. On or about June 17, 1971, the above letter was published in the official publication of the ILWU and copies were sent to various locals and distributed to their members . On about June 24, 1971, Local 13 published in its "Bulletin" an article which advised its members that the program of not working containers on June 30, 1971, other than those stuffed by longshoremen (with some limited exceptions) was still in effect. On the night of June 29, 1971, the president of Local 13 and the vice president of Local 63 of the ILWU visited LACT and instructed the marine clerks and longshoremen employed there that as of. 12:01 a.m. on June 30, containers that were stuffed and were to be unstuffed by non-ILWU personnel were not to be loaded on or unloaded from ships. Beginning at midnight , marine clerks began checking documents of loads to see where containers had been stuffed or were to be xtstuffed. On June 30, 1971, LACT would not accept from California Cartage containers stuffed at the latter's container freight stations , although it did accept shippers' loads. Similarly, at another terminal in San Pedro,. California, California Cartage was unable to pick up a container to be unstuffed at its container freight . station . until - the. consignee was changed on the bill of lading. At midnight, June 30-July 1, 1972, an ILWU, strike began, and LACT and other terminals were shut down. On October 6, 1971, work resumed at the terminals, and California Cartage, Pacific Motor Trucking, and other trucking companies operating container freight stations resumed stuffing operations for their ship- ping line customers . Thereafter, Locals 13 and 63 of the ILWU filed grievances , alleging that PMA had violated the Container Freight Station Supplement by allowing stuffing to be done by non-ILWU personnel . This grievance culminated in a decision by an arbitrator that the Container Freight Station Supplement had been, violated as alleged. Thereafter, on December 30, 1971, the president of Local 63 of the ILWU notified LACT that non- ILWU stuffed containers could not be loaded onto vessels . LACT thereupon' notified its owners, Japa- nese shipping line members of PMA. That same afternoon, Teamsters Local 692 began picketing the entrance of LACT with signs referring to the alleged hot cargo nature of the assignment of the stuffing to longshoremen . A few days later, Teamsters also picketed at Freightcare, a PMA member operating a container freight station and employing longshoremen . Their picket signs referred to the alleged hot cargo action by Japan Lines. On January 14, Teamsters began picketing Matson Terminals, another PMA member. The picketing at these three facilities continued until January 17, and had the effect at the three of bringing operations to a complete standstill . The picketing at all three facilities ended on January 17 when the ILWU resumed its economic strike. In a phone call on January 17, 1972, and by letter of January 19, 1972, the Teamsters made an official demand that it be present at all future negotiations between PMA and the ILWU, as they pertained to stuffing and unstuffing containers. In March 1972 Matson Terminals opened its own container freight station at its complex at Berth 208 on Terminal Island, and began stuffing and unstuff- INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION ing containers for Matson Navigation using employ- ees who were ILWU members. On March 9, 1972, the first . day ,of the Matson container freight station's operation , Teamsters Local 692 Representative, Hansenn asked Matson's Malkus who was going to, do the stuffing, to which Malkus replied that they were going to use long- shoremen. Hansen thereupon stated that Matson should use teamsters for stuffing. On March 16, 1972, Hansen told Malkus that if Matson was using longshoremen to do its stuffing on March 20, the Teamsters would picket the operation. On Monday, March 20, Teamsters pickets began picketing at the main gate to Matson's facilities, resulting in a cessation of Matson's operations. PMA thereupon filed the charges in Case 21-CD-314. On March 21, Gordon Bart , president of Matson Terminals, asked Hansen the reason for the Team- sters pickets. To this Hansen replied that if- Matson could put 12 to 20 teamsters to work, the Teamsters would call off the picketing. When Bart protested that Matson was a PMA member-and was bound by contract with the ILWU, Hansen replied, "Why don't you see about getting 12 to 20 of my men accepted into the ILWU and get my membership off of my back and we can cool this whole thing off." Although a later restraining order limited the scope of the Teamsters picketing to a gate going to Matson 's container freight station , the refusal of teamster drivers to cross the picket line has caused Matson's container freight station to continue to be shut down. B. The Work in Dispute The Regional Director found that the disputed work in all of these cases is the stuffing and unstuffing of containers . In Case 21-CD-298, he found the issue limited to containers stuffed and unstuffed by employees of California Cartage which are processed through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California , except those containers which are shipped directly to or from the consignee or consignor and which are stuffed or unstuffed by the consignor or consignee. In the past, California Cartage has stuffed and unstuffed containers with employees represented by Teamsters Local 692. In Cases 21-CD-308 and 21-CD-314, he found the work in dispute to be the stuffing and unstuffing of containers handled through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach except those containers which are shipped directly to or from the consignee or consignor . In those cases, PMA, the Charging Party, represents employers who in the past have done the disputed work , on the docks, with longshoremen represented by the ILWU. 989 C. The Contentions of the Parties 'California Cartage contends that the ILWU clearly violated Section 8(bx4)(D) when its members refused to handle containers stuffed by California Cartage on June , 30, 1971. According to California Cartage, the ILU conduct was intended either to force 'a reassignment oh,the work at California Cartage from its teamster employees to longshore labor represent- ed by the ILWU, or to force CaliforniaCartage out of the container freight station business so that a PMA company employing longshoremen could do the work. PMA contends that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(4XD) when it picketed in December 1971 and March 1972, and that the relevant criteria - favor offering `an award of the work in dispute to its employees represented by the ILWU. The ILWU initially contends that the facts do not present a typical jurisdictional dispute between two unions over which group of employees shall do a particular job, but rather a dispute over which employer shall do the work. Therefore,. this case is not one which is appropriate for a 10(k) "resolution. The ILWU suggests that the Board leave it to the parties to work out the underlying dispute. Alterna- tively, it urges that the application of traditional criteria requires award of the work to employees it represents. The Teamsters contends that it did not violate Section 8(bX4)(D) in that its picketing was not done in an attempt to attain any work which was voluntarily assigned to longshoremen, but was rather done to protest the alleged illegal agreement between PMA and the ILWU, and-to obtain reemployment for employees of Pacific Motor Trucking who were laid off because of Matson's conformance with that alleged illegal agreement. Alternatively, the Team- sters urges that if the Board should make a 10(k) award, members of the Teamsters should be liven the work at' Matson or in container freight stations where they are now employed, or such work should be assigned exclusively to the Teamsters. D. Applicability of the Statute In Cases 21-CD-308 and -314, the record shows that the Teamsters in January 1972 picketed dock terminals at LACT, Freightcare , and Matson. This picketing was repeated in March 1972 at Matson, where longshoremen were performing the disputed work in a newly established container freight station. The evidence, particularly the Teamsters demand of January 19, 1972, that it be permitted to participate in any decision made by the ILWU and PMA concerning stuffing or unstuffing containers and the 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters specific claim to such work at the Matson Terminal, reveals that the Teamsters purpose in its picketing activities at the above terminals was to obtain or retain the disputed work for its members. In Case 21-CD-298 the ILWU engaged in a refusal, and encouraged employees to engage in a refusal, to handle California Cartage's containers at LACT and another terminal to force the assignment of the disputed work to ILWU-represented employ- ees instead of employees represented by the Team- sters. With respect to the contention of the ILWU that this dispute is not cognizable under Section 8(b)(4)(D), the Board has held that a jurisdictional dispute may. exist whether or not the disputed work has been subcontracted by one employer to another3 or is being performed by the employees of one employer rather than the employees of another employer.4 The critical issue to be determined under this section of the Act is the legality of a respondent union's attempt to,force "any" employer, whether or not it is the employer employing either contending group of employees, to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to another group of employees. Obviously, in the instant cases the claim of the ILWU is in open opposition to the claim of the Teamsters to the work of stuffing or unstuffing containers at California Cartage, LACT, Freightcare, or Matson. With respect to the Teamsters assertion that its picketing at Matson was not jurisdictional in nature in view of the Board majority's decision in Waterway Terminals,5 that case is distinguishable in that there the employer merely substituted one group of employees for another to do the same work at the same location during the term of an existing collective-bargaining agreement. No such considera- tions apply where an employer, as here, determines to perform the disputed work with its own employees rather than those of a subcontractor. Nor do we find merit in the Teamsters alternative contention that its picketing activities were in protest of an alleged illegal agreement between ILWU and PMA concern- ing the handling of containers at Pacific coast docks, and were therefore not violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The legality or illegality of the ILWU- PMA Container Freight Station Supplements is a matter for the Boards and the courts to decide. It may not be pleaded as a defense to conduct otherwise in violation of Section 8(bX4XD). Before the Board may proceed to a determination 3 Local Union 354, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (F. G. Johnson Company, Incorporated), 200 NLRB No. 92. 4 Local Union No. 3; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric Company, Inc.), 141 NLRB 888. S 185 NLRB 186, Chairman Miller and ,then Member McCulloch dissenting , with which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed of dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(bX4XD) ha s - been violated. A reasonable interpretation of the facts indicates the presence of jurisdictional disputes which the Teamsters and the ILWU sought to resolve by means proscribed by Section 8(bX4XD). Based on the entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe there have been violations of Section 8(bX4XD) in Cases 21-CD-298, -308, and -314, and that the disputes are properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Disputes 1. Board certifications . The ILWU was certified in 1938 as collective- bargaining representative of a multiemployer unit of all employees engaged in "longshore work in the Pacific Coast ports of the United States" for the employer-members of associations which were the predecessors of Pacific Maritime Association.7 The Teamsters Union is not certified as the representative of the employees of California Car- tage - 2. Collective-bargaining agreements a. Cases 21-CD-308 and -314 As earlier noted, PMA and the ILWU have had a bargaining relationship concerning longshoremen and marine clerks since the 1930's. Since 1961, both of these classifications have been covered under the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks Agreement. Admittedly, these agreements did not address themselves to the issue of containers. However, the Container Freight Station Supplement of 1970 did concern the stuffing of containers. For this reason, PMA and the ILWU contend that the agreement clearly awards the work involved in the disputes here to employees represented by the ILWU. We find no merit in this contention in view of our conclusion in Cases 21-CC-1326 and 21-CE-103, -112, -109, -1II, and -116 that the Container Freight Station Supplements of 1970 and 1972 are in violation of Section 8(e), and that the actions evidenced in those proceedings concerning the implementation of those agreements are in, violation of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B). Neverthe- less, it does not follow that the assignment of the (467 F.2d 1011). In view of his dissent in Waterway Terminals, Chairman Miller finds it unnecessary to distinguish that case from this. 6 International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union (California Cartage Company), 208 NLRB No. 130. r Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 991 container. stuffing work by the employer members of PMA to their employees who are longshoremen is necessarily unwarranted. The, record in the instant case shows that considerations other than the existence of the Container Freight Station Supple- ments led members of PMA, particularly Matson, to operate container freight stations on or adjacent to the docks with their own employees rather than to subcontract this work to other companies. Accord- ingly, the illegality of the ILWU-PMA contract of 1970 is not a material factor in determining the merits of the jurisdictional claims of the Unions involved in this proceeding. b. Case 21-CD-298 California Cartage is party to the National Master Freight Agreement and the Western Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement Between Trucking Em- ployers, Inc., and the Teamsters, through its mem- bership in California Trucking Association. The employees who stuff and unstuff the containers at the container freight station are covered under the contract classification "Freight Handlers Not on Marine Docks," and the forklift operators are covered under the classification "Fork Lift Operators Except on Marine Docks." The ILWU has never had a collective-bargaining agreement with California Cartage. 3. Employer and industry practice In the three cases before us, the employer and industry practices differ because we are dealing with two kinds of employers in two different industries. In Case 21-CD-298, California Cartage is an employer in the trucking industry, and has always used employees who are teamsters both as drivers and as container stuffing employees . The same is true of the other trucking companies which maintain container :freight stations. This practice favors the award of the stuffing work at these locations to the employees who are repre- sented by the Teamsters. In Cases 21-CD-308 and -314, the Employer, PMA, and its member companies have for the most part utilized longshoremen to stuff the containers when such work was done on the docks. Although prior to 1970 the shipping company members had subcontracted much of their container stuffing to trucking companies employing teamsters, when the container freight stations were opened on the docks by PMA members, longshoremen were employed to do this stuffing. 4. Relative skills The evidence before us in the instant cases does not seem to favor the members of either-the ILWU or the Teamsters. PMA and the ILWU contend that longshoremen are inherently more qualified to stuff and unstuff containers because of their vast experience in preparing cargo for sea voyage, with respect to both proper weight distribution and insuring that the cargo is properly secured to withstand travel on the heavy seas. Further, the ILWU introduced testimony that its members- receive special schooling in operat- ing cranes , etc., utilized in container handling. The Teamsters and California Cartage maintain that stuffing a container is identical to loading a truck , and that teamsters are especially qualified because of their vast experience in loading cargo of every nature and their experience in properly lashing, shoring, and chocking cargo for safe travel. 5. Economy and efficiency of operation The evidence relating to the costs of having containers stuffed by either teamsters or longshore- men does not lend itself to a clear determination of which is more economical . This is in part due to the fact that costs connected. with containers stuffed by teamsters are figured on a per-hundredweight basis while costs involved in connection with containers stuffed by longshoremen are figured on a per- container basis . Some testimony was offered to show that if both are considered on a per-hundredweight basis, the teamsters rate would vary from 32 to 40 cents per hundredweight , while the longshoremen rate, under the current agreement (but before it was adjusted by the Pay Board), would be 37-1/4 cents per hundredweight. Another exhibit prepared by PMA for negotiation purposes, but introduced by the Teamsters, reflects that , under some given assump- tions, utilizing teamster labor was .576 cent less expensive than using longshoremen. The Teamsters further maintains that it is more economical to use teamsters because they do not have the rigid work classifications of the ILWU and thereby do not have to utilize as many employees in a container stuffing operation. On the other hand, the ILWU maintains that greater flexibility and economy could be achieved in using longshoremen . This is possible because of the necessity of having longshoremen present to load ships during "peak" periods. When the peak recedes, and there are so called "valleys," or periods when the longshoremen are not needed to load ships, they can be used to stuff containers. Relative to other factors affecting efficiency, the Teamsters claims there is less damage and breakage DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in containers stuffed by teamsters than by longshore- men. However , a Matson representative testified that its operation of its own container freight station would result in 50 percent savings over subcontract- ing to PMT, due to more efficient operations, better utilization of equipment,. less customer confusion, greater . versatility, specialized equipment , and less damage to goods. Conclusions The Regional Director phrased the dispute as .one involving the stuffing and unstuffing of containers handled , through the "Ports of Los Angeles and. Long Beach, California." While this characterization corre- sponds to the breadth of the 1970 Container Freight Station Supplement , it goes somewhat beyond the impact of the alleged . unlawful conduct of the Respondents in these -cases.. In Cases 21-CD-308 and -314 it is clear that the dispute which gave rise to this proceeding as a result of picketing conduct by the Teamsters related to the initiation or continuation of container stuffing work by longshoremen rather than by teamsters or a combination thereof at LACT, Freightcare, and Matson. In Case 21-CD-298 the dispute which gave rise to this proceeding resulted from the refusal of ILWU members to handle containers stuffed by employees of California Cartage rather than by members of ILWU, to force .a reassignment of the stuffing work at California Cartage to employees working on the docks represented by the ILWU. On the basis of the foregoing we conclude , without deciding the merits of other jurisdictional disputes between the parties where the rights . and interests may differ sufficiently to warrant different results, that the following awards should be made: (1) In Case 21-CD-298 we will award the work of stuffing and unstuffing containers at California Cartage , Inc., to the employees of California Cartage currently represented by the Teamsters. (2) In Cases 21-CD-308 and -314, we will award the work of stuffing and unstuffing containers at LACT, to the extent container stuffing work is performed at this location, Freightcare , and Matson to employees of PMA member companies who are longshoremen represented by the ILWU. In making these determinations, we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by the International Longshoremen's and Ware- housemen 's Union , or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America , but not to those Unions or their members. DETERMINATIONS OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determinations of Dispute: -1. Case 21-CD-298 (a Employees employed by California Cartage Company, Inc., who are currently represented by Teamsters Local 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen' and Helpers of America, are entitled to the stuffing and unstuff- ing of containers at California Cartage Company, Inc., which are handled through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. ( International Longshoremen's and Ware- housemen 's Union, and its Locals 13 and 63 , are not, and have not been, entitled, by means proscribed by Section ' 8(bx4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Pacific Maritime Association , its member companies, or California Cartage, Inc., to award the work described in paragraph 1(a), above, to ILWU members or to employees they represent. (c) Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determinations of Dispute, International Long- shoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union, and its Locals 13 and 63, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, whether they will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in dispute to their members or to employees they represent rather than to employees represented by the Teamsters Local 692, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. 2. Cases 21-CD-308 and 21-CD-314 (a) Employees employed by Los Angeles Contain- er Terminal, Freightcare ; and Matson Terminals who are currently represented by the International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union , and its Locals 13 and 63, are entitled to the stuffing and unstuffing of containers at Los Angeles Container Terminal, Freightcare, and Matson Terminals, which are handled through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (b) International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and- Helpers of America, and its Local 692, are not, and have not been, entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act , to force or require the above -mentioned employer members of PMA to award the work described in paragraph 2(a), above, to its members or to employees it represents. (c) Within 10 days from the date of this Decision INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and Determinations of Dispute, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and its Local 692, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, whether they will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employers, by means 993 proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in dispute to their members or to employees they represent rather than to employees represented by the International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union.