Local 1294, Longshoremen's Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 403 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

LOCAL 1294. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Local 1294, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO and Cibro Petroleum Prod-
ucts, Inc. and Local 333, United Marine Divi-
sion, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO
Local 1518, Checkers, Clerks and Timekeepers, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO' and Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc. and
Local 333, United Marine Division, Internation-
al Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
Cases 3-CD-528 and 3-CD-529
July 30, 1981
DECISION, DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE, AND ORDER
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section
10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, following charges filed by Cibro Petro-
leum Products, Inc., alleging that Local 1294, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, and Local 1518, Checkers, Clerks and Time-
keepers, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to
assign certain work to employees represented by
them rather than to employees represented by
Local 333, United Marine Division, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Christopher G. Roach on
February 13 and March 5, 1981, and before Hear-
ing Officer Alfred M. Norek on March 6, 1981. All
parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief
which has been duly considered.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPI.OYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Albany, New York, is engaged
in the refining and distribution of petroleum prod-
ucts. During the past 12 months, the Employer, in
the course and conduct of its business operations,
received products valued in excess of $50,000
which were shipped to its Albany, New York, fa-
I Local 1518's name appears as amended at the hearing
257 NLRB No. 37
cility directly from points outside the State of New
York.
Based on the foregoing, we find that Cibro Pe-
troleum Products, Inc., is engaged in 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.
It. THE l.ABOR ORGANIZAIIONS IN\OI Vt)
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Locals
1294, 1518, and 333 of the International Longshore-
men's Association, AFL-CIO. are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Ili. THtL DSI'UTEI
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer receives crude oil and finished
petroleum products at its facility on the Hudson
River in Albany, New York. Each year betveen 10
and 12 ships deliver such cargo to the Employer's
terminal. When a vessel arrives at the Port of
Albany, the Employer assembles on its dock a line-
crew composed of two to four individuals who
assist in anchoring the ship. The shipboard crew
begins this process by thro ing a messenger line
towards the shore. While the linecrew pulls the
messenger line ashore, the shipboard crew attaches
this line to the larger mooring line contained
aboard ship. The linecrew then drags the mooring
line ashore and inserts it over a mooring post on
the Employer's dock. Finally, the shipboard crew
fastens the mooring line to the vessel using ship-
board winches. Before the ship is ready to dis-
charge its cargo into the Employer's oil tanks, the
shipboard and linecrews must tie down from 5 to
17 additional mooring lines depending on the size
and configuration of the vessel.
Between 1965 and late 1978, the Employer as-
signed this line-handling work to its terminal main-
tenance employees who were represented by the
Cibro Employees Union. On November 20. 1978.
the Board certified Local 333 as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of "All terminal
maintenance employees, including trainees, em-
ployed at [the Employer's] terminal facility located
at the Port of Albany, New York .... During
the course of the parties' contract negotiations,
Albert Cornette, president of Local 333, told the
Employer that the line-handling work involved in
docking vessels was Xwithin the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of his Union. Thereafter, Locals 1294 and 1518
jointly sent letters, dated February 19 and 28, 1979,
to the International I.ongshoremen 's Association in
which thev asserted that l.ocal 333 had violated
403l
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their territorial jurisdiction in the Port of Albany
by organizing the Employer's employees. Augus-
tine Crocco, president of Local 1294, contacted the
Employer's vice president, William Cirillo, con-
cerning this matter. During their conversation,
Crocco asserted jurisdiction over the Employer's
line-handling work on behalf of Local 1294 and
then threatened to picket the Employer's terminal
if such work was not reassigned to employees rep-
resented by his Union.
Subsequently, on March 6, 1979, the Employer
and Local 333 entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a provision which arguably
covers the Employer's line-handling work. Shortly
after the parties executed this contract, Cirillo
learned that Crocco had called the Employer's
Albany facility and threatened to picket the arrival
of the vessel Pan Oceanic Fame if the Employer
continued to assign the work in question to its own
employees represented by Local 333. Cirillo imme-
diately called Crocco who then reiterated his
threat that he ". . . would have some pickets in
front of the terminal" unless employees represented
by Local 1294 tied up the tanker. When Cirillo ad-
vised Local 333 of this problem, Cornette resolved
the situation by telling Crocco to arrange for em-
ployees represented by Local 1294 to perform the
line-handling work on the Pan Oceanic Fame and
that Local 333 would reimburse the Employer for
theadditional expenses involved. Thereafter, on or
about March 14, 1979, the Employer retained the
services of John W. McGrath Corporation, a local
Albany stevedoring contractor, to tie up the Pan
Oceanic Fame. During the next 18 months,
McGrath employees represented by Local 1294
continued to perform line-handling work on ships
docking at the Employer's facility.
On January 13, 1980,2 Thomas Gleason, presi-
dent of the International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, notified Crocco and Cornette that he had
awarded exclusive jurisdiction over the Employer's
line-handling work to members of Local 333.
Crocco and James McGahay, president of Local
1518, then sent a joint letter to Gleason on January
16, informing Gleason that they would appeal his
decision to the Executive Council of the Interna-
tional. Thereafter, Local 333 advised Cirillo that
employees represented by it would resume per-
forming the Employer's line-handling work. Upon
learning of Local 333's action, Crocco sent Cirillo
a letter, dated January 21, wherein he informed
Cirillo that Local 1294 had appealed Gleason's de-
cision and implied that he would picket the Em-
ployer if the work were reassigned to employees
represented by Local 333. Consequently, McGrath
' All dates hereinafter are in 180 unless otherwise indicated.
employees represented by Local 1294 continued to
moor ships docking at the Employer's facility.
Thereafter, on October 7, Harry Hasselgren, sec-
retary-treasurer of the International, advised
Crocco and McGahay that the Executive Council
had sustained Gleason's decision awarding the Em-
ployer's line-handling work to members of Local
333. During a subsequent meeting at its Albany fa-
cility on November 5, the Employer told Crocco
and McGahay that it had received a copy of the
International's letter denying Locals 1294's and
1518's appeal and that it was reassigning its line-
handling work to its own employees represented
by Local 333. In response, Crocco said that he
would picket the Employer's terminal gate or
employ picketboats on the Albany waterway if the
Employer took this action. While Local 1518's
McGahay did not comment, there is evidence that
he nodded his head affirmatively as Crocco threat-
ened to picket the Employer. The Employer subse-
quently reassigned its line-handling work to its own
employees represented by Local 333 on or about
November 18, but Locals 1294 and 1518 did not
picket.
On November 18, the Employer also filed the in-
stant charges alleging that Locals 1294 and 1518
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by their
conduct during the November 5 meeting. Locals
1294 and 1518 then filed a complaint in a New
York State supreme court on December 11 against,
inter alia, Local 333 and the International Long-
shoremen's Association in which they contended
that the award of the Employer's line-handling
work to members of Local 333 was in contraven-
tion of the International's constitution.3 Thereafter,
during the hearing held in the instant case, Locals
1294 and 1518 stated that they did not have any in-
terest in obtaining the Employer's line-handling
work on behalf of employees they represent, and
moved to quash the consolidated notice of hearing
issued herein.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as described in the order
consolidating cases and notice of hearing, concerns
the following tasks: "The work of line handling of
ships docking at the facilities of Cibro Petroleum
Products, Inc. at the Port of Albany." However,
the Employer made a motion at the hearing to
broaden the scope of the disputed work to include
the assignment of all line-handling work involved
in docking barges at its terminal. Hearing Officer
'The parties subhsquentl) rcnimv ed the suit to he United States Dis-
tricl Court, Northern District of New York
404
LOCAL 1294, LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Roach referred the Employer's motion to the
Board for determination.
We find that the record contains no evidence
that Locals 1294 and 1518 have demanded the as-
signment of the Employer's line-handling work on
barges to employees they represent. Moreover,
both Crocco, president of Local 1294, and McGa-
hay, president of Local 1518, testified that their
members have never performed such work for any
employer. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing
and the fact that the notice of hearing clearly de-
scribes the work in dispute as line-handling work
on ships, we hereby deny the Employer's motion
to expand the scope of the disputed work. We shall
therefore confine our determination in the instant
dispute to the work of line handling of ships.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Locals 1294 and 1518 argued at the hearing that
there is no reasonable cause to believe that they
have violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and
that, therefore, the dispute is not properly before
the Board and the notice of hearing should be
quashed. Both Unions contended that, because they
have disclaimed the disputed work, there is no ex-
isting work assignment dispute in this proceeding.
In this regard, Local 1518 noted that it has never
claimed the disputed work on behalf of employees
it represents. Local 1294 also asserted that the
record fails to establish that it threatened, coerced,
or restrained the Employer during the 10(b) period
with an object of forcing the Employer to assign
the disputed work to employees represented by it.
In the event that the Board does decide to make a
determination of this dispute, Local 1294 argues
that the work in dispute should be awarded to em-
ployees it represents based on the Employer's vol-
untary assignment of such work to them between
March 1979 and November 1980 with the acquies-
cence of Local 333. Local 1294 further contends
that the International Longshoremen's Association
violated Local 1294's exclusive territorial jurisdic-
tion in the Port of Albany by awarding the disput-
ed work to employees represented by Local 333.
The Employer argues in its brief that a jurisdic-
tional dispute does exist in this case. It contends
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated since
Locals 1294 and 1518 threatened to picket its facili-
ty and the Port of Albany waterway on November
5, 1980, if the Employer reassigned the disputed
work to employees represented by Local 333. Ad-
ditionally, the Employer asserts that the disclaimer
of the disputed work made by Local 1294 at the
hearing was conditional in nature and, for that
reason, the Board should not honor Local 1294's
disclaimer. It further argues that there is no agreed-
upon method for resolving the instant dispute be-
cause it does not participate in and is not bound by
determinations of the Impartial Jurisdictional Dis-
putes Board. Finally, the Employer urges that its
assignment of the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by Local 333 should be upheld on the
basis of their collective-bargaining agreement,
Local 333's Board certification, the Employer's
preference and past practice, and efficiency and
economy of the Employer's operations.
Local 333's position essentially is in agreement
with that of the Employer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that: (1) there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated, and (2) there is no agreed-upon method
for the voluntary resolution of the dispute.
With respect to (1), above, in Case 3-CD-529,
we note that the Board's authority under Section
10(k) of the Act is limited to the resolution of
actual disputes between competing groups of em-
ployees. Thus, it is well established that a cogniza-
ble work assignment dispute no longer exists when
one of the competing unions or parties effectively
renounces its claim to the work in question.4 In the
instant matter, we find that Local 1518 effectively
renounced its claim to the disputed work and that
this disclaimer was not vitiated by any equivocal
conduct on its part. Moreover, Local 1518's presi-
dent, McGahay, testified that employees represent-
ed by that Union do not perform any line-handling
work. S Accordingly, in these circumstances we find
that competing claims to the disputed work do not
exist within the meaning of the Act in Case 3-CD-
529 and we shall therefore quash the notice of
hearing issued therein.6
With respect to (1), above, in Case 3-CD-528,
the record discloses that, during the meeting held
on November 5, the Employer informed Local
1294 of its intention to reassign the disputed work
to employees represented by Local 333. President
Crocco of Local 1294 then responded that he
"would have to picket the plant . . . beginning at
Laoruh s' Internatonar l U'io, of .oirrth .Altrica. Local 935. .I'L-CIO
(C & S Corrlruciol Co. Inc.). 2106 NL Ri 87 (1973): Sheet Metal WorA-
ers Local Ulio,, No. 465 (Thorpe Ilvtulatlonl Cooipai)y. 198 NL RB 1245
(1972).
i Local 1518 represents emplo)ee, engaged in performing maritime
clerical functions, a type of ' ork not Involl.ed n his dispute
'In ie of o r finding that Local 151 effectivcl disclaimed an1 in-
terest in the disputed work. rc find it llinecessairN IIt decide %whether
there is reasonabhle cause to belice that l ocal 1518 vioillted Sec.
8(h)(4)(D) of the Act
405
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the gate or picketing on the water via picket boats.
"If [any pilots] crossed his picket line to bring a
ship into Cibro's facility," Crocco said that he
"would be obligated to refuse to handle vessels
which they brought into other parts of the Port of
Albany and would therefore effectively be shutting
down the Port [of Albany]." While admitting that
he made these threats, Crocco claimed that he did
so at the request of the Employer's representatives
who were seeking a Board determination to resolve
the instant dispute. On the other hand, Joseph
Plunkett, the Employer's plant manager, denied
that any company official had urged Crocco to
make such statements. It is well settled, however,
that a conflict in testimony does not prevent the
Board from proceeding under Section 10(k) for, in
this proceeding, the Board is not charged with
finding that a violation did in fact occur, but only
that reasonable cause exists for finding such a vio-
lation.7 Moreover, Local 1294 has demonstrated a
propensity to employ coercion to obtain the disput-
ed work for employees it represents by its prior
threats, though occurring outside the limitations
period set by Section 10(b) of the Act, to picket
the Employer's operations on the Hudson River.
Accordingly, without ruling on the credibility of
the testimony at issue,s we find that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated.
In reaching this conclusion, we note that at the
outset of the hearing counsel for Local 1294 moved
to quash the notice of hearing issued herein on the
ground that I.ocal 1294 has disclaimed an interest
in the disputed work. However, in contrast to his
unequivocal disclaimer of the disputed work on
behalf of Local 1518 in Case 3-CD-529, counsel
for Local 1294 subsequently made the following
comments in reference to this issue in Case 3-CD-
528:
. . . we at this time disclaim the work in-
volved here conditioned on the success of our
law suit which is now pending in the federal
court in the Northern District of New York
and its Case 81-CV- . . . 63 which is an
action . . . against the International Long-
shorernen's Association and Local 333 of the
ILA to set aside and invalidate the decision of
the International president awarding the work
to Local 333.
h;lllli;tl [: I l.linif g tlil I IthCse CilClUlllSti 11Ice ICil ti f distingulishlblic
lroml /I.cl I I 15. \ lion/ Io - ( ir/!n s' / iI' 'lls a I' lFpp/o I ,cI aid li Ichni-
c/III, i . .- I 1) ( 1.( ( Jor acirtn Broadta ufting ( tnpanl, u Dision q/
-I ncrtil Iirahi ariti g Cinc p', I,nc.. 227 NI RI 1462 (1 977). Nshere
he d.,SseI lel: there llch 1ii, e1 ls Ctt t ilt' chiploxsCr And thelt Utlilt alleged tI)
ha ' \:l.lled Sec h(b)(4(i[)) c1 the Ac\ t cticitlecl
" See, e.t . l Gu s I i (ri ' io 3 34 [l, a r r i i In rn itoncai L:inl'on .Norith
Atwrac, I/ L ( l) ( I/ lit,/s ( portiL 175 NLRI 608, b O (q69
. . our disclaimer, so the record is clear, is
a disclaimer which will be in existence as long
as that decision of our International president
is in existence. And if we are successful in the
federal court, we would of course take the po-
sition that we . . . should be assigned the
work in question.
We conclude that Local 1294 is continuing to
assert a jurisdictional claim to the Employer's line-
handling work on behalf of the employees it repre-
sents. Accordingly, we will not honor such a con-
ditional disclaimer, since Local 1294 stated clearly
at the hearing that it will persist in its efforts to
obtain the disputed work. Accordingly, we hereby
deny Local 1294's motion to quash the notice of
hearing in Case 3-CD-528.
With respect to (2), above, in Case 3-CD-528,
there is no evidence that all parties have agreed to
any method for the voluntary resolution of the dis-
pute. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors.9 As the Board has frequently stated, the
determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an
act of judgment based on commonsense and experi-
ence in weighing these factors. The following fac-
tors are relevant in making a determination of the
dispute before us in Case 3-CD-528.
I. Board certification and relevant collective-
bargaining agreements
On November 20, 1978, the Board certified
Local 333 as the exclusive representative of all the
Employer's terminal maintenance employees who
presently are performing the disputed work.
Article XIII of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Employer and Local 333 pro-
vides, inter alia, as follows:
There shall be two classifications of employ-
ees: Process Maintenance Men and and Termi-
nal Maintenance Men. These employees shall
perform all maintenance and repair work as
well as all work in the receipt, flow, transfer,
inventory control and discharge of product,
from receipt to discharge. [Emphasis supplied.]
" \ L.R.B. . Radio & ieleviion Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212.
lcrnationlu Brotilherhiood iof lectrcal Workers. AFL-CIO [Columbia
Br(adcurling Svel,,,. 364 U S 573 (19hl1); International Association of
Maclhinists, l.odge No. 1743. AFI.-CIO (J A Jones Construction Com-
pany), 15 N RB 140)2 (1962)
4()
LOCAL 1294, LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
We find that this provision may reasonably be in-
terpreted as covering the disputed work. By con-
trast, Local 1294 is not a party to a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer.
Accordingly, we find that the factors of Local
333's Board certification' ° and its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer favor an
award of the line-handling work on ships to em-
ployeees represented by Local 333.
2. Employer preference and past practice
The record shows that between 1965 and March
1979 the Employer assigned the disputed work to
its own terminal maintenance employees who cur-
rently are represented by Local 333. Thereafter, in
response to Local 1294's threat to picket its oper-
ations, the Employer subcontracted the disputed
work to John W. McGrath Corporation, an area
stevedoring contractor. This company employed
employees represented by Local 1294 to perform
this work at the Employer's Albany facility. On or
about November 18, 1980, the Employer reassigned
its line-handling work to its own employees repre-
sented by Local 333 in accord with the award
made by the Executive Council of the International
Longshoremen's Association. These employees
continued to perform the disputed work at the time
of the hearing.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the Em-
ployer, except when confronted with picket
threats, consistently has awarded the disputed work
to its own terminal maintenance employees since it
began operations at the Albany facility some 16
years ago. We therefore conclude that the Employ-
er's preference and its established past practice
favor an award of the disputed work to its employ-
ees represented by Local 333.
3. Relative skills
It is clear from the record that employees repre-
sented by either Local 1294 or Local 333 are
equally capable of performing the Employer's line-
handling work on ships at the Albany facility. Ac-
cordingly, we find that this factor does not favor
an award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by either labor organization.
4. Industry and area practice
There is no specific evidence regarding the in-
dustry practice concerning the work in dispute.
With respect to the area practice, Local 1294's
president, Crocco, testified that his Union has ex-
"' Sec Unil'd .lsssA lVilsi,sl Jrlr lr,, 'int ,rsid
.
4prrc s A ss I/ the PluthinstY
and Pip/titring Indistiry t ,'nd 'ats d ( tan oda. 'lumhrs I.,al
55. .4AFL-CIO (Midsrvi Prewstrssid (C'osrporssollJ. 4 NlRB 901. 04
X 1970).
clusive jurisdiction over the disputed work in the
Port of Albany. Crocco subsequently admitted,
however, that employees represented by the Team-
sters also perform such work in the Albany, New
York, area.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that both
industry and area practice are inconclusive and do
not favor an award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by either Local 1294 or Local
333.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The record discloses, as noted. that between 10
and 12 ships annually deliver petroleum products
to the Employer's terminal. When they are not per-
forming the disputed work, employees represented
by Local 333 are engaged in maintenance and
repair functions at the Employer's facility. The
Employer currently has no employees represented
by Local 1294. Under these circumstances, employ-
ees represented by Local 1294 would be employed
for the purpose of mooring only one or two ships
per month if they were awarded the disputed
work. Accordingly, we find that the factors of
economy and efficiency of operations favor an
award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Local 333.
6. Other awards
As set forth above, the president of the Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association has awarded
the disputed work to members of Local 333.
Thereafter, the Executive Council of the Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association sustained this
decision on or about September 3, 1980. Although
decisions of the International Longshoremen's As-
sociation are not binding on our determination on
the merits of the jurisdictional dispute in this 10(k)
proceeding, we find that they are an evidentiary
factor herein which favors an award of the disput-
ed work" to the employees represented by Local
333.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all the relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the Employer's employees who are
represented by Local 333, United Marine Division,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion based on the Board's cer-
tification of Local 333 as the bargaining representa-
I r (.'tprc- / an,,d Optz r ( /Iss t ad .Sl S ati ior crs, l . 'oc/ l I
, 420, a//hiatcd 2 oll ,rh r, Inr a Ion, I on s/ Aor/ i I Ia cri .J,
A-1 - (/0) (( 'st0 flor, ~I Is llllo l t ai / r]: '.s l,0 '',nlsan a and .s/lllL s I-
wi itcts,. L , 231 NI.Ri I )71, 1()075 {11 I
407
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive of these employees, the Employer's collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 333, the Employ-
er's preference and established past practice of as-
signing the disputed work to these employees, the
factors of economy and efficiency of the Employ-
er's operations, and the prior award by the Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association concerning this
jurisdictional dispute between Locals 1294 and 333.
Accordingly, we shall determine the instant dispute
by awarding the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by Local 333, United Marine Division, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, but not to that Union or its members. Addi-
tionally, we find that Local 1294, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, is not en-
titled by means proscribed under Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require the Employer to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by it.
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 of Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc.,
who are represented by Local 333, United Marine
Division, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work
involved in performing the line-handling work on
ships at the Employer's Albany, New York, facili-
ty.
2. Local 1294, International Longshoremen's As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force
or require Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc., to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision,
Determination of Dispute, and Order, Local 1294,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region
3, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring Cibro Petroleum Products,
Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by it rather than to employees repre-
sented by Local 333, United Marine Division, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in Case 3-CD-529 be, and it hereby is,
quashed.
408