Longshoremen ILA Local 1242 (Holt Hauling)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1994

315 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1252
315 NLRB No. 161
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 1242, International Longshoremen’s Associa-
tion, AFL–CIO; Local 1242-1 International
Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–CIO; Local
1291 International Longshoremen’s Associa-
tion, AFL–CIO; Local 1566, International
Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–CIO; Local
1332, International Longshoremen’s Associa-
tion, AFL–CIO; Local 1332-A, International
Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–CIO and
Holt Hauling and Warehousing System, Inc.
and Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc. and
Teamsters Local 676. Cases 4-CD-873 and 4-
CD-874
December 30, 1994
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, COHEN, AND
TRUESDALE
The charges in this Section 10(k) proceeding were
filed on August 27, 1993, and August 31, 1993, by
Holt Hauling and Warehousing System, Inc. (Holt) and
Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc. (the Employer or
Trans Ocean), respectively, alleging that the Respond-
ent, Locals 1242, 1242-1, 1291, 1566, 1332, and 1332-
A, International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA),
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an
object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work
to employees it represents rather than to employees
represented by Teamsters Local 676. The hearing was
held on November 15, 1993, before Hearing Officer
Henry R. Protas.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire
record, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Holt Hauling and Warehousing System, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation with a place of business in
Gloucester, New Jersey, is engaged in the business of
owning and leasing property and owns the Gloucester
Marine Terminal. During the 12 months preceding the
hearing, Holt performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 for customers located outside the State of
New Jersey and has purchased and received materials
and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from outside
the State of New Jersey. Trans Ocean Maritime Serv-
ices, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a place of busi-
ness in Gloucester, New Jersey, is engaged in
warehousing and stevedoring. During the 12 months
preceding the hearing, Trans Ocean has performed
services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers lo-
cated outside the State of New Jersey. We find that
Holt and Trans Ocean are employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act and that ILA and Teamsters Local 676 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer has a collective-bargaining agreement
with Teamsters Local 676 covering dock work at Pier
7 and 7A of the Gloucester Marine Terminal. From
1967 to July 1992, members of ILA locals had per-
formed the disputed work at those piers, most recently
for Holt Cargo Systems (HCS), which stopped operat-
ing the piers in July 1992. In July 1993, Holt leased
the piers to the Employer.
On August 26 and October 24, 1993, the ILA locals
picketed the piers. Members of Teamsters Local 676
have continued to perform the disputed dock work.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work is the loading and unloading of
ships; moving and handling of cargo on the pier; me-
chanical and maintenance work; clerking and checking
of cargo coming on and off ships or moved on the
pier; cargo repairs; lashing; carpentry and timekeeping
work at Piers 7 and 7A at the Gloucester Marine Ter-
minal in Gloucester, New Jersey.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer claims that the work in dispute is
covered by its current collective-bargaining agreement
with Teamsters, and that it is therefore contractually
obligated to assign the dock work to employees rep-
resented by the Teamsters.
The ILA locals contend that they have a valid work
preservation dispute with Holt and HCS, and that Holt,
rather than either the ILA locals or the Teamsters, cre-
ated the dispute. They further contend that the picket-
ing directed at the Employer is lawful area-standards
picketing.
D. Applicability of the Statute
At various times between October 1992 and June
1993, representatives of the ILA locals met with rep-
resentatives of HCS and, during these meetings, ob-
jected to the leasing of Piers 7 and 7A to any entity
that did not employ employees represented by the ILA
locals. Specifically, at a June 9, 1993 meeting, ILA
Local 1566 President James Paylor stated that, if the
piers were leased to a nonsignatory employer, there
would be a lot of trouble, and the entire port would
be shut down. At a later meeting on August 17, 1993,
ILA local representatives were told by HCS that the
1253LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 1242 (HOLT HAULING)
1 In support of its work-preservation defense, the ILA locals argue
that Holt is an alter ego of HCS and is therefore bound by a provi-
sion of HCS’s collective-bargaining agreement with the ILA locals
prohibiting the ‘‘leasing, subleasing or any other conduct which re-
sults in the loss of traditional ILA jurisdiction over [work at Piers
7 and 7A].’’ There is no evidence in the record to support a finding
that the companies are alter egos.
lessee of the piers was the Employer. In response, the
ILA representatives stated that they ‘‘weren’t going to
allow Teamsters over there,’’ and that there would be
‘‘a lot of trouble,’’ and that the port would be shut
down. The ILA locals picketed Piers 7 and 7A on Au-
gust 26 and October 24, 1993. The parties stipulated
that there is no voluntary method of resolving the ju-
risdictional dispute that would be binding on all par-
ties.
The ILA locals contend that this is not a jurisdic-
tional dispute, but rather a separate and distinct con-
tract action that involves only it and HCS. We reject
this contention. The ILA locals rely on Teamsters
Local 578 (USCP-Wesco), 280 NLRB 818 (1986),
affd. 827 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1987), where the real dis-
pute was between the employer who subcontracted the
work and the union representing its employees over the
interpretation of a work preservation provision in its
collective-bargaining agreement. The Union did not
claim the work if the employer was contractually enti-
tled to subcontract it. Here, however, two unions have
collective-bargaining agreements with two employers,
and each union asserts that its contract covers the same
work. We conclude that there are competing claims to
disputed work by rival groups of employees.1
The ILA locals have at all times claimed the work
in dispute. As described above, the ILA locals repeat-
edly threatened ‘‘trouble’’ and closing of the pier if
Piers 7 and 7A were leased to any entity that did not
employ employees represented by the ILA locals and,
shortly thereafter, on August 26 and October 24, 1993,
picketed Piers 7 and 7A. Even assuming that an object
of the ILA locals’ picketing was the payment of area-
standards wages and benefits, we find reasonable cause
to believe that another object was the reassignment of
the disputed work to employees they represent. See
Electrical Workers IBEW Local 701 (Federal Street
Construction), 306 NLRB 829, 831 (1992).
We find reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists
no agreed method for voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly be-
fore the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm-
ative award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense
and experience, reached by balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743
(J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer and Teamsters Local 676 are parties
to a collective-bargaining agreement effective by its
terms June 17, 1993, to June 16, 1998. The Employer
does not have a collective-bargaining relationship with
the ILA locals. We find that this factor favors assign-
ing the work in dispute to employees represented by
Teamsters Local 676.
2. Employer preference and past practice
The Employer, in accordance with its preference, as-
signed the work in dispute to employees represented
by Teamsters Local 676. There is no evidence to indi-
cate that the Employer has in the past assigned the dis-
puted work to employees represented by the ILA
locals. We find that this factor favors awarding the
work in dispute to employees represented by Team-
sters Local 676.
3. Area practice
Since July 1993, employees represented by Team-
sters Local 676 have performed stevedoring and
warehousing work at Piers 7 and 7A of the Gloucester
Marine Terminal. From 1967 to July 1993, employees
represented by the ILA locals had performed that work
at these piers. The practice elsewhere in the Port of
Philadelphia is mixed. We find that this factor does not
favor awarding the work in dispute to either group of
employees.
4. Relative skills
The evidence shows that employees represented by
both Unions possess the requisite skills and training to
perform the work in dispute. This factor does not favor
awarding the work in dispute to either group of em-
ployees.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer’s general manager Jeffery Gillespie
testified that the Employer employs a regular crew of
16 employees represented by the Teamsters, who may
be moved freely within job classifications at manage-
ment discretion, which the Employer believes is eco-
nomical and efficient. The ILA locals’ contractual
manning requirements do not permit free movement
among the various crafts within the unit. This factor
favors awarding the work to employees represented by
the Teamsters.
1254 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. Certifications
Neither Teamsters Local 676 nor the ILA have been
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Employer’s employees. This factor
does not favor awarding the work in dispute to either
group of employees.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees of Trans Ocean Maritime Serv-
ices, Inc., represented by Teamsters Local 676, are en-
titled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the Employer’s collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Teamsters Local 676, the Em-
ployer’s preference, and economy and efficiency of op-
erations. In making this determination, we are award-
ing the work to employees represented by Teamsters
Local 676, not to that Union or its members. The de-
termination is limited to the controversy that gave rise
to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Trans Ocean Maritime Services,
Inc., represented by Teamsters Local 676 are entitled
to perform the loading and unloading of ships; moving
and handling of cargo on the pier, mechanical and
maintenance work; clerking and checking of cargo
going on and off ships or moved on the pier; cargo re-
pairs; lashing; carpentry and timekeeping work at Piers
7 and 7A at the Gloucester Marine Terminal in
Gloucester, New Jersey.
2. Locals 1242, 1242-1, 1291, 1566, 1332 and 1332-
A, International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–
CIO are not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Trans Ocean Maritime
Services, Inc. to assign the disputed work to employees
they represent.
3. Within 10 days from this date, Locals 1242,
1242–1, 1291, 1566, 1332, and 1332–A International
Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–CIO shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 4 in writing whether
they will refrain from forcing the Employer, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the dis-
puted work in a manner inconsistent with this deter-
mination.