Local 19, Int'l Longshoremen's Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 89 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 19, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 89
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, you are hereby notified that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the Boilermakers Union as
the exclusive representative of our employees in a unit of our production and
maintenance employees, including truckdrivers and seasonal employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, technical employees, draftsmen, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Joseph Dovel, Junior Housden, and Charles Rinaca immediate,
full, and unconditional reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights, privileges, or work-
ing conditions.
WE WILL reimburse Joseph Dovel, Junior Housden, Charles Rinaca, Millard
Miller, Ernest Stanley, Lynwood Wyant, Keith Lucas, Lionel Shiffiett, and
Robert Dovel for any loss of wages they may have incurred by reason of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the Boilermakers Union, or any other labor organization of our
employees, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
or to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members of any union.
MAPHIS CHAPMAN CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Joseph Dovel , Junior Housden, and Charles Rinaca if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni-
versal 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, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Local 19 , International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO
and Marine Association of Chicago
Local 19, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO
and Calumet Harbor Service Co., Inc. Cases Nos. 13-CD-138
and 13-CD-139. February 16, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed on July 7, 1964,
by Marine Association of Chicago in Case No. 13-CD-138, and on
July 15, 1964, by Calumet Harbor Service Co., Inc., in Case No.
151 NLRB No. 13.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
13-CD-139, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D)
by Local 19, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
also referred to herein as Respondent. On August 4, 1964, the Acting
Regional Director for Region 13 issued a notice of hearing upon
the charge in Case No. 13-CD-139, and said hearing commenced in
Chicago, Illinois, on August 17, 1964, before Hearing Officer Hymen
Bear . Thereafter, on August 31, 1964, the Regional Director for
Region 13 consolidated Case No. 13-CD-138 with Case No. 13-CD-
139. A further consolidated hearing was held before the aforesaid
Hearing Officer on September 10 and 15, 1964, in Chicago, Illinois.
All parties participated in 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, Respond-
ent filed a brief which the National Labor Relations Board has duly
considered.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of he Hearing Officer made at
the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. Calumet Harbor Service Co., Inc.,' an Illinois corporation, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2
2. Local 19, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
and Local 777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ind., are
labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. Marine Association of Chicago, herein called Marine Associa-
tion, is an Illinois corporation consisting of approximately 13
stevedoring companies in the Chicago area, which engages in col-
lective bargaining with Local 19 on behalf of its employer-members.
I Calumet Harbor Service Co , Inc , herein called Calumet, is a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Midwest Triumph Distributors , The, herein called Midwest . Midwest is an
Illinois corporation which imports , distributes , and sells foreign automobiles Calumet
was organized in April 1964 to handle Midwest ' s transport and storage functions. At
all times material, Midwest has operated Calumet as the traffic arm of its overall opera-
tions, they use common equipment and have one group of employees , who are subject to
common supervision and are carried on a single payroll In the circumstances, and on
the record as a whole, we find that Calumet and Midwest have common ownership and
control over labor relations , and that they constitute a single employer within the mean-
ing of the Act . Accordingly , and in the interest of clarity , both firms will be jointly
referred to as the Importer.
2 The automobiles imported by Midwest are distributed by it to dealers located in 11 mid-
western States . In the representative period preceding the instant dispute, Midwest ' s gross
annual revenues exceeded $500,000. From the record it is apparent, and we find , that Mid-
west annually receives automobile shipments from sources outside the State of Illinois
valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, and as Midwest and Calumet are, for purposes of
the Act, a single employer , we find that Midwest and Calumet meet the Board 's jurisdic-
tional standards Alpha Corporation, Transportable Systems Division , 128 NLRB 309,
footnote 2
LOCAL 19, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 91
During the past calendar year, member companies rendered services
exceeding $500,000 to employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that employer-members
of the association are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
4. The dispute.
A. The work involved; contentions of the parties
The dispute involves the movement of imported automobiles
within the Lake Calumet port area of Chicago,3 and stems from
the Importer's change from delivering cars to a lot located about
a mile outside the port area to delivery to a newly leased lot within
the port area. Specifically, it concerns whether employees of the
Importer, who are represented by Local 777 and are now doing
the work, or longshoremen, who are represented by Respondent
Local 19, employed by North Pier Terminal Company4 and Inter-
national Operating Company5 (both of which bargain with Local
19 through Marine Association) are entitled to drive the Importer's
automobiles from the marine terminal premises to the Importer's
lot located within the Calumet port area.
Before April 1964, the procedure for removal of the automobiles
from the ships and delivery to Midwest was as follows : The vessels
were discharged and the cars unloaded to the apron alongside the
ships by longshoremen represented by Local 19 and employed by the
stevedore companies. The cars were then pushed by longshoremen
from the apron through a shed leased by the terminal operators to
a concourse (or temporary parking area) immediately outside the
shed, where they were cleared by Federal import officers and then
picked up by employees of the Importer represented by Local 777.
The Importer's employees inspected the cars for damage and missing
parts, serviced the cars to make them operative, and drove them
to the Importer's storage facility located about a mile outside the
port area. Local 19, under this procedure, had no objection to the
Importer's employees taking possession of the cars on the concourse
and driving them outside the Calumet port area.
In April 1964,6 the Importer leased the 71/2- acre lot in the Calumet
area , which was located about 500 feet from the shed and concourse
3 The Lake Calumet port area is operated by the Chicago Regional Port Authority
which leases facilities within that area to various firms engaged in the transport of
marine freight and related activities . It covers about 2,200 acres , of which only a small
part is involved in this proceeding.
' Herein called North Pier.
Herein called International.
6 Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to 1964
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of North Pier, and about 1,700 and 3,000 feet, respectively, from
the two sheds operated by International. Use of the new lot did
not change the established procedure for unloading the ships and
transporting the cars to the concourse. However, the Importer's
employees, after receiving, inspecting, and servicing the cars, drove
them to the newly leased lot within the port area instead of to the
outside facility. The longshoremen, while having no objection to the
use of the Importer's employees for inspection and servicing the
cars, claim the work of driving the cars to the Importer's lot located
within the confines of the Calumet area.
In this proceeding, Local 19 denies that its demands for the
disputed work evidenced an objective proscribed by Section 8(b)
(4) (D) and disclaims using proscribed pressures to enforce them.
It asks, accordingly, that the notice of hearing be quashed. How-
ever, if a jurisdictional dispute cognizable under Section 10(k) is
found to exist, Local 19 asks the Board to award the disputed
work to longshoremen represented by it.
B. The alleged unlawful conduct
Following the Importer's acquisition of the Calumet lot, Wilkes,
the Importer's traffic manager, received a warning from North
Pier that Local 19 would request that longshoremen be used in
driving the cars from North Pier's concourse to the lot. He then
telephoned Green, president of Local 19, and was informed by
Green that Local 19 had a contract with North Pier giving long-
shoremen the right to drive the cars to the "final resting place,"
which in this case was the Importer's lot.
On June 30, a meeting was held between representatives of North
Pier and Local 19 concerning the latter's demands for the disputed
work. When Local 19 officials were asked what would happen if
longshoremen were not assigned the work, they replied, "You will
have to wait and see."
Subsequently, on July 2, a shipment of cars arrived at North
Pier's dock facilities. Some of the cars were consigned to the
Importer, and others to the British Motor Car Company, another
distributor of foreign cars. Although normal unloading operations
began on July 2, Local 19 renewed its claim for the work at a meet-
ing that evening, which was attended by representatives of the
Importer, North Pier, the Chicago Regional Port Authority, Local
19, and Local 777. Because both Local 19 and Local 777 insisted
upon their right to the driving, the meeting failed to produce
a settlement. The next day, July 3, Wilkes honored North Pier's
LOCAL 19, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 93
request, based on the latter's fear of a work stoppage, not to send
his employees to pick up the cars. As a result the cars remained
in North Pier's shed over the weekend.
The following Monday, July 6, when the Importer's employees
arrived at the North Pier concourse to take delivery of the cars,
longshoremen who had been removing the cars from the shed to the
concourse refused to continue. However, the cars consigned to the
British Motor Car Company were handled by the longshoremen.
When Superintendent Rodriguez of North Pier asked Local 19's
steward, Stanford, to remove the Importer's cars to the concourse,
Stanford replied, "The men aren't moving the cars." North Pier
then placed an order for a gang of longshoremen to report for a
1 p.m. start. On reporting for work the men were informed by
Local 19 Steward Gates that "there was no shape up . . . and the
men were not to go to work . . . if they did report for work that
their cards would be pulled."
The cars remained in shed 1 until July 7, when North Pier
informed Wilkes that if the Importer's employees were used to
take the cars outside the port area, the longshoremen would transfer
the cars for delivery at North Pier's concourse. Wilkes agreed
and the cars were removed from the shed by longshoremen and
driven outside the port area by the Importer's employees.
Another shipment of cars consigned to the Importer arrived at
North Pier's dock on July 28. Before its arrival, Manager Bechtold
of North Pier suggested that there would be less difficulty for all
concerned if the Importer agreed to assign longshoremen to drive
the cars to the compound. Wilkes agreed, and the cars were
unloaded by the longshoremen, inspected and serviced by employees
of the Importer, and then driven to the compound by longshoremen.
Wilkes testified he agreed because he felt this the best solution
pending NLRB resolution of the dispute.
On or about August 22 the Salambria docked at International's
pier with a third shipment of automobiles consigned to the Importer.
On August 24 the vice president of Local 19, Bowers, demanded
that International assign the driving operations to longshoremen.
When this demand was rejected by International's manager (Captain
Garner), Bowers telephoned Green of Local 19, and within an
hour the longshoremen stopped unloading the Salambria. There-
after, International rerigged the hatch so that cargo other than
the Importer's automobiles could be reached, and the longshoremen
began discharging that cargo. Garner then contacted the attorney
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Marine Association. The next day the longshoremen
unloaded the Importer's cars without incident.
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of a dispute
pursuant 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.
In this connection, the record discloses that Respondent's demands
upon North Pier and International were designed to force assign-
ment of the work previously performed by employees of the
Importer to longshoremen represented by Local 19. Additionally,
Respondent Local 19's responsibility for the longshoremen's refusal
to handle the Importer's automobiles is evidenced by the conduct
of its shop stewards at North Pier on July 6 and may be inferred
from the close proximity between the work stoppages and Local
19's demands for the disputed work. Accordingly, we are satisfied
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent engaged
in unlawful "inducement" and "coercion," as alleged in the charges,
with an object of forcing assignment of the specific work of driving
imported automobiles from the Importer's employees represented by
Local 777 to longshoremen represented by it and employed by North
Pier and International.
Having so found, we reject Local 19's contentions that because
the record does not show that Local 19 claimed to represent
employees of the Importer, or demanded that the Importer hire
longshoremen to perform the disputed work, the dispute is out-
side the scope of Section 8(b) (4) (D). According to settled Board
policy, a dispute cognizable under Section 8 (b) (4) (D) may exist
even though no demand has been addressed to the employer whose
employees are performing the disputed work. Thus, the Board
has held that Section 8(b) (4) (D) applies to an indirect attempt
to force the assignment of particular work from employees of one
employer (the Importer) to employees of another (North Pier
or International) .7
We similarly reject Local 19's contention that, as the disputed
work falls within the jurisdictional clause of its contract with the
Marine Association, its conduct was merely in quest of its con-
tractual right to the work, and not for an objective proscribed
by Section 8 (b) (4) (D). Having sought assignment of the disputed
work from one group of employees to another, the fact that Respond-
7 Local Union No. s, international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
( Western Electric Company incorporated ), 141 NLRB 888, 894 (footnote 6).
LOCAL 19, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 95
ent rests its claim upon its agreement with the Marine Association
does not 8 detract from the jurisdictional nature of the dispute.9
We conclude, accordingly, that the dispute over the driving of
the Importer's cars is properly before us for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. The merits of the dispute
As has been indicated, the work in dispute is limited to the
driving of automobiles within the Calumet port area, with Local
19 not contesting the Importer's right to use its own employees
to inspect, service, or drive the cars to locations outside the port
area. Thus, the dispute centers upon matters of geography rather
than the skills of the employees in the competing groups. Local
19 rests its claim upon the jurisdictional clause of its contract
with the Marine Association, the Board's order in Chicago Stevedor-
ing Co.," and custom and practice within the Chicago port area.
Local 19's contractual claim is based upon the following provision
of its current agreement :
The Employer recognizes Local No. 19 . .. as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of all its employees, .. .
who are engaged in all work affecting, directly or indirectly,
the following operations :
2. All work from the hold of the 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 outside the
warehouse, in and around the yard and dock.
8 Cf. Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO ( The Austin Com-
pany ), 119 NLRB 135, 137; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No. 52 ( Associated Engineers Inc. and Mechanical Contractors Association of
New Jersey), 120 NLRB 1611, 1613; and Local 373, United Association of Journeymen,
etc (Carleton Brothers Company ), 137 NLRB 628, 632, where , unlike the instant case,
contractual disputes did not involve "assignment of particular work to certain employees
rather than others." See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
292, AFL-CIO (Franklin Broadcasting Company ), 126 NLRB 1212, National Associa-
tion of Broadcast Employees , etc. (Gordon Broadcasting of San Diego , Inc ), 127 NLRB
1070; and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers , Local 331 ( Bulletin Company ), 139 NLRB
1391, where the use of economic pressure was held outside Section 8 (b) (4) (D) where
invoked solely to protest management decisions eliminating jobs and/or resulting in
discharges.
8International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union etc . ( American Mail Line,
Ltd.), 144 NLRB 1432 , 1439; Local 499, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO ( Iowa Power and Light Company ), 144 NLRB 870, 873; and Local 110,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association , etc. (Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation ), 143 NLRB 947, 951.
10 125 NLRB 61.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is argued that, by virtue of this provision, longshoremen are
entitled to the work of moving all marine cargo to its final resting
place within the port area. We note, however, that the clause is
operative with respect to employees of signatory employers only,
whereas the work in dispute herein was, at all material times,
performed by employees of an employer not a party to the agree-
ment. Additionally, the clause does not, in unmistakable terms,
make the "final resting place" language operative beyond premises
of signatory employers. Such being the case, we cannot find that
Local 19's claim for the work has clear and unambiguous support
in the contract.11
Nor do the Board's order in Chicago Stevedoring or the evidence
of custom and practice adduced at the hearing establish the superi-
ority of Local 19's claim for the disputed work over employees
of the Importer who are now performing it. Although in Chicago
Stevedoring the appropriate unit 12 was defined as including employ-
ees engaged, inter alia, in the movement of cargo to its "final resting
place" in the warehouse, nothing in that decision carries an implica-
tion that unit employees were entitled to such work when performed
by a company not signatory to Local 19's contract. The evidence
of practice is also inconclusive. While it shows that longshoremen
at other locations in the Chicago area have, on occasion, driven
or pushed imported automobiles significant distances to storage
lots within said locations, it is clear that this has not prevailed in
the Calumet port area. And even where longshoremen have done
such work it is not established that the storage lots were under
control of persons other than the terminal operators or steve-
dore contractors, as would be necessary to support Local 19's
claim herein. Indeed, we find significance in the fact that, within
the Calumet port area, it has been customary for employees not
represented by any longshoremen's local to transport cargo from
North Pier's concourse to a warehouse located directly across
the street. Furthermore, the various employers involved have
always considered the concourse adjacent to the marine warehouse
as the point of delivery to automobile importers.
Finally, the dispute does not involve work characteristic of that
traditionally performed by longshoremen. On the contrary, it does
not appear that longshoremen possess the full gamut of skills
utilized by the Importer's employees in handling the cars follow-
ing their delivery to the marine terminal concourse. Indeed, the
11 Cf. Local 585 of the Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO ( Bishopric Products Company ), 140 NLRB 1304, 1311 ; Local 853, In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, et al. (Schiavone & Sons, Inc.,
et al. ), 136 NLRB 993, 998.
12 No certification of representatives was involved , the unit finding being made as an
incident to an 8(b ) ( 3) allegation.
LOCAL 19, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 97
longshoremen do not claim all the work tasks involved. Not having
performed the work in the past, and advancing no claim to it
if the cars are removed to locations outside the port area, it is
apparent that Local 19's claim may not be sustained on either
historical or economic grounds.
All of these circumstances, as well as the fact that the disputed
work is integrated with a sequence of operations most efficiently
discharged when performed by the same group of employees,
support the continued assignment of the disputed work to the
Importer's employees. Accordingly, and on the basis of the entire
record, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional controversy
by awarding to the employees of the Importer who are represented
by Local 777, rather than to the longshoremen represented by
Local 19, the work of driving the Importer's automobiles from
the concourse of the marine terminals to the Importer's lot within
the Calumet port area. The present determination is limited to
the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
We find, therefore, that Local 19 is not and has not been entitled,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the
Act, to force or require the assignment of the disputed work
to its members or to longshoremen it represents, rather than to
employees of the Importer, who are represented by Local 777.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
1. Employees employed by the Calumet Harbor Service Co., Inc.,
and Midwest Triumph Distributors, Inc., and represented by Local
777, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ind., are entitled to
perform the work in dispute. As a consequence, Local 19, Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, is not entitled to
force or require the aforesaid companies, including North Pier
Terminal Company and International Operating Company, to assign
the disputed work to its members or to longshoremen it represents,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion, Local 19 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 13,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the
Act, the assignment of the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.
783-133-66-vol. 151-8
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the dispute in
this case is one cognizable under Sections 10(k) and 8(b) (4) (D).
It is the position of the majority that a jurisdictional dispute
exists in this case solely on the ground that the Respondent has
sought "assignment of the disputed work from one group of employ-
ees to another." If this is all that is needed to evoke the Board's
arbitrational power, it would seem equally logical to determine
a work dispute where the employer is alleged to have assigned
work to employees on the basis of racial considerations, member-
ship in a favored union, or even seniority. In my view, Sections
10(k) and 8(b) (4) (D) do not present so easy a formula for the
effectuation of those provisions of the Act when considered with
other, equally important, statutory objectives. Here the Respond-
ent does not claim that the work of driving the Importer's cars
from the marine terminal premises to the Importer's lot located
within the Calumet port area is work that longshoremen are better
entitled to perform by virtue of skill, history, tradition, practice,
or custom in the industry. Indeed, the Respondent has no objection
if other employees drive these cars away from the terminal provided
the cars are driven outside the Calumet port area. Respondent
bases its claim to this work solely on the ground that its contract
with North Pier Terminal Company gives it the right to remove
all cargo from the hold of the ship to "its final resting place"
within the dock area. Essentially, this dispute is one of contract
interpretation. If Respondent were persuaded that it had no con-
tractual right to perform this work, the dispute would be resolved.
I cannot agree that the extraordinary provisions of Sections 10 (k)
and 8(b) (4) (D) were enacted by Congress merely to resolve dis-
putes over the interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements.
In my opinion, the means used by the Respondent to achieve its
objectives and the legality of those objectives should be determined
by other applicable provisions of the statute. Accordingly, I would
quash this notice of hearing.
Dunrail Construction Co., Inc., and Crossway Motor Hotels, Inc.
and Hotel , Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local
178, Hotel & Restaurant Employees ' & Bartenders Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-10025. February 17,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 9, 1964, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued
his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
151 NLRB No. 15.