Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1432 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole our shop employees for any loss of pay suffered by
them as a result of our lockout and layoff , from the date of the lockout,
February 4 , 1963, to the date of our offer of reinstatement , or the date of actual
reinstatement.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 455, International
Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, in
the following unit of our employees with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement:
All employees engaged in the fabrication of ferrous and nonferrous
metals, iron , steel , and metal products , or steadily engaged in maintaining
production machines and equipment in or about the Company 's shop,
employed by the Company at its plant, exclusive of clericals, superintend-
ents, nonworking foremen , and all supervisors as defined m Section 2(11)
of the Act.
BODY & TANK CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- Bv-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 745 Fifth
Avenue. New York 22 , New York , Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union and
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union,
Local No. 19 [American Mail Line, Ltd. and Mobile Crane
Company] and J . Duane Vance , Attorney. Case No. 19-CD-53.
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 September
6, 1960, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
and its Local No. 19 (herein called Respondents) caused a strike of
employees of American Mail Line, Ltd., to force American Mail Line
and; or Mobile Crane Company to assign certain crane-operating work
to longshoremen or members of Respondents rather than to members
of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302.'
International C;nwn of Operating Engineers , Local 302 (herein also called Operating
Engineer, ), wa. permitted to intervene and participate in the hearing . Alvo appearing
as employer parties to the di'lnite were American Mail Line , Ltd, I'acific Maritime Asso-
ciation. and Waterfront Employers of Washington , described more fully hereinafter.
Mobile Crane Company did not enter an appearance.
144 NLRB No. 138.
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOIJSEMEN'S UNION 1433
A hearing was held on October 13 and 31, 1960, before Hearing
Officer Melton Boyd. All parties except Mobile Crane Company ap-
peared, and all were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on
the issues. Thereafter, on January 9, 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its decision in N.L.R.B. v. Radio cC Television Broadcast En-
gineers, et al. (Columbia Broadcasting System),' and on February 19,
1962, the Board granted a motion of the Charging Party to reopen
the record for the purpose of receiving evidence relevant under CBS.
The reopened hearing was held on various dates in August through
October 1962, before Hearing Officer Boyd, and all parties were again
afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence. The rulings of the Hear-
ing Officer at both hearings are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by Respondents, the Charg-
ing Party,' and the Employers and several telegraphic statements
have been filed by the port of Seattle. All briefs and statements have
been duly considered.
Upon the entire record,4 the Board finds :
1. THE COMPANIES INVOLVED
American Mail Line, Ltd., is a Delaware corporation engaged in
hauling passengers and freight between ports in the United States and
Japan, the Philippine Islands, and other places in the Orient. In
the conduct of its business American Mail Line, Ltd., annually receives
revenues in excess of $5,000,000.
Mobile Crane Company, a Washington corporation, is in the busi-
ness of renting cranes to construction companies, shipping companies,
and other interested persons. During the year preceding the instant
dispute, Mobile Crane Company received over $200,000 from the
rental of cranes for use on Washington State freeway projects.
Rental fees of $75,000 were received from MacRae Brothers, a corpo-
ration commonly owned with Mobile Crane. MacRae Brothers per-
formed services in connection with the aforementioned State free-
way projects for which it received in excess of $2,000,000.
We find that American Mail Line, Ltd., and Mobile Crane Company
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding.
2 364 U S. 573.
3J Duane Vance , the Charging Party, is also the attorney representing Operating
Engineers . Vance's brief was filed on behalf of Operating Engineers Hereinafter, Vance
and Operating Engineers ( the Intervenor ) will be referred to interchangeably as the
Charging Party.
4 The requests of the Charging Party and the Employers for oral argument are hereby
denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (herein
called ILWU), its Local No. 19, and International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, Local 302, are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
This dispute in its broadest sense involves the operation of dock-
side cranes in connection with stevedoring operations at the port of
Seattle. The particular incident encompassed by these charges, and
before the Board in this proceeding, involves the use of a mobile or
truck crane by American Mail Line on September 6, 1960, and a work
stoppage allegedly caused by Respondents in connection with this
incident.
The background for the dispute is more fully set forth in the
Intermediate Report in International Longshoremen's and TVare-
housemen's Local Union No. 19, et al. (Pacific Maritime Association),'
a related case arising under Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the
Act, and decided by the Board on May 15, 1962. Briefly, American
Mail Line and other shipping and stevedoring companies have a con-
tractual relationship with Respondents through the companies' mem-
bership in Pacific Maritime Association (herein referred to as PMA) 6
Ever since 1938, PMA or its predecessor employer-associations have
bargained with Respondents for a certified unit including "workers
who do longshore work in the Pacific Coast ports of the United
States." The basic agreement of 1951 has been modified and extended
in accordance with subsequent negotiations between the parties.
In about 1954, the aforementioned maritime employers began to
use dockside cranes to augment ships' gear and to perform certain
operations in connection with the loading and unloading of water-
borne cargo. This work had theretofore been done by longshoremen.
The problem increased in seriousness, from Respondents' point of
view, with the introduction of barge service between the port of
Seattle and Alaska, since barges generally have no gear of their own
and depend on dockside or floating cranes for the loading and unload-
ing of cargo. It is clear that the trend during the entire period of
the 1950's, and continuing to the present day, has been toward the
6137 NLRB 119.
e Many of these employers are also members of Waterfront Employers of Washington
(WEW), named as one of the Employer Parties in the instant charge WEW is a separate
corporation whose primary function is to perform accounting work and issue paychecks
for various shipowners and stevedoring companies . Though WEW is named in the charge,
the record does not indicate the extent, if any, of WEW's involvement in the instant
dispute.
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1435
increasing use of large, containerized units of cargo, requiring the
use of more and increasingly complicated pieces of equipment to per-
form what formerly had been done by individual workers, usually
longshoremen.
As a result of prolonged negotiations over the automation prob-
lem, tentative agreement was reached in August 1959 between PMA
and Respondents, called the 1959 "Memorandum of Understanding."
This memorandum was supplemented by another "Memorandum of
Agreement" signed October 18, 1960, and the two documents were
widely heralded as pioneering efforts to lighten the impact of un-
employment problems created by automation. Together, the agree-
ments provided that PMA members could introduce work-saving de-
vices, and could modify various employment practices theretofore
prevalent in the longshore industry. In consideration for this agree-
ment, PMA agreed to contribute a total of $29 million, over a 61/2-year
period, to a jointly administered fund. The fund was to be used in
specified ways for benefits to individual longshoremen affected by the
automation changes. Moreover, PMA agreed to the following provi-
sion with respect to the operation of "new" equipment :
It is recognized that the employer has the right to select com-
petent men for all operations. When new types of equipment
are introduced in connection with cargo handling governed by the
contractual definitions of work, such new equipment shall be
operated by employees under the ILWU contracts with the under-
standing that competent men shall be made available by the
ILWU with adequate experience or training. This proposal shall
not change the status quo as to assignment of other than ILWU
workers on existing equipment.
This agreement, as subsequently codified, has become part of the basic
Longshore Agreement between PMA and Respondents.
Prior to 1960, the port of Seattle owned and had available for
waterside loading but a single Washington gantry crane, operated
by two port employees, members of Operating Engineers. This crane
was rented on a manned basis to interested stevedoring and shipping
companies using port facilities. In 1960, the port decided to seek
new business in the form of scrap shipments to the Orient. This
operation was to involve the use of buckets, with a consequent 50-
percent reduction in ordinary longshore hours. To facilitate han-
dling these buckets, and in anticipation of the expected increase in
business, the port negotiated with the Navy for the lease of two
gantry cranes which had been in mothballs since World War II.
About the same time, the port acquired a new Colby crane, larger
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and more expensive than the two Navy gantries and the port's afore-
mentioned old Washington crane.'
With the acquisition by the port of these additional cranes, Re-
spondent Local 19 became concerned over who would operate them.
In response to an inquiry from Local 19 as to "where the line could
be drawn" on the Operating Engineers, Respondent International
on July 12, 1960, sent a telegram to Local 19, copies of which were also
sent to the port, PMA, and the Intervenor. This telegram advised
these parties that, in ILWU's opinion, new operations and equipment
were involved, and that Respondents would take coastwide action
in the event their contract with PMA was not lived up to.
Thereafter followed several incidents, described in the Board's
decision in the 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) case, supra. The instant
record indicates that these incidents were in large part attempts by
PMA to feel out Respondents as to their jurisdictional and contrac-
tual claims, and to enable PMA members to take a position with
prospective scrap customers. With respect to at least one of the
incidents, PMA subsequently advised its members that the operation
involved was a "new operation" under the Longshore Agreement, and
that "the cranes should be operated by longshoremen."
The incident which is the subject of the present proceeding occurred
on September 6, 1960. On that date, American Mail Line, Ltd., a
member of PMA, acted as its own stevedore in undertaking to unload
its ship, the Ocean Mail. As it had done on previous occasions (about
12 times yearly, for 5 to 7 years), American Mail leased a truck crane
from a general equipment rental company, this time Mobile Crane
Company, to assist in unloading one of the Ocean Mail's hatches.'
This type of crane had always been offered by Mobile Crane on a
manned basis only, operated by employees of Crane represented by
Operating Engineers. It appears, however, that the particular piece
of equipment had not theretofore been used by American Mail, at least
in the fiscal year ending October 3,1959.
American Mail's longshore employees had performed various make-
ready operations preparatory to unloading the Ocean Mail. However,
when Mobile Crane's crane appeared, at No. 1 hatch to perform the
cargo-unloading function, Duggan, Respondent's business agent,
talked to the longshore crew at the hatch, and thereafter advised
Jorgensen, American Mail's stevedore superintendent, that he had
7 In February or March of 1961, after the events here in question , the port acquired title
to the two Navy cranes , as well as to plant B , the area of the waterfront on which the
cranes were located The old Washington crane was dismantled and moved to another
terminal As of the reopened 10(k) hearing, several additional cranes had been acquired
by the port , including a third crane at plant B, a 50-ton gantry at pier 28, and a shear-leg
derrick at pier 5 These cranes have remained relatively idle, due in large measure to
the present work dispute between the parties
8The No. 1 hatch of the Ocean Maid had less unloading gear than the others , and the
use of an auxiliary crane permitted equalization of the time required to unload all hatches,
thus reducing turn -around time, and, consequently , longshore hours.
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1437
"called for replacements ." It is not disclosed what Duggan said to
the gang, except that they were working up to the time he arrived,
but not thereafter.
Jorgensen then told the gang they would have to work until their
replacements showed up , as required by the Longshore contract.
They said they "couldn 't do it," whereupon Jorgensen fired them .9
One member of the gang told Jorgensen : "We are unable to turn to
because there is no operator of our Local on the crane ." The No. 1
hatch was eventually unloaded by ship's gear.
As provided in the Longshore Agreement , the Mobile Crane dispute
went through various intermediate steps of the grievance procedure,
American Mail and PMA initially taking the position that the mobile
crane involved was an existing piece of equipment under the parties'
1959 "Memorandum of Understanding ." Under this view, the mobile
crane could therefore be operated by other -than-ILWU personnel.
The record does not reveal the ultimate disposition of this grievance.
However, the PMA Employers now agree with the Respondents, and
contend that longshoremen should be awarded the disputed work.
Since the aforementioned Mobile Crane dispute, several other inci-
dents have occurred in which Respondents and members of PMA
have disagreed as to who should operate particular cranes used by
PMA members. However, by and large , Respondents have taken
the disputes to the parties ' on-the -spot area arbitrator , Matt Meehan,
rather than engaging in work stoppages . One dispute , on April 14,
1962, involved an attempt by a PMA employer , Rothschild -Inter-
national Stevedoring Co., to hire a mobile crane from MacRae
Brothers , a company commonly owned with Mobile Crane . Although
Rothschild contended initially that the operation of the MacRae crane
came under the "existing practices" exception to the parties' agree-
ment, Arbitrator Meehan found , as he had in other similar cases, that
"the use of said cranes in the loading or discharging of cargo is
longshore work covered by the Agreement and competent crane op-
erators shall be hired and dispatched from the PMA-ILWU Hiring
Hall."
Iv. CONTENTS OF THE PARTIES
1. Charging Party. The Charging Party urges that the work in
question should be awarded to operating engineers, represented by the
Intervenor. With respect to Respondents' certification, alleged as a
defense, the Charging Party claims that the certification covers only
employees of members of PMA, and not employees of companies such
as Mobile Crane. The Charging Party urges that contractual assign-
ments made by employers should not be controlling, and argues that
in any event the ILWU contract with PMA has an exception for
9 Another "replacement" gang arrived about 45 minutes later, but since there was no
one for them to replace, they went home. i
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"existing practices," and that existing practice has been for PMA
employers to rent cranes manned by operating engineers. Finally,
the Charging Party argues that operating engineers are entitled to the
work through their own contracts with the crane companies, and
through training, skills, custom, and considerations of safety.
2. Respondents. Respondents deny responsibility for the September
6, 1960, stoppage. More generally, they contend no, jurisdictional dis-
pute is involved, but rather a dispute as to which employer ( members
versus nonmembers of PMA) shall do crane work on the waterfront.
Respondents claim that they have never sought to have longshoremen
work for companies such as Mobile Crane, but rather to compel their
own PMA employers to live up to a contractual commitment which
they voluntarily made (and now acknowledge) with respect to tradi-
tional longshore operations. In any event, Respondents claim that
longshoremen are entitled to the work on the basis of their certifica-
tion, contracts, skills, and practices in other ports.
3. Employer parties. The Employers now agree with Respondents
that longshoremen should be awarded the work in question. PMA
maintains that its contracts with ILWU have assigned all work of
loading and discharging cargo on the waterfront to longshoremen, and
that the legality of these contracts has been upheld by the Board in
the prior Section 8(b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (8) case.10 Moreover, PMA
points out that its agreement with Respondents over "tools of the
longshore trade" (in this instance, cranes ) was part of a larger, prece-
dent-making settlement of automation problems, and should be
honored by the Board. Although recognizing some possible areas of
disagreement with Respondents as to the application of the mechaniza-
tion agreement to particular pieces of equipment, PMA argues that
such disputes are properly the subjects of arbitration between PMA
and ILWU. Lastly, PMA makes many of the same arguments made
by Respondents with respect to skills, practices, and safety considera-
tions, and urges further that the use of longshoremen on cranes would
be economically advantageous to PMA members.
4. The port of Seattle. Though not a party to this proceeding, the
port in a telegram to the Board has requested that "the Board not
make any decision in this case which would affect the right of the port
of Seattle to rent its waterside cranes either manned with the port's
own employees or unmanned as the port of Seattle shall determine." 11
10 In that case , supra, the Board held that the stoppages alleged therein as violations
were merely attempts to cause employer members of PMA to live up to their contractual
commitments to Respondents . As such, the Board ( a panel of Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Brown) found that the stoppages were permissible primary activity,
and dismissed the complaint.
"Prior to the incidents of 1960, the port of Seattle offered its cranes for rental on a
manned basis only. However , following a stoppage which occurred on July 28 , 1960, with
respect to one of the port 's Navy cranes , the port met with the interested parties, as well
as with several committees of area citizens and businessmen As a result of these meet-
ings, the port in a letter dated August 23, 1960, announced a revision of its tariffs to per-
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1439
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 they were responsible for the stoppage which
occurred on September 6, 1960. As described more fully above, on
that date American Mail ordered a crane from Mobile Crane Com-
pany, manned by members of Operating Engineers. Although long-
shoremen hired by American Mail began certain tasks in preparation
for unloading the ship, they stopped working upon the arrival of
Duggan, Respondents' agent. They thereafter refused to work with
the rented crane, even until "replacements" might arrive. The reason
given by one longshoreman was that "there is no operator of our
Local on the crane." The record also discloses that Respondents'
members had discussed the subject of "short gangs" (i.e., gangs with-
out crane operators) at several meetings throughout the period of the
various 1960 work stoppages.
The Board found in the Section 8(b) (4) (B) case, supra, that Re-
spondents had induced and encouraged their members to engage in the
1960 stoppages, including the one here involved.12 In the light of
Respondent ILWU's telegram threatening to take coastwide action,
the aforementioned meetings at which the subject of short gangs was
discussed, and Duggan's entrance on the scene which seemed to inspire
the stoppage, we find reasonable cause to believe that Respondents
caused or were responsible for the September 6, 1960, stoppage in
question.
We find, moreover, that an object of the stoppage was to force or
require American Mail Line, Ltd., to assign the disputed work to
longshoremen, represented by Respondents, rather than to operating
engineers , represented by Operating Engineers .13 That the basis for
Respondents' action was its contractual agreement with PMA (dis-
cussed more fully, infra) does not, as the Board has held in similar
cases, detract from the jurisdictional nature of the dispute. 14 Nor
does the fact that the operating engineers involved were employed by
mit the leasing of most of its cranes with or without operators . It is this "right" or
policy which the port seeks to preserve.
11 137 NLRB at 125
"Although the charge also alleges that one object of Respondents was to secure work
assignments from Mobile Crane Company, we find no evidence that this was an object of
Respondents . As found by the Board in the related case, "the work stoppages complained
of were engaged in for the purpose of requiring PMA members to observe the work assign-
ment provisions of the contract " ( 137 NLRB at 127 ) Thus, as the Board has found,
the stoppages were aimed at American Mail Line ( and other PMA members ), rather than
Mobile Crane Company. we do not make a determination with respect to work assign-
ments to be made by Mobile Crane Company.
14 See Local 499, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Iowa Power and
Light Company ), 144 NLRB 870 ; Local 110, Sheet Metal Workers etc. (Brown and
Williamson Tobacco Corporation ), 143 NLRB 947.
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a second employer, Mobile Crane Company, make the dispute any
less a dispute between two competing groups of employees.15
We find, therefore, 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, supra, the Supreme Court charged the Board with
the "responsibility and duty to decide which of two or more employee
groups claiming the right to perform certain work tasks is right and
then specifically to award such tasks in accordance with its decision." 16
Pursuant to this mandate, the Board in the J. A. Jones 17 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 ILti,U certification, the
Employer's assignment, employee skills, practices in other ports, con-
siderations of safety and economy, and the contractual agreement be-
tween Respondents and PMA. We have carefully considered all these
factors.
Some of the factors cited by the parties weigh in favor of an award
to longshoremen, represented by Respondents. Thus, though the
ILWU certification is not sufficiently definite with respect to crane
work to be controlling,18 nevertheless it does cover employees "who
do longshore work," and whose job it is to "handle said waterborne
cargo." As the crane work here involved consists of handling water-
borne cargo, the ILWU certification gives weight to Respondents'
claim.
Moreover, according to a stipulation entered into by the parties,
area practice in some west coast ports favors longshoremen. In
Tacoma, Washington, longshoremen operate virtually all cranes, and
in Aberdeen, Washington, longshoremen operate all cranes owned by
the port. In the California ports of San Diego, Long Beach, San
Francisco, and Oakland, registered longshoremen operate "all types
of cranes and do crane operating work."
15 See Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Western
Electric Company, Incorporated ), 141 NLRB 888 ; International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion et at . ( Motor Transport Labor Relations , Inc ), 127 NLRB 35, 38, footnote 2.
15 364 U S at 586.
17 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743 , AFL-CIO (J A Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402
18 See International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 10 ( Matson Navi-
gation Company ), 140 NLRB 449. The original representation proceeding is published in
7 NLRB 1002 [sub nom . Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast, et al.].
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1441
- There is also evidence of safety and economy considerations which
favor an award to longshoremen. According to one witness, opera-
tion of cranes by longshoremen is safer by virtue of individual long-
shoremen's experience in the position of hatchtender. It is the hatch-
tender who gives the signals to the crane operator, and who, by
working in the hatch, acquires load-capacity experience important to
safe crane operation. With respect to considerations of economy,
use of a longshoreman as crane operator may reduce by one the
number of employees involved, since the longshoreman-crane operator
may interchange with the hatchtender. When an operating engineer
is employed on the crane, he normally brings with him an oiler as
helper, and neither interchanges with the hatchtender.
On the other hand, several factors normally considered by the Board
favor an award to employees represented by Operating Engineers.
One is the matter of skill. Although longshoremen now appear to
have crane-operating skills by virtue of a training program recently
established, the skills of operating engineers in this area are of longer
standing, and extend to cranes of greater complexity.
With respect to area practices, there are ports other than those
mentioned above, such as Everett and Longview, Washington, in
which operating engineers perform a greater portion of the crane-
operating work. The port of Olympia, Washington, employs a mem-
ber of Local 302 as its primary crane operator. In San Francisco,
operating engineers are employed on mobile cranes rented on a manned
basis, and the same is occasionally true in Los Angeles.
We note also that the Employer's original assignment of work in
this case was to operating engineers, by virtue of its rental of a
manned crane from Mobile Crane Company. However, this factor is
necessarily of lesser significance in this case, because of the Employer's
subsequent and present contention that it has at all times made a
"clear contractual assignment of work" to longshoremen, represented
by Respondents.
It is this last consideration which we deem most persuasive in the
circumstances of this case. As we have found supra, the dispute
giving rise to this proceeding was between Respondents and American
Mail Line, a member of PMA, over who should operate a particular
crane used by American Mail in its stevedoring operations. This
dispute must be viewed against the background of the 1959-60 nego-
tiations between PMA and Respondents, in which the same parties
dealt with the broader problem of automation on the entire west coast
waterfront. In the course of these negotiations, PMA and Respolid-
ents reached an agreement on the use of new equipment, accompanied
by a large monetary settlement and other concessions made by both
sides.
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The work in question here, and that embodied in the parties' agree-
ment, is in the broadest sense longshore work, as described in the
certification, since it involves the loading and unloading of water-
borne cargo. There is little question but that it is the work of the
individual longshoremen which in the course of time is being ad-
versely affected by the increased use of mechanized equipment. Cer-
tain provisions in the 1959-60 agreement specifically pertain to man-
power utilization on the new equipment; others have since been
added.19
As is apparent from the instant case, there is room for disagreement
with respect to the meaning of the 1959-60 provisions, as they apply to
particular pieces of crane equipment. However, as described above, in
a dispute very similar to the instant one, the parties' area arbitrator,
Matt Meehan, found that the use of a mobile (MacRae brothers) crane
in cargo-handling operations was longshore work, which under the
parties' agreement had been assigned to longshoremen 20 The
Employers and Respondents now agree that this is the proper inter-
pretation to be placed on their agreement. We find nothing in this
interpretation which is repugnant to the Act, or to the considerations
normally attendant upon our resolution of jurisdictional disputes.
The automation concord between Respondents and PMA has been
widely acclaimed as a history-making precedent, a peaceful settle-
ment of a problem which has troubled the west coast waterfront for
a number of years. The parties are now living under that agreement,
and urge us to honor their agreement as interpreted by them and their
arbitrator. In the circumstances here presented, we have decided to
do so.
Accordingly, we shall award the work in the instant case to long-
shoremen, rather than operating engineers.21 In making this deter-
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,
19 The current Pacific Coast Longshore Agreement , dated June 16, 1961, and amended
June 22 , 1962, specifically assigns the work of moving cargo by machinery to longshore-
men, though it continues in effect certain existing exceptions As was the case at the time
of the instant dispute , disagreements are to be discussed , then referred to the parties'
arbitrators for binding decision.
20 In the April 1962 Meehan award referred to, the parties relied not only on their
1959-60 agreement , but also on subsequent provisions in the most recent Longshore con-
tract . The principles considered were, however , similar.
21 It appears from the record that , unlike the port's cranes, which can be rented manned
or unmanned , Mobile Crane 's equipment is available on a manned basis only . It may be,
therefore , that our award and the parties ' agreement require that the Employers rent
only cranes on which they are able to employ longshoremen . We do not, however, make
an assignment of crane-operating work insofar as Mobile Crane is an employer. See
footnote 13, supra
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-792-0. 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-
' 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 Mail 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