Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1443 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1443
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: Employees engaged as long-
shoremen, currently represented by International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, and by International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 19, are entitled to perform the work
of operating cranes utilized by American Mail Line, Ltd., and other
members of PMA, when used in connection with cargo-handling op-
erations, where such work is assigned to longshoremen by the 1959-60
mechanization agreement between PMA and Respondents, and its sub-
sequent supplements and codifications, as it has been interpreted by
the contracting parties or their arbitrators.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union and
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union,
Local No. 19 [Albin Stevedore Company and Alaska Freight
Lines, Inc.] and International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 302. Case No. 19-CD-72-2. November 8, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, following the filing of charges under Section
8(b) (4) (D). The charges as amended alleged that on or about May
17, 1962, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
and its Local 19 (herein called Respondents) caused a strike of em-
ployees of Albin Stevedore Company, to force or require the assign-
ment of certain work being performed on a crane owned by Alaska
Freight Lines, Inc., to members of Respondents rather than to mem-
bers of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302. On
April 10, 1963, the Board denied motions by Respondents and Albin
to consolidate this case with a related case, Case No. 19-CD-53,1 on
grounds the question of consolidation was a matter within the discre-
tion of the Regional Director. The Regional Director had denied the
motions.
A hearing was held on June 5, 6, and 7, 1963, before Hearing Officer
Melton Boyd 2 All parties appeared and were afforded full oppor-
1 Case No 19-CD-53 Involves another incident in the broader jurisdictional dispute be-
tween Respondents and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302 (herein
called the Charging Party or Operating Engineers). The Board's decision in that case
is being issued this same day. See International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, et at. (American fail Line, Ltd ), 144 NLRB 1432, discussed hereinafter.
2 Pacific Maritime Association (hereinafter called PMA) was permitted to intervene as
the collective-bargaining representative of Albin Stevedore Company
144 NLRB No. 140.
727-083-64-vol . 144-92
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Hearing Officer's rulings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs have
been filed by Respondents, the Charging Party, and, jointly, by PMA
.and Albin Stevedore Company. All briefs have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record, the Board finds:
1. THE COMPANIES INVOLVED
Albin Stevedore Company is a Washington corporation performing
stevedoring operations for contractors loading barges to Alaska. Albin
annually performs over $50,000 worth of loading and unloading serv-
ices on freight moving between the States of Washington and Alaska.
Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., operates a barge service between Seattle
and Alaska. Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., provides yearly services in
the transportation of freight in excess of $50,000.
We find that Albin Stevedore Company and Alaska Freight Lines,
Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the At to assert juris-
diction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (herein
called ILWU), its Local No. 19, and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Local 302, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act.
M. THE DISPUTE
As in Case No. 19-CD-53, supra, this dispute in its broadest sense
involves the operation of cranes in connection with stevedoring oper-
ations at the port of Seattle. The particular dispute encompassed by
these charges, and before the Board in this proceeding, occurred on
May 17 and 18, 1962, and involved an alleged work stoppage by
Respondents' members employed by Albin Stevedore Company.
Albin, like American Mail Line in Case No. 19-CD-53, was a mem-
ber of PMA, and was thereby a party to various 'agreements between
PMA and Respondents covering "workers who do longshore work in
the Pacific coast ports of the United States." 3 Part of the ILWU-
PMA agreement was embodied in two memorandums executed by the
parties in 1959 and 1960, and in various supplements thereto. These
,memorandums and their supplements were the result of prolonged
s The original representation proceeding is reported in Shipowners' Association of the
Pacific Coast, et at., 7 NLRB 1002.
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1445
negotiations between PMA and Respondents over problems of auto-
mation and manpower on the west coast waterfront. Described in
more detail in the companion case, supra, the agreements-in general
-terms gave employer members of PMA great freedom in introducing
new work-saving methods in longshore operations. In return, they
provided for a large monetary payment by PMA, totaling $29 million
.over a 61/2-year period, plus a work assignment to longshoremen cover-
ing the operation of "new" cargo-handling equipment used by PMA
employers. An exception was made for "existing" equipment. The
.agreement set forth in the 1959-60 memorandums was subsequently
codified in the regular Longshore Agreement between Respondents
.and PMA, executed June 16, 1961, and amended June 22, 1962.
With respect to the instant dispute, Albin was under contract with
Alaska Freight Lines, Inc. (herein called AFL), to perform steve-
doring services in connection with AFL barges bound for Alaska.
AFL owned two cranes, a crawler-type Manitowoc and a smaller
P & H, which 'have at all times been used by Albin in the course of
its AFL work. Both cranes were, prior to 1961, operated by em-
ployees of AFL, members of Operating Engineers. However, in the
summer of 1961, under circumstances not here in issue, a member of
Respondent Local No. 19 took over operation of the P & H, which was
simultaneously "leased" to Albin for the. nominal sum of $10.
The dispute encompassed by the instant charges concerns the other
AFL crane, the Manitowoc. On May 17, 1962, Respondents tooks the
position at a meeting of the Seattle Joint Port Labor Relations Com-
mittee that longshoremen were entitled to operate the Manitowoc, since
it was used by Albin in its longshore work. Respondents' claim ap-
pears to have been partly inspired by an award of arbitrator Matt
Meehan,4 rendered on March 30, 1962, also involving an AFL barge
,(and Rothschild International Stevedore Company). Meehan in the
Rothschild proceeding had found that Rothschild, a member of PMA,
was required to order an 8-man longshore gang, which included a
crane operator, in unloading the AFL barge there involved.
The Joint Port Labor Relations Committee was unable to resolve
Respondents' claim of May 17, and the matter was referred to arbitra-
tor Meehan, sitting that same day. Albin, through PMA, took the
position that the Manitowoc was "old" or "existing" equipment, and
therefore not within Respondents' contractually assigned unit of work.
Meehan found, however, that the Manitowoc was new equipment so far
as Albin was concerned, and in any event that the operating of the
crane in loading and unloading barges was longshore work, covered by
4 Meehan is the area arbitrator who regularly hears and decides contractual disputes
between Respondents and members of PMA.
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the parties' Longshore Agreement.' He held that Albin was obliged
to order an operator for the Manitowoc from Respondents' hiring hall.
On the evening of May 17, in accordance with Mehan's award, Albin
ordered a crane operator from Respondents' hiring hall. A bulletin
previously issued by PMA on April 2,1962, had forbidden its members
to order crane operators unless they were actually to operate cranes.
Moreover, AFL told PMA on May 17 or 18 that it would not bear the
extra cost of a longshore crane operator in addition to its already
employed operator from Operating Engineers.
On the morning of May 18, a longshoreman named Dorris -appeared,
ready to operate AFL's Manitowoc crane. At approximately the same
time, longshore slingmen, represented by Respondent Local No. 19,
refused to pick up a spreader bar so long as the men from Local 302
were operating the Manitowoc. Moreover, Keith, Albin's foreman,
said that McFarlane or Gettings, Respondents' agents, told him "there
would be no work performed" if longshoremen were not put on the
crane, and that, because of the arbitrator's ruling, longshoremen were
going to run the cranes "if they were going to operate." Finally, al-
though contending generally that it was his own decision to live
up to the arbitration award, Albin testified that the situation arose be-
cause "I was not going to be able to continue this operation."
Shortly after lunchtime on May 18, Dorris commenced operating the
Manitowoc crane. At sometime during this same day, AFL turned
over the Manitowoc to Albin under the same leasing arrangement as
had been used with respect to the P & H in 1961. AFL's own operators
were released, and at all times since, the Manitowoc has been operated
by longshoremen secured by Albin.
IV. CONVENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Charging Party: The Charging Party urges that the work in
question should be -assigned to operating engineers. The Charging
Party-rests its argument on such factors as area custom and practice,
the skills required, smoothness of operation, and considerations of
economy and efficiency.
2. Respondents: Respondents contend there was no work stoppage
on the dates in question. In any event, Respondents contend their
object on May 17 and 18 was not to secure a work assignment as would
be unlawful under Section 8(b) (4) (D), but rather to secure compli-
ance with arbitrator Mehan's award. On the merits, Respondents
5 Section 1. One of the parties' June 16, 1961 , agreement provided that "all movement
of cargo on vessels of any type or on docks or to and from railroad cars and barges at
docks shall be covered by this Agreement and all labor involved therein is assigned to
longshoremen with the exceptions and enlargements set forth in this Section 1." Other
sections of the agreement provided that all machinery and equipment used to move cargo
should be operated by longshoremen , with exceptions for "existing" equipment and
non-ILwU personnel similar to the exceptions contained in the previous memorandums of
understanding.
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1447
contend that longshoremen should be assigned the work on the basis
of the ILWU certification and contracts, and on the basis of tradition,
efficiency, and skills.
3. PMA and Albin Stevedore Company: These Employers now
agree with the Respondents that longshoremen should be assigned
the work in question. They maintain that PMA contracts with ILWU
have assigned all work of loading and discharging cargo on the
waterfront to longshoremen, and that the 1959-60 agreement with
Respondents was part of a larger, precedent-making settlement of
the automation problem, and should be honored by the Board. Finally,
these Employers make many of the same arguments made by Respond-
ents with respect to skills, practices, and considerations of safety and
economy.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
Before the Board may proceed to a determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
Respondents deny that a 'stoppage occurred on May 18, 1962. How-
ever, as described above, the record indicates that on that date several
longshore slingmen refused to continue with their work so long as
Local 302's members were operating the Manitowoc crane. Moreover,
either Gettings or McFarlane, Respondents' agents, told Albin's fore-
man "there would be no work performed" if longshoremen were not
put on the Manitowoc. In the light of the above, and the other inci-
dents described in the companion case, supra, we find reasonable cause
to believe that a work stoppage occurred on May 18, 1962, and that
Respondents caused or were responsible therefor.
It is clear that an object of Respondents' conduct was to force or
require Albin Stevedore- Company to assign the disputed work to
longshoremen, represented by Respondents, rather than to operating
engineers, represented by Operating Engineers, and we so find."
We conclude, on the basis of the entire record, that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has occurred,
and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination
under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
VI. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
In the CBS case, ' the Supreme Court charged the Board with the
"'responsibility and duty to decide which of two or more employee
6 There is no evidence that an object of the stoppage was to secure an assignment of
the work from Alaska Freight Lines, Inc, and we therefore make no determination with
respect to work assignments to be made by AFL
7 N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212 International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al. ( Columbia Broadcasting System),
364 U.S. 573, 586
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
groups claiming the right to perform certain work tasks is right and
then specifically to award such tasks in accordance with its decision."
Pursuant to this mandate, the Board in the J. A. Jones 8 case stated
that it would thenceforth determine the proper assignment of dis-
puted work only after taking into account and balancing all relevant
factors.
In the present case, the parties have urged many factors as relevant
to the Board's determination, including the ILWU certification, the
Employer's assignment, employee skills, practices in other ports, con-
siderations of safety and economy, and the contractual agreement
between Respondents and PMA. As was the case in Case No.
19-CD-53, supra, we have considered all these factors, and find that
some weigh in favor of an award to longshoremen, some in favor of
an award to operating engineers. Operating engineers represented
by the Charging Party appear to have greater skills to operate com-
plicated pieces of crane equipment, and were in fact operating the
Manitowoc crane at the time the instant stoppage occurred, while the
crane was in the control of AFL. On the other hand, other factors
favor an award to longshoremen, such as Respondents' certification
covering employees of PMA members who "do longshore work" and
"handle ... waterborne cargo." Moreover, longshoremen now have
the necessary skills to do crane-operating work, by virtue of a train-
ing program recently established by Respondents and PMA employers.
There are additional factors of area practice, safety, and economy
favoring each of the two competing groups of employees.
In the companion case, we found after examining the above factors
that the larger automation concord between Respondents and PMA
far outweighed all other considerations. Thus, the parties' 1959-60
agreement, subsequently codified and supplemented, constituted a
pioneering settlement between PMA and Respondents of the larger
manpower and economic problems resulting from the increasing use
of mechanized equipment on the waterfront. Though there is room
for disagreement as to which particular pieces of equipment have been
assigned to longshoremen under this agreement, the parties have estab-
lished an arbitration procedure whereby their differences can be set-
tled. In the instant case, Arbitrator Meehan decided that long-
shoremen were entitled to perform the crane work in question, and both
Respondents and PMA, including the instant PMA employer, Albin,,
now urge us to honor their agreement as interpreted by them and their
arbitrator. Consistent with our decision in Case No. 19-CD-53, and
for the reasons expressed-therein, we have decided to do so.
Accordingly, we shall award the work in the instant case to long-
shoremen rather than operating engineers. In making this deter-
8International Association of Machinists, Lodge No, 1743, AFL-CIO (J 4. Jones Con-
struction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
HOISTING AND PORTABLE ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302 1449,
mination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees represented.
by Respondents, but not to that labor organization or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute,,
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: Employees engaged as long
shoremen, currently represented by International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, and International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 19, are entitled to perform the work
of operating cranes utilized by Albin Stevedore Company, and other
members of PMA, when used in connection with cargo-handling op-
erations, where such work is assigned to longshoremen by the 1959-60
mechanization agreement between PMA and Respondents, and its sub-
sequent supplements and codifications, as it has been interpreted by the,
contracting parties or their •arbitrators.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
Hoisting and Portable Engineers, Local 302 [West Coast Steel..
Works] and LaVere R. Crume. Case No. 19-CB-880. Novem-
ber 811963
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 30, 1963, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that.
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
together with a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
tions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent did not
violate Section 8(b) (2) and 8(b) (1) (A) by causing West Coast Steel
i Pursuant to the provisions of section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
('Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
144 NLRB No. 139.