Local 19, Int'l Brotherhood of Longshoremen

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 61
WE WILL NOT question or otherwise seek information from any employee in
respect to his membership or interest in any labor orgamaztlon in such manner
as to interfere with, restrain, or coerce him in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by the Act
WE WILL offer to Clealon Bray immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him
WE WILL NOT by means of questioning or threats directed to employment
tenure or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist any labor
organization , to join or assist Line Drivers Local No 961, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
All of our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
NEBRASKA, ILLINOIS, COLORADO ExPREss, INc,
D/B/A NATES TRUCK LINE, INc,
Employer
Dated------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material
Local 19, International Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL-
CIO and Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. Cases Nos 13-CB-541
and 13-CB-641 November 12, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 10, 1958, Trial Examiner Gerard Ryan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
amended complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respond-
ent, and the Charging Party I filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs
w
The amended complaint alleges, inter alga, that Respondent did
and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with a voluntary asso-
ciation (herein called the Association) by demanding as a condition
precedent to signing the agreement with Chicago Stevedoring, a mem-
ber of the Association, that it agree to grant to the Respondent juris-
diction over work which that Company does not perform and that
such request has been repeatedly rejected
1 Herein sometimes called Chicago Stevedoring_
425 NLRB No 1.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner found that an agreement signed by Frederick
W. Turner, Jr., as the representative of the Association on May 17,
1957, removed Chicago Stevedoring from the then current contract
negotiations and was an agreement to bargain concerning Chicago
Stevedoring only at a later date. He further found that assuming,
arguendo, and without deciding, that an association of employers did
exist, there was no evidence that the Association thereafter requested
Respondent to bargain with the Association concerning Chicago
Stevedoring. In the absence of any request by the Association, he
found that the Respondent did not refuse to bargain with the Asso-
ciation on or after May 17,1957, and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety. In view of this recommendation, the
Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to determine either the appro-
priate bargaining unit or the relationship of Chicago Stevedoring to
Wacker Warehouse.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case.2 Because of the extent of our disagreement with the Trial
Examiner, we make our own findings, conclusions, and order, as
follows :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., is an Illinois corporation with its
office in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the stevedoring busi-
ness. During the 12-month period ending June 30, 1958, it received
approximately $203,000 for services rendered to various companies
which annually ship goods in value between two and three billion
dollars directly from out of the State into the State of Illinois. We
find that Chicago Stevedoring is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
In the early part of May 1957, Chicago Stevedoring leased a por-
tion of the Wacker Warehouse dock space as well as stevedoring
equipment from Wacker Warehouse. As the office of Chicago Steve-
doring is located away from the dock area, arrangement was made to
have Wacker Warehouse perform certain daily clerical duties for
which Chicago Stevedoring pays a fixed rate per ton of marine
freight handled. The Respondent contends that because Chicago
Stevedoring performs work formerly done by Wacker Warehouse
2 The Charging Party's request for oral argument is hereby denied . The record and the
exceptions and briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 63
and leases its dock and equipment from Wacker Warehouse, Chicago
Stevedoring and Wacker Warehouse constitute a single employer or
that Chicago Stevedoring is the successor to Wacker Warehouse. We
do not agree. The record shows that neither corporation has any
financial interest in the other; no officer, stockholder, or director is the
same; there is no interchange of employees; different skills are exer-
cised by the employees of each company ; and the only relationship
between the companies is that established by the written lease agree-
ment. We find that Chicago Stevedoring exercises complete autonomy
in using leased equipment and in dealing with its own employees. On
this evidence and the record as a whole, we find that Chicago Steve-
doring does business with Wacker Warehouse as an independent
contractor.
H. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
Local 19, International Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL -CIO,
herein called the Respondent, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The amended complaint alleges that Chicago Stevedoring is, and
since May 13, 1957, has been, a member of a voluntary association
comprised of approximately 11 employers engaged in stevedoring
operations,' and that this Association on May 17, 1957, reached an
agreement with the Respondent on,all terms relating to the wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment of the employees in the
appropirate associationwide unit, except with respect to the jurisdic-
tion over the work to be handled by Chicago Stevedoring. The Re-
spondent denies the existence of an employer association and that
there has been multiemployer bargaining. It contends, in effect, that
each employer bargained individually as part of it group.
There is no formally organized employer association. However, for
the past 20-25 years, all employers in the Chicago area engaged in
stevedoring operations have met together with the Respondent to
negotiate bargaining contracts. Near the expiration date of the con-
tracts, negotiations have been initiated by the Respondent's asking all
companies employing stevedores within the area to set a mutually
satisfactory date for meeting to discuss the terms of a new contract.
Prior to the established date, the employer representatives have met
together and drafted a joint proposal which they submit at the first
meeting with the Respondent, at which time each employer has re-
ceived a copy of the Respondent's proposals. Thereafter, the em-
3 Maritime Services, Ltd. ; Interstate Contracting Corp. ; Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. ;
Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Co.; Lake Michigan Corporation ; Seaway Stevedoring Co.;
Time , Inc. ; The Tribune Co. ; Chicago Daily News ; International Steamship Terminals ;
and Great Lakes Stevedoring Co.
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer representatives have met together , discussed the Respondent's
proposals , and determined , by majority vote, their position and course
of action . At subsequent meetings with the Respondent , one of the
employer representatives has acted as the principal spokesman for the
group. Frederick W. Turner, Jr., an attorney, appears to have per-
formed this rule during the past few years. However, the record
shows that at times other company representatives have discussed,
on behalf of the group , particular phases of the contract with the
Respondent.
Although the companies had a unity of interest and one of their
representatives acted as principal spokesman , there does not appear
to have been an explicit understanding that their spokesman had the
authority to bind the others. Nevertheless, all employers have obvi-
ously felt themselves bound by the final negotiations , since for a num-
ber of years all contracts executed with the stevedoring companies in
that area have been uniform. The record shows that the stevedoring
companies have joined together under one or more principal spokes-
men for the purpose of advising and consulting among themselves
respecting bargaining negotiations with the Respondent, and have
established, both among themselves and in their common negotiations
with the Respondent, a unity of action for arriving at the identical
contract terms relating to wages, hours, and working conditions which
each company's contract has contained. A health and welfare fund
has been established by the Respondent and these employers. Three
trustees from this employer group represent all the employers en-
gaged in stevedoring in the Chicago area in the joint administration
of this fund with three trustees appointed by the Respondent.
During the 1957 negotiations, the usual procedure as described
above was followed. When the Respondent was notified on May 13,
1957, that Chicago Stevedoring intended to engage in stevedoring
operations, it suggested that Company "join the other stevedoring
companies in the current negotiations at the Federal Mediation
Service offices," and the Company did so. On May 17, the results of
the negotiations were embodied in a written agreement between the
"Contracting Stevedoring Companies" and the Respondent, and
signed by Frederick W. Turner, Jr., "For the Companies." There-
after, the Respondent executed identical individual contracts with
each of the stevedoring companies except Chicago Stevedoring, the
Charging Party herein . Heretofore , the Respondent had always
executed such contract with all companies participating in the
negotiations.
In the light of the foregoing facts and the record as a whole, we find
that the stevedoring companies associated themselves for the purposes
of joint collective bargaining into a single multiemployer group, and
LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 65
such joint participation in negotiations, in our opinion, evinces an
intent to be included in a multiemployer unit.4
Accordingly, we find the following unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act : 5
All employees of the members of the Association including the em-
ployees of Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., who are engaged in all work
affecting, directly or indirectly, the following operations :
(a) All fitting up, rigging up, and assembling of all cargoes;
(b) all work from the hold of vessel, throughhouse to railroad car,
truck, upper floors, in warehouse, to its final resting place in said
warehouse, or in removing cargo from the warehouse, up to, on and
into the hold of the vessel, truck or car or vice versa; and
(c) all winches, conveyances, or conveyors pertaining to (a) and
(b) above;
but excluding all clerical and professional employees, guards, house
checkers, and supervisors (superintendents, foremen, strawbosses,
two or tow 6 board bosses, and gang leaders) as defined in the Act.
IV. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
When Chicago Stevedoring notified the Respondent on May 13,
1957, of its intent to engage in stevedoring activities, formerly per-
formed by Wacker Warehouse, and requested a contract, the Respond-
ent invited it to join the other stevedoring companies in the current
negotiations. At all subsequent negotiation meetings, Chicago Steve-
doring was represented by its attorney, Frederick W. Turner, Jr.,
who also represented several other stevedoring operations. Eventu-
ally, at the May 17, 1957, meeting, agreement was reached on all issues
except one-and this issue related solely to Chicago Stevedoring and
the Respondent. At the suggestion of the conciliator from the
Federal Mediation Service, a memorandum of agreement was exe-
cuted by Frederick W. Turner, Jr., for the Companies, with a para-
graph, numbered 15, dealing with the remaining issue between
Chicago Stevedoring and the Respondent, which read as follows:
Agreement with respect to Chicago Stevedoring Company only
is subject to mutual agreement concerning the jurisdiction of
work formerly at Wacker Warehouse, now at Chicago Stevedor-
* United Productions of America, 111 NLRB 390 , 393; Atlas Storage Division, P & V
Atlas Industrial Center, Inc ., 112 NLRB 1175; American Publishing Corporation, at at.,
121 NLRB 115 (also see footnote 28 therein ) ; and The Evans Pipe Company, at at.,
121 NLRB 15 , and cases cited in footnote 16 therein.
5 See Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company, 110 NLRB 1963; 235 F. 2d 700.
This exclusion is referred to in the contracts as both "two board bosses" and "tow
board bosses."
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing Company, handled by Local 19 under agreement expiring
May 15, 1957.
Thereafter, the Respondent tendered contracts to all other employers
in the Association, each contract containing identical provisions in
accordance with the terms of the memorandum of agreement and
which were executed by the employers. Chicago Stevedoring has re-
peatedly requested an identical contract, but the Respondent has
refused to execute a contract with Chicago Stevedoring until certain
assurances are made by Chicago Stevedoring and/or Wacker Ware-
house with respect to work performed by the warehouse.
The Trial Examiner found that the paragraph numbered 15, above,
so far as Chicago Stevedoring was concerned, constituted an agree-
ment to bargain at a later date, and entirely removed Chicago Steve-
doring from the negotiations. We do not agree. The unequivocal
terms of paragraph 15 reserve only the issue of work jurisdiction to
be "negotiated," and the clear implication is that the Respondent and
Chicago Stevedoring, as a member of the employer group, had agreed
to all the terms established by the memorandum of agreement.
Until 1953, Wacker Warehouse was engaged solely in operating a
licensed, public warehouse recognizing the Miscellaneous Warehouse-
men's Union, Local 781, as the representative of its warehousing em-
ployees. In 1953, it took over an existing stevedoring operation which
had. been operated on its dock by a tenant.
In 1954, Wacker Warehouse negotiated a contract which it executed
and returned to the Respondent with a letter purporting to confirm
an understanding allegedly reached between Respondent and the
Warehousemen's Union, the bargaining representative of the ware-
house employees, to the effect that Respondent's "work jurisdiction" 7
was so modified that Wacker could continue its practice of using
members of the Warehousemen's Union, pursuant to its contract with
their union, to move merchandise after it had been warehoused. No
reply was made by the Respondent to the confirmation letter or to the
request that it execute the exception, as submitted by Wacker Ware-
house, in writing. However, its stevedoring employees continued to
work under those exceptions.
7 Article I.
The employer recognizes Local No. 19 as the sole , exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all its Employees, with the exception of all clerical, professional, guards,
housecheckers , supervisory employees ( Superintendents , foremen, strawbosses, tow
board bosses and gang leaders) who are engaged in all work affecting directly or
indirectly the following operations
(a) ...
(b) All work from the hold of vessel, through house to car, truck or tipper
floors, in warehouse , to its final resting place in said warehouse , or in removing
cargo from the warehouse , tip to, and into the hold of the vessel , *truck or car
or vice versa . * per letter attached
[No letter attached]
LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 67
During the negotiations of the 1955 contract, the Respondent re-
fused to put the exception to the contract in writing, but agreed to
permit Wacker Warehouse to continue to operate as it had been. Some-
time later in 1955, the Respondent struck V Tacker Warehouse to com-
pel the assignment of the excepted work to stevedores. Respondent
claimed the right to move marine freight out of the warehouse after
it had been warehoused. Wacker Warehouse's contract with the
Warehousemen covered all movements of freight after it had been
warehoused. In order to settle the strike, Wacker Warehouse was
forced to cease warehousing marine freight. Then, at the expiration
of its 1955 contract with the Respondent, Wacker Warehouse decided
to confine its operations exclusively to operating a licensed, bonded
warehouse and discontinue stevedoring operations.
Hearing of this decision, Marsh, an independent contractor who
performed sales work for Wacker Warehouse as Well as for many
other warehousing operations in the Chicago area, and Johnson, a
foreman of Wacker Warehouse's stevedoring operations, entered into
a contract with Wacker leasing a portion of the warehouse dock and
equipment to engage in the stevedoring business.
Thus, the controversy which caused Wacker Warehouse to discon-
tinue stevedoring operations was the "work jurisdiction issue" re-
ferred to in the May 17 memorandum of agreement between the
Association and the Respondent. As a condition of signing the con-
tract with Chicago Stevedoring, the Respondent insisted that assur-
ance be obtained from Wacker Warehouse that it would grant to
Chicago Stevedoring, or, at Wacker's option, to any other firm under
contract with the Respondent, the work of moving marine freight
out of the warehouse." If performed by Chicago Stevedoring this
8 The following letter was prepared by Friedman, counsel for Respondent, to be executed
by Wacker Warehouse and approved by Chicago Stevedoring, and returned to him, at
which time , he agreed , the Respondent would tender the contract to Chicago Stevedoring.
The letter was not signed by either Wacker Warehouse or Chicago Stevedoring.
OCTOBER 10, 1957.
LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF LONGSHOREMEN , AFL-CIO
Chicago, Illinois
GENTLEMEN : As we previously advised you, Wacker Warehouse, Inc. is presently
having all of its marine work handled by Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. We are aware
that your union and Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. have been discussing a contract for
several months without any agreement having been reached. For business reasons of
our own we are vitally interested in good contractual relations being established be-
tween your union and Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. of the earliest possible date.
Accordingly, after consulting with Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., we make the follow-
ing representation and commi-ttment to you, as an inducement to you to accept the
contract offer of Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc.
Wacker Warehouse Co., Inc. will continue in the future to contract exclusively with
Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., or, at its option with any other stevedoring contractor
which is under contract with your union for the handling of all marine work. This
of course includes all work coming within the terms of Article I of the Articles of
Agreement to be entered into between Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. and your union.
It is expressly understood that the foregoing includes all types and classes of work
presently being performed by your union at the premises occupied by Wacker Ware-
house Co., Inc. and/or Chicago Stevedoring Co. such as, for example, all movement
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work would have fallen within the coverage of the contract proposed
to Chicago Stevedoring by the Respondent.
The General Counsel contends that the insistence by the Respondent
that any contract with Chicago Stevedoring include the assurance that
the work jurisdiction provision in the contract will be interpreted to
include work which has heretofore been performed by another em-
ployer's employees is outside the scope of "mandatory bargaining"
and therefore a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Borg
TVarner.° In that case, the Supreme Court held that the refusal to
sign a contract unless it contained certain clauses dealing with matters
outside the category of subjects specified by the statute, i.e., "wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment," was a refusal to bargain
on the mandatory or statutory subjects. Insistence on such clauses
was held tantamount to a refusal to bargain on those subjects on
which the law requires bargaining because the statute requires the
execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached
on such mandatory subjects, if requested by either party. Clearly,
the scope of another employer's operation, or the terms and conditions
of employment of another employer's employees who are themselves
outside the bargaining unit, are not proper subjects for mandatory
bargaining.
The Respondent contends that the proposed work jurisdiction was
merely a demand that the Respondent's members continue to perform
the sought-after work. Implicit in this contention is the claim that
their members were, in fact, removing warehoused marine freight to
cars and trucks from its final resting place in Wacker Warehouse.
The record does not support the Respondent's claim. A strike had
been called by Respondent to compel Wacker Warehouse to use mem-
bers of the Respondent to perform work which, under its contract
with the Warehousemen's Union, was being performed by members
of the Warehousemen's Union. In order to settle the strike, Wacker
Warehouse agreed not to, and after the settlement did not, warehouse
of marine merchandise in, into, about and out of any of the foregoing premises, or
from the said premises to truck, rail car or marine transportation , regardless of
whether such merchandise is in the custody of Wacker Warehouse . Co., Inc. for
storage, warehouse , or other purposes , or in the custody of Chicago Stevedoring Co.,
Inc. (or any other stevedoring contractor as set forth-herein above).
We have advised Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. of the foregoing , and that Company
had affixed its signature hereto to indicate its express understanding that the work
hereinabove described is within the terms of Article I of the Articles of Agreement.
Very truly yours,
WACKER WAREHOUSE Co., INC.
By -----------------------------
Accepted : President
Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc.
By --------------------------
President
e While this letter seems to assume that the work of transfer of freight from the ware-
house was currently being performed by stevedores of Chicago Stevedoring , it is clear
from the record , as noted above , that no such work was being done by any employees.
N.L.R.B. v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U . S. 342.
LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 69.
any marine freight. The record shows that, after the strike, when
Chicago Stevedoring unloaded marine freight, it was moved from
the dock directly to the cars and trucks through the warehouse, with-
out coming to rest in the warehouse.
Thus the evidence clearly establishes that the respondent is and,
has been insisting as a condition precedent to the execution of any
contract with Chicago Stevedoring that it furnish a guarantee in the
form described above, by Wacker Warehouse of the Respondent'si
jurisdiction over work not heretofore performed by the employees of
Chicago Stevedoring nor, since the strike settlement, by the employees.
of Wacker Warehouse, to wit, the moving of marine freight into
trucks and cars after it has been warehoused by Wacker Warehouse..
Chicago Stevedoring has repeatedly told the Respondent that it was
impossible for it to give such a guarantee as requested by the
Respondent.
The fact that the consummation of bargaining with Chicago Steve-
doring was conditioned by Respondent upon the furnishing of a guar-
antee which could come only from Wacker, another employer, not
subject to the control of Chicago Stevedoring, is in itself sufficient
reason to find that the Respondent failed to discharge its statutory
bargaining obligations.
Moreover, even if we assume that Chicago Stevedoring might have
prevailed upon Wacker Warehouse to furnish such guarantee to the
Respondent, we would still find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(b) (3) of the Act by conditioning its contract with Chicago.
Stevedoring upon obtaining a commitment from Wacker regarding
future work assignments which would have impinged upon the terms
of the existing contract between Wacker and its employees. Such a_
commitment would necessarily have involved recognition of the Re-
spondent by Wacker for purposes of regulating the condition of work,
of its employees , even though the Respondent did not represent such
employees . Thus, compliance with Respondent's "work jurisdiction"'
demand would have required Wacker to engage in an unfair labor-
practice-recognition of a minority union.10
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent on May 17, 1957,.
and thereafter, refused to bargain with the Association in violation
of 8(b) (3) of the Act by refusing to execute a contract covering.
Chicago Stevedoring because of its insistence that such contract en--
compass the work jurisdiction guarantee described above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., is engaged in commerce withii
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
io See Texlite, Inc., 119 NLRB 1792.
535828-60-vol. 125-6
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Local 19, International Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All employees of the members of the Association (Maritime
Services, Ltd., Interstate Contracting Corp., Chicago Stevedoring
Co., Inc., Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Co., Lake Michigan Corpora-
tion, Seaway Stevedoring Co., Time, Inc., The Tribune Co., Chicago
Daily News, International Steamship Terminals, Great Lakes Steve-
doring Co.) who are engaged in all work affecting, directly or in-
directly, the following operations :
(a) all fitting up, rigging up, and assembling of all cargoes;
(b) all work from the hold of vessel, through house to railroad
.car, truck, or upper floors, in warehouse, to its final resting place in
said warehouse, or in removing cargo from the warehouse, up to, on
and into the hold of the vessel, truck, or car or vice versa; and
(c) all winches, conveyances, or conveyors pertaining to (a) and
(b) above;
,excluding all clerical or professional employees, house checkers,
guards, and supervisors (superintendent, foremen, strawbosses, two
(or tow) board bosses, and gang leaders) as defined in the Act, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Respondent is, and at all time material herein, has been
the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
.for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain for an appropriate unit, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice
;affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have refused to bargain with
the Association, in its failure to execute an agreement with Chicago
:Stevedoring Co., Inc., we shall order the Respondent to cease and de-
;-sist from engaging in such unlawful conduct, and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 19, Inter-
LOCAL 19, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF LONGSHOREMEN 71
national Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL-CIO, and its officers,
representatives, successors, assigns, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from insisting, as a condition precedent to exe-
cuting a collective-bargaining agreement including Chicago Stevedor-
ing Co., Inc., covering employees in the unit found appropriate in
paragraph numbered 3 of the Conclusions of La%v, that Wacker
Warehouse guarantee that any work of transferring freight from its
warehouse would fall within the jurisdiction of the Respondent, to the
exclusion of any employees of Warehouse.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request of Frederick W. Turner, Jr., spokesman for the
Association, or of Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., execute a contract
with Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., pursuant to the agreement of
May 17, 1957, identical to the contract executed by Respondent with
other members of the Association, effective from May 16, 1957, to
and including May 15, 1960.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Association on the
basis of the aforesaid appropriate unit and subject to the provisions
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
statement.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in its business office and meeting
halls copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 11
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained -by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to members of the
Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced,.
or covered by any other material.
(d) Additional copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be returned to the Regional
Director for posting at the premises of each of the employers found
herein to be members of the Association, if willing, for 60 consecutive
days, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Decision and Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
"In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF LONGSHOREMEN, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
AVE WILL, upon request, execute the contract agreed upon with
the employer Association, with Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., a
member of the Association, and no longer insist upon any un-
lawful condition precedent.
AVE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the Associa-
tion of employers engaged in stevedoring operations in the
Chicago area as the bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit described below, and, if an understanding is reached,,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All employees of the members of the Association,* including
the employees of Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc., who are engaged
in all work affecting, directly or indirectly, the following
operations:
(a) all fitting up, rigging up, and assembling of all cargoes;
(b) all work from the hold of vessel, through house to car,
truck, or upper floors, in warehouse, to its final resting place in
said warehouse, or in removing cargo from the warehouse, up to,.
on and into the hold of the vessel, truck or car or vice versa; and
(c) all winches, conveyances, or conveyors pertaining to (a) or
(b) above;
but excluding all clerical and professional employees, guards,
house checkers, and supervisors (superintendents, foremen, straw-
bosses, two (or tow) board bosses, and gang leaders) as defined
in the Act.
LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
LONGSHOREMEN , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated-------- -------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
"Maritime Services , Ltd. ; Interstate Contracting Corp. ; Chicago Stevedoring Co., Inc. ;
Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Co.; Lake Michigan Corporation ; Seaway Stevedoring Co.
Time , Inc. ; The Tribune Co.; Chicago Daily News ; Great Lakes Stevedoring Co.; and
International Steamship Terminals.