Local 1291, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 735
Local 1291 , International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO
and Northern Contracting Company. Case No. 4-CD-125-1.
May 00, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on Novem-
ber 23, 1964, by Northern Contracting Company (herein called
Northern). The charge was subsequently amended on November 24,
1964. The amended charge alleged that Local 1291, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (herein called ILA), had
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act by threatening,
coercing, and restraining Northern with an object of forcing North-
ern to assign the work of opening and closing hatches to employee
members of the ILA rather than to employees belonging to another
labor organization. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Milton S. Maclasky on February 9, 1965. All par-
ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs have been filed by Northern and the ILA and have been duly
considered by the National Labor Relations Board.
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 Mem-
bers Brown and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings:
1. The business of the Employer
Northern Contracting Company is a Delaware corporation with its
offices located at 623 Six Penn Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Northern operates pier 124 in South Philadelphia. The pier, which
is owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, is used solely for
the loading of coal aboard vessels. During the past year, Northern's
gross receipts were approximately $590,000 and of this sum an amount
in excess of $150,000 was derived from the handling and loading of
coal on ships destined for ports outside the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania. We find that Northern is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
152 NLRB No. 77.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved
Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
and the National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO (known herein as
NMU), are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute
a. The work in dispute
The work in issue relates to the loading of coal from pier 124 onto
the SS Marine Electric, a ship operated by Marine Transport Lines,
Inc. Northern's employees operate equipment that loads the ship
with coal from railroad cars. In order to prepare the ship to receive
coal or move out to sea, it is necessary to open and close the hatches
(known as hatch-and-beam work). The Marine Electric is equipped
with mechanical hatch covers known as "McGregor" hatches, which
are opened by pressing a button, thus causing the hatch to be lifted
onto a rail. Each cover is divided into sections which have wheels
that are set onto the rail when the hatch is raised. The covers are then
pulled back like an accordian by a cable attached to a winch. The
hatches are closed by reversing the process. The Marine Electric has
five hatches that must be opened for loading. Opening or closing a
hatch takes about 10 minutes and is accomplished by two supervising
deck officers and a crew of four unlicensed members of the deck depart-
ment who have been performing the actual work involved and are
represented by the NMU. It is this work, the opening and closing of
the hatches, which is the issue in this case.
b. Evidence o l conduct violative to Section 8(b)(4)(D)
On November 19, 1964, the Marinze Electric docked at pier 124 for
the first time for the purpose of taking on coal. In keeping with past
practice on the ship, the hatches had been opened before docking by
members of the ship's crew. That evening, officials of Northern were
approached by two ILA delegates, E. Devine and J. Smith, Jr., who
advised that there would be picketing in the event a hatch-and-beam
gang were not hired for the ship. After a short discussion, Northern
agreed to hire the hatch-and-beam gang. The gang actually per-
formed no services since the ship's crew continued to operate the
hatches.'
The record shows testimony by an NMU agent indicating that
NMU did not wish to assert an affirmative claim for the work in issue.
He referred to a letter sent by the NMU to the Board on July 30, 1964,
in connection with another case involving a similar claim by the ILA
for hatch-and-beam work, which was also being performed by NMU
members at a different Philadelphia coaldock and for a different
IIt is normal practice for hatch -and-beam gangs to be hired at the request of the
ship's owner or operator , rather than the operator of the dock as in the instant case.
LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 737
employer.2 The letter stated that NMU made no claim for the type
of work involved herein. However, the same NMU agent also testi-
fied that the NMU crewmen had performed the work when ordered
to do so and filed no grievances concerning the assignment.
c. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which an 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen.
However, before the Board proceeds, it must be satisfied that there
is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been
violated.
Witnesses for the ILA and Northern differed as to what was actu-
ally stated at the meeting of November 19. Northern claims that the
delegates threatened to picket by themselves if a crew were not hired
immediately. Both Smith and Devine testified that they did not
threaten to do this personally, but, rather, advised Northern that they
had been contacted by an unidentified member of the Union who told
them that no gang had been hired and who threatened to picket if
this were not done at once. They did not disavow union responsibil-
ity for any picketing or otherwise disassociate the Union from any
such action. We, therefore, find it unnecessary to resolve the discrep-
ancy in the testimony since, in either case, it was made clear to the
Employer that there would be picketing in the event the ILA hatch-
and-beam gang were not hired.
ILA, nevertheless, contends that no violation has occurred on the,
ground that the events of November 19 did not arise from a dispute
between two unions or groups of employees regarding the assignment
of work. As in the related case of Pocahontas Steamship Company,
supra, ILA relies on the NMU statement disclaiming interest in the
assignment.3 We find, contrary to the ILA position and for the rea-
sons set forth in greater detail in our decision in Pocahontas Steav?.-
sltip Company, that the circumstances of this case present a dispute
between the ILA and the NMU regarding the assignment of work
which establishes the Board's jurisdiction under Section 8(b) (4)
(D).4 We, therefore find that the work dispute is properly before,
the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
2 Pocahontas Steamship Company , 152 NLRB 676.
If a jurisdictional dispute is found to exist , ILA asks the Board to award the work
to employees that it represents.
4 As the record clearly reveals that the ILA' s demands were designed to force the
assignment to its members of work then being performed by members of the deck depart-
ment represented by NMU, it is of no moment for the purposes of finding jurisdiction
that the pressure was exerted on Northern rather than Marine Transport, the Employer
whose employees were then performing the disputed work. It is settled that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) applies to an indirect attempt to force an assignment of work from employees
of one employer to those of another . Local 19, International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion (Marine Association of Chicago), 151 NLRB 89; Local 3, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL--CIO (Western Electric Company, incorporated), 141
NLRB 888.
789-730 -66-vol. 152-48
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
d. Merits of the dispute
(1) Skills, competence, and training
Members of both the ILA and NMU have the ability to perform
the work. Other than a basic knowledge of the operation of the
hatch, the work primarily requires the exercise of care to guard against
damage to the equipment. As such, it does not demand the applica-
tion of the traditional skills developed over the years by the ILA
gangs in the manipulation of hatch covers. ILA urges that its hatch-
and-beam gangs have worked together for some time so as to become
well coordinated teams. However, this factor is balanced by the
uncontradicted testimony of Captain Sorensen, a port captain for
Marine Transport, to the effect that there has been very little turn-
over in the crew of the Marine Electric and that they have satisfac-
torily performed this work during each of the more than 100 trips
that the ship has made.
(2) Collective-bargaining contracts
The ILA is a party to a contract with the Philadelphia Marine
Trade Association (referred to as PMTA), an association of ships'
agents and stevedoring companies serving vessels in the port of Phila-
delphia. That contract specifically assigns hatch-and-beam work to
the ILA and establishes regulations for its performance. Stevedor-
ing firms that perform work at the request of Northern and Marine
Transport are members of PMTA. However, neither Northern nor
Marine Transport is a party to the PMTA agreement nor any other
contract with the ILA. Northern's employees are members of Local
1628, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and are
not involved in this matter. Marine Transport, though not a member
of the Collier Owners' Association, has adopted the collective-bargain-
ing contract between that organization and the NMU covering the
unlicensed deck departments of its ships. The contract calls for a
monthly base salary and provides for the deck department to per-
form a variety of work, including the opening and closing of hatches.
(3) Employer's assignment and past practice
Marine Transport has always assigned the hatch-and-beam work on
the Marine Electric to members of that ship's unlicensed deck depart-
ment. On the other hand, the record shows that members of the ILA
have performed the hatch-and-beam work on ships in Philadelphia for
over 25 years, and a series of arbitration proceedings have consistently
awarded them this work. However, no evidence indicates that either
Northern or Marine Transport was ever a party to or otherwise par-
ticipated in those proceedings so as to be bound by the awards.
LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 739
(4) Efficiency and economy
The work is presently accomplished by a gang consisting of four
members of the deck department and two officers who supervise the
operation. The ILA-PMTA contract introduced into evidence calls
for a gang of six longshoremen and a foreman to perform hatch-and-
beam work on coalships. Officers of Marine Transport testified that
its crews can open or close a hatch in about 10 minutes. The Marine
Electric has five hatches, each of which must be opened and closed
in order to accomplish loading or unloading. In the past, the hatches
have been opened before the ship has docked and closing has been
completed after leaving the pier.
CONCLUSION AS TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
An appraisal of the relevant considerations supports the continued
assignment of the disputed work to, the employees of Marine Trans-
port. In so finding, we note that Marine Transport's assignment con-
forms to its past practice, that it will result in efficiency of opera-
tions, and that members of the unlicensed deck department have suffi-
cient skills to do the work. Accordingly, and on the basis of the
entire record, we shall determine the present dispute by deciding that
members of Marine Transport's unlicensed deck department repre-
sented by the NMU rather than longshoremen represented by the
ILA are entitled to the work. The present award is limited to the
particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In mak-
ing this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the
employees of Marine Transport who are represented by NMU but not
to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION 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 this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following determination of dispute.
1. Employees employed by Marine Transport Lines, Inc., as mem-
bers of the unlicensed deck department aboard the SS Marine Electric,
are entitled to perform the opening and closing of cargo hatches
(hatch-and-beam work) on that ship when docking at pier 124, South
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2. Local No. 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Northern Contracting
Company or Marine Transport Lines, Inc., to assign the above work
to its members.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), the assignment of the
work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.
Michigan State Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-
CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 816 of the
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO
and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 70 of the United
Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 636 of the United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Union No. 85 of the United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local Union No. 777 of the United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Union No. 154 of the United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO and Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Union No. 388 of the United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Michigan Dis-
tribution Contractors Association , Inc. Cases Nos. 7-CD-99(3),
7-CD-99 (3), 7-CD-99 (4), 7-CD-99 (5), 7-CD-99 (6), 7-CD-99 (7),
7-CD-99 (8), and 7-CD-99 (9). May 20, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by the Michigan
Distribution Contractors Association, Inc.,' herein called the Employ-
ers, alleging that Michigan State Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. &
i Charging Party' s name , as amended at the hearing.
152 NLRB No. 89.