Longshoremen Ilwu Local 7 (Georgia Pacific)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 89 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC)
Local Union No 7, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union and Bellingham Di
vision , Georgia Pacific Corporation and Belling
ham Stevedoring Co and Local Union No 194,
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work
ers Case 19-CD-415
September 30 1988
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On December 14 1984 the National Labor Rela
tions Board issued a Decision and Order' in the
above entitled proceeding in which it concluded
that Local Union No 7 International Longshore
men s and Warehousemen s Union (ILWU or the
Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the
Act by filing in lieu of grievances against Belling
ham Stevedoring Co (Bellingham) both before and
after the Board s 10(k) determination2 awarding the
disputed work to employees of Bellingham Divi
sion Georgia Pacific Corporation (the Employer)
who were represented by Local Union No 194
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers
(AWPPW) The Board ordered the Respondent to
cease and desist from filing such grievances and to
take certain affirmative action to remedy its unlaw
ful conduct
The Respondent then petitioned for review of
the Boards Decision and Order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the Board filed a cross application for enforcement
of its Order Subsequently, the Board filed with the
court a motion to remand the case to the Board for
further consideration On March 11 1986, the
court granted the Board s motion
The Board thereafter invited the parties to file
statements of position The General Counsel the
Employer and the Respondent filed statements of
position
The Board sua sponte has reconsidered its ongi
nal Decision and Order to the extent set forth
below Our principal focus on reconsideration con
cerns the Board s earlier finding that the Respond
ent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by
filing grievances seeking in lieu of pay before the
Board made its 10(k) determination in this case 3
1 273 NLRB 363
2 267 NLRB 26 (1983)
2 The Board has also reconsidered the earlier finding that the Respond
ent violated Sec 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by failing and refusing to
comply with the Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute
273 NLRB at 367 In Longshormen ILWU Local 6 (Golden Grain) 289
NLRB I fn 3 ( 1988) the Board unanimously held that a refusal to
promise compliance with the 10(k) determination does not serve as
an independent basis for finding an 8(b)(4)(D) violation Rather such
89
On reconsideration we cannot agree with the
Board s earlier finding that it was unlawful for the
Respondent to file arguably meritorious work as
signment grievances prior to the issuance of the
Board s 10(k) determination We adhere to Board
precedent holding generally that the mere filing of
such grievances does not constitute coerc[ion]
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(D) See
e g Brockton Newspaper Guild (Enterprise Publish
ing) 275 NLRB 135 136-137 (1985) Sheet Metal
Workers Local 49 (Los Alamos Constructors), 206
NLRB 473 476-477 (1973) Our approach is in
harmony with the basic policies of the Act and is
supported by decisions of the Supreme Court We
first set forth the facts the contentions of the par
ties and then our discussion of the legal principles
and policies involved
Facts
The Employer receives bulk shipments of salt
about 14 times each year at its dock facilities in
Bellingham Washington During unloading oper
ations before September 1981 cranes located in the
hold of the ship were used to scoop the salt out
and into a hopper on the dock from where the salt
was transported on a series of conveyor belts to a
salt pad At the salt pad a shuttle conveyor was
used to distribute the salt evenly over the pad
ILWU members employed by Bellingham Steve
donng operated the cranes while the Employer s
AWPPW represented employees operated the con
veyor belts including the shuttle conveyor
Around September 1981 the Employer decided
to cease using the shuttle conveyor and instead to
use bulldozers on top of the salt pad during unload
ings After a meeting between the Employer and
AWPPW officials the Employer agreed to use its
AWPPW represented employees to operate the
bulldozers During the first unloading in September
1981 the Respondent protested to Bellingham that
under the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Docu
ment (PCLCD) to which Bellingham was a party
by virtue of being a member of the Pacific Man
time Association (PMA) ILWU members should
have been ordered from the dispatch hall to oper
ate the bulldozers used on top of the salt pad
Barry Frost the Respondents vice president and a
member of its labor relations committee admitted
in his testimony that when this matter was dis
cussed Bellingham contended that the collective
bargaining agreement was inapplicable to the situa
noncompliance serves as a triggering event for the issuance of a corn
plaint In light of Golden Grain the Board has decided to reverse the
finding that the Respondents failure and refusal to comply with the 10(k)
determination independently violated Sec 8(b)(4)(iiXD ) The Order and
notice previously issued in this proceeding will be modified accordingly
291 NLRB No 13
90 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion because Bellingham had no control over the
salt after it went into the hopper The Respondent
then filed a grievance under the PCLCD seeking
in lieu of pay as compensation for not getting the
assignment of work During all subsequent unload
ings at the dock AWPPW represented employees
continued to operate the bulldozers on top of the
salt pad and the Respondent continued to file
grievances for in lieu of pay At some point Bel
lingham approached the Employer about acting as
a contractor for the work on top of the salt pad
but the Employer rejected the request Meanwhile
the Respondents grievances proceeded through the
various steps of the PCLCD grievance procedure
until they were submitted for arbitration in late
1982 When AWPPW learned that these grievances
had been referred to an arbitrator it advised the
Employer by letter dated December 6 1982 that it
would take whatever action it determines is neces
sary-up to and including work stoppage-to
assure that [the bulldozer operator] jobs remain
covered by the AWPPW and its Local Union as
they have in the past
On December 16 1982 the Employer filed a
charge alleging that both ILWU and AWPPW vio
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act On August 8
1983 following a 10(k) hearing the Board issued
its Decision and Determination of Dispute in
which it found reasonable cause to believe that
both AWPPW and ILWU violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) Regarding the Respondent the Board
based its finding of reasonable cause on the Re
spondent s filing of grievances against Bellingham
Relying on evidence that Bellingham had no con
trot over the work in dispute and that employees
represented by the Respondent never had per
formed such work the Board rejected the Re
spondent s work preservation defense and found
reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent s
grievances had an object of applying indirect pres
sure on the Employer to assign the disputed work
to ILWU represented employees Additionally the
Board found reasonable cause to believe that
AWPPW also violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) based on
that Union s strike threat On the merits the Board
concluded that the Employers AWPPW represent
ed employees were entitled to perform the work in
dispute based on, inter alia the Employers prac
tice preference and assignment , relative skills and
training and efficiency and economy of operations
Subsequent to the 10(k) hearing but before the
issuance of the Board s Decision and Determina
tion of Dispute an arbitrators decision issued fa
vorable to the Respondents position under the
PCLCD That decision indicated that on February
10 1983 after a hearing in which the Respondent
and PMA participated Arbitrator Forrester decid
ed that the dispute regarding the Respondents in
lieu of claims turned on the determination of con
trot of cargo While noting PMA s position that
Bellingham s control of the cargo ends when the
cargo is dumped into the hopper on the dock the
arbitrator nevertheless found that the salt discharge
operation is a continuous movement of cargo from
the ship to the place of rest on the salt pad He
therefore concluded that the work opportunity in
contention is longshore work but further held
that time in lieu was not payable for the Re
spondent s claims made before the issuance of his
decision Following the arbitration decision Bel
lingham and the PMA honored the Respondent s
new claims for in lieu of pay but only until the is
suance of the Board s 10(k) award
After the issuance of the Board s 10(k) decision
the Respondent failed to notify the Regional Direc
tor for Region 19 that it would comply with the
Board s decision and continued to file time in lieu
grievances against Bellingham Based on this con
duct in derogation of the Board s 10(k) award the
Region issued an 8(b)(4)(D) complaint against the
Respondent On December 14 1984 the Board
issued its Decision and Order finding that the Re
spondent had no valid work preservation object
and that the Respondents grievances were calcu
lated to induce Bellingham to pressure the Employ
er into reassigning the disputed work to ILWU
represented employees The Board also held that
the arbitrators decision was not controlling be
cause neither the Employer nor AWPPW was a
party to that proceeding and because the arbitra
tion decision was superseded by the superior au
thority of the Board s subsequent 10(k) award
under Carey v Westinghouse Corp 375 US 261
(1964) Thus on the facts in this case the Board
concluded that the Respondents filing of in lieu of
grievances both before and after the 10(k) award
amounted to an economic device employed by
the Respondent against Bellingham to force the
Employer to assign the disputed work to ILWU
members and as such constituted proscribed eco
nomic coercion within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(D) Finally, the Board rejected the Re
spondent s affirmative defense that Bill Johnson s
Restaurants v NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) com
pelted a stay of the 8(b)(4)(D) proceedings The
Board relied on its reasoning in Longshoremen
IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser Co) 271 NLRB 759
(1984) 4 that as any Section 301 suit brought to en
4 Enfd 773 F 2d 1012 (9th Cir 1985) cert denied 476 US 1158
(1986)
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC) 91
force the arbitration award would be contrary to
the Board s 10(k) award and would seek to achieve
a prohibited objective the suit would lack a rea
,,onable basis in fact and law
The Parties Positions on Remand
The General Counsel agrees with the Board s
earlier finding that the grievances filed by the Re
spondent after the Board s 10(k) award issued vio
lated the Act Regarding the Respondents filing of
grievances before the 10(k) award however the
General Counsel now believes that the better view
is that the in lieu of claims did not constitute pro
scribed coercion The General Counsel initially
argued that there was an apparent conflict between
the Board s finding that such conduct constitutes a
violation and its prior decisions in Retail Clerks
Local 770 (Hughes Markets) 218 NLRB 680 683
(1975) and Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (Los
Alamos Constructors) 206 NLRB 473 476-477
(1973) She then points out that in Carey v Westing
house above the Supreme Court held that before
the Board makes its 10(k) determination an ag
grieved union in a jurisdictional dispute is free to
pursue its contractual remedies through arbitration
While recognizing that Carey can be distinguished
here on the ground that the Respondents griev
ance was filed against an employer that had no
control over the disputed work the General Coun
sel contends that the distinction is not meaningful
because the national policy of encouraging the ar
bitration of labor disputes is implicated in either sit
uation She notes that it is possible the arbitrator
might find the grieving union is not entitled to per
form the work in dispute Furthermore even if the
arbitrator finds in favor of that union, the General
Counsel points out that there is no reason to be
lieve in advance that the arbitrators decision will
be inconsistent with any subsequent Board 10(k)
determination She notes that although the employ
er s assignment of the work would be entitled to
great weight in the latter proceeding this is just
one factor that the Board is required to take into
account in deciding the jurisdictional dispute
The General Counsel further contends that the
Respondent in this case was seeking through arbi
tration only in lieu of payments and not the work
itself The General Counsel therefore argues citing
W R Grace & Co v Rubber Workers Local 579
461 U S 757 (1983) that it would not offend the
policies of the Act to permit the Respondent to
seek damages for breach of contract at least until
the Board has decided the 10(k) case The General
Counsel finds inapposite here cases such as Associ
ated General Contractors of California v NLRB 514
F 2d 433 438-439 (9th Cir 1975), and Carrier Air
Conditioning Co v NLRB 547 F 2d 1178 1191-
1193 (2d Cir 1976) which hold that a contract
provision providing for the assessment of a mone
tary penalty against an employer for failing to pro
vide its employees with work they had not tradi
tionally performed or which that employer did not
control constitutes coercion proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(u) She emphasizes that those cases involve
Section 8(b)(4)(B) and not as here Section
8(b)(4)(D) and that the statutory scheme of the
former does not manifest a Congressional intent to
encourage the resolution of the dispute through
private methods of adjustment as is the case with
jurisdictional disputes Thus in the General Coun
sel s view the Board in applying Section 8(b)(4)(D)
is less free at least before making its 10(k) determi
nation to interdict contractual procedures that
could resolve a jurisdictional dispute than it would
be for purposes of Section 8(b)(4)(B) She further
contends that before making such a determination
under Section 10(k) the Board could not find that
a grievance was barred under Bill Johnson s as
lacking a reasonable basis in fact and law
In its brief, the Employer initially emphasizes
citing Weyerhaeuser above that both the Board
and the courts have recognized that the filing of
grievances can amount to coercive activity in cer
tarn situations 5 While noting that in this case Bel
lingham did not control the disputed work the
Employer contends that Bellingham s ability to in
fluence the Employers work assignment made it a
suitable vehicle for the Respondents coercion The
Employer states that because it pays Bellingham on
a cost plus basis for services rendered Bellingham
could pass along to it the cost of any time in lieu
claims The Employer further contends that by
filing these claims the Respondent can effectively
impose economic pressure on it to assign the dis
puted work to ILWU represented employees In
the Employers view this tendency to influence its
business decisions constitutes coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) Furthermore based
on Weyerhaeuser Co above and Emery Air Freight
above the Employer argues that a finding of pro
scribed conduct here is not inconsistent with the
Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson s above
Accordingly the Employer urges the Board to re
affirm its original decision in this case
The Respondent argues that regardless of
whether the Board has issued an adverse work
award under Section 10(k) the filing of contractual
grievances does not constitute unlawful coercion
5In so contending the Employer relies on Ironworkers (Hoffman Con
struction) 273 NLRB 260 (1Q84) and Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air
Freight) 278 NLRB 1303 ( 1986) remanded 820 F 2d 448 (D C Cir
1987)
92 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) It em
phasizes that in Carey v Westinghouse above the
Supreme Court recognized that judicial action of
this nature is not the kind of conduct that triggers
the Boards jurisdiction to resolve such disputes
The Respondent further notes that there is nothing
in the legislative history of the Act that demon
strates any Congressional concern with proscribing
or limiting the filing of grievances The Respond
ent therefore urges the Board to dismiss the instant
complaint
Discussion
We find that the Board had jurisdiction to issue
the 10(k) award based on AWPPW s work stop
page threat We also agree with the Board s earlier
finding that ILWU violated the Act by filing gnev
ances after the 10(k) award issued because at that
point the grievance filings lacked a reasonable basis
and reflected an improper motivation to undermine
the Boards 10(k) award 6 We do not however
agree that ILWU s filing of grievances before the
10(k) award issued was coerc[ive] within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act 7
There can be no doubt that our national labor
policy encourages resort to the grievance arbitra
tion procedure as the preferred method of resole
ing labor management disputes Congressional
intent is clearly set forth in Section 203(d) of the
Act which states
Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by
the parties is hereby declared to be the desira
ble method for settlement of grievance dis
putes arising over the application or interpreta
tion of an existing collective bargaining agree
ment
This Congressional policy has repeatedly received
the recognition and respect of the Supreme Court
Almost 30 years ago the Court declared that
federal policy is to promote industrial sta
bilization through the collective bargaining
agreement A major factor in achieving
industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision
for arbitration of grievances in the collective
bargaining agreement 8
8 Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser Co) 271 NLRB 759
(1984) enfd 773 F 2d 1012 (9th Cir 1985) cert denied 476 US 1158
(1986) See Bill Johnson s Restaurants v NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) dis
cussed below
° To the extent that such cases as Hoff fman Construction supra, 273
NLRB 260 ( 1984) as well as our prior decisions in this proceeding (re
ported at 273 NLRB 363 (1984) and 267 NLRB 26 (1983)) are inconsist
eat with our decision today they are overruled
8 Steelworkers Y Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co 363 US 574 578
(1960) See Steelworkers v American Mfg Co 363 U S 564 ( 1960) Steel
workers v Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp 363 U S 593 ( 1960) These three
cases commonly referred to collectively as the Steelworkers Trilogy were
In 1987 the Court citing Section 203 (d) reiterated
that Federal labor policy reflect[s] a decided pref
erence for private settlement of labor disputes
without the intervention of government 9 The
Board itself has a long history of withholding its
authority to adjudicate alleged unfair labor prac
tices in order to facilitate private dispute resolution
under the grievance arbitration process E g
United Technologies Corp 268 NLRB 557 (1984)
Collyer Insulated Wire 192 NLRB 837 (1971)
Spielberg Mfg Co, 112 NLRB 1080 ( 1955) In light
of the strong Congressional policy of encouraging
the private settlement of disputes through the
grievance arbitration machinery the Board should
be reluctant to find that the mere filing of an argu
ably meritorious contractual grievance is prohibited
under the Act
Furthermore in Carey v Westinghouse Corp 375
U S 261 ( 1964) the Supreme Court spelled out in
no uncertain terms its view that the grievance arbi
tration process has a major role to play in settling
jurisdictional disputes The Court held in Carey
that prior to a Board 10(k) award a union involved
in a jurisdictional dispute may file a contractual
grievance pursue it to arbitration and seek to en
force an arbitration award under Section 301 The
Court stated that the underlying objective of the
national labor laws is to promote collective bar
gaining agreements and to help give substance to
such agreements through the arbitration process
that [g]rievance arbitration is [a common ] method
of settling disputes over work assignments and
that [s]ince § 10(k) not only tolerates but actively
encourages voluntary settlements of work assign
ment controversies between unions we conclude
that grievance procedures pursued to arbitration
further the policies of the Act 375 U S at 265-
266 10
We do not distinguish Carey on the ground that
there the employer against which the grievance
was filed controlled assignment of the disputed
reaffirmed in AT&T Technologies Y Communications Workers 475 US
643 (1986) where the Court stated that they have served the industrial
relations community well and have led to continued reliance on arbitra
tion rather than strikes or lockouts as the preferred method of resolving
disputes arising during the term of a collective bargaining agreement
475 US at 648
Paperworkers v Misco 108 S Ct 364 370 (1987)
° As noted by the General Counsel Associated General Contractors of
California v NLRB 514 F 2d 433 (9th Cir 1975) involved Sec
8(b)(4)(B) not Sec 8(b)(4)(D) Sec 8(b)(4)(B) has not been interpreted by
the Supreme Court as reflecting a Congressional preference for private
resolution of disputes and therefore Associated General Contractors is not
controlling here Furthermore Associated General Contractors was decid
ed before the Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson s Restaurants v
NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) discussed infra
Similarly Emery Air Freight supra cited by the Employer offers limit
ed guidance here as it too involved Sec 8(b)(4)(B ) and not Sec
8(b)(4)(D)
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC) 93
work whereas here the evidence before the Board
shows that Bellingham does not control the disput
ed work This reasoning misses the point national
labor policy is equally implicated in either situa
tion As the Court observed in Carey [T]here is
work for the arbiter whatever the Board may
decide 375 U S at 270 In instances in which the
employer lacks control over the disputed work the
arbitrator may decide that the grieving union has
no valid contract claim In that case, the dispute as
a practical matter may end and there would be no
necessity for governmental intervention If the arbi
trator decides that the grieving union is contrac
tually entitled to the disputed work despite the em
ployer s lack of control there is no inconsistency
with any Board determination for none has yet
issued If the dispute reaches the Board and the
Board disagrees with the arbitrator, the Board s
superior authority may be invoked and the
Board s award would take precedence 375 U S
at 272 In either event the therapy of arbitration
is brought to bear in a complicated and troubled
area Id Therefore we do not distinguish Carey
but rather interpret it expansively in accord with
the statutory objective of encouraging the private
resolution of disputes II Indeed Board precedent
r' Chairman Stephens agrees that so far as the policies underlying Sec
8(b)(4)(D) are concerned it should not matter whether the employer
against which the grievance is filed has control over the work in ques
tion and for that reason he is joining his colleagues in finding no viola
tion of Sec 8(b)(4)(D) based on the filing of the time in lieu grievances
prior to the issuance of the Board s 10(k) determination However he re
gards it as an open question-not before us in this case-whether those
same grievances might be found to be violations of Sec 8 (bX4)(B) of the
Act Insofar as the Respondent may be seeking through the grievance
procedure to impose a monetary penalty on Bellingham because Geor
gia Pacific is assigning its employees who are not represented by the Re
spondent to do the work in question one might argue that the Respond
ent is attempting to penalize an employer in order to compel it to cease
doing business with another person Bellingham can avoid liability only
by canceling its contract with Georgia Pacific and contracting only with
employers who do not insist on keeping the bulldozer work for their own
non ILWU employees Thus an 8(b)(4)(B) violation is at least arguably
present Associated General Contractors of California v NLRB supra 514
F 2d at 438-439 (finding Sec 8 (bX4)(B) based on grievance filed against
employer who had no control over the work which the union sought for
its members) But see Teamsters Local 705 v NLRB 820 F 2d 448 (D C
Cir 1987) remanding in part Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight)
278 NLRB 1303 ( 1986) (declining to enforce an 8(bX4 )(B) finding with
out explication of how the contractual provision invoked in the grievance
is itself unlawful either as written or as applied)
Chairman Stephens would not however use Sec 8(b)(4)(D) as a
means of striking at the evils proscribed by Sec 8(b)(4)(B) It is true of
course that the two sections are not mutually exclusive NLRB Y Operat
ing Engineers Local 825 400 U S 297 305-306 (1971) Plumbers Local 5
(Arthur Venneri Co) 137 NLRB 828 830-832 (1962) enfd as modified
321 F 2d 366 371 (D C Cir 1963) But the mere fact that the same con
duct can theoretically be prohibited under different sections of the Act is
not grounds for using the logic supporting a finding of one violation in
order to bolster the finding of a different violation particularly when
only the latter violation has been alleged See USCP-WESCO Inc V
NLRB 827 F 2d 581 586 (9th Cir 1987) (upholding Boards quashing of
a 10(k) notice but noting that where picketing has a cease-doing business
objective the employer can file an 8(b)(4)(B) charge)
has so interpreted Carey s eloquent language See
United Technologies 268 NLRB at 560
The Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson's
Restaurants v NLRB 461 US 731 (1983) lends
further support to our view The Court held that
the Board may not enjoin a state court lawsuit re
gardless of the plaintiff's motive unless the suit
lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law The Court
rejected the Board s view that a violation of the
Act is established simply by a showing that the
lawsuit was filed for a retaliatory motive The
Court reasoned that the Board s approach did not
give sufficient weight to the first amendment right
of access to the courts and to compelling state in
terests in the maintenance of domestic peace
Analogous considerations lead us to conclude
that the Bill Johnson's test should be applied here
First preserving access to the grievance machinery
is critical because it is the first step in a Section 301
lawsuit toy enforce an arbitrators award This con
sideration closely parallels the first amendment
concerns of the Court in Bill Johnson s Second
Carey teaches that private resolution of junsdic
tional disputes is a paramount Federal policy This
consideration is at least equal to the states interests
in the maintenance of domestic peace which was
stressed in the Bill Johnson s analysis These
weighty interests, like the ones the Court discussed
in Bill Johnson s, militate against a rule barring the
processing of an arguably meritorious pre 10(k)
award work assignment grievance simply on a
showing of prohibited motive Therefore under
Bill Johnson s both unlawful motive and lack of
reasonable basis should be established before the
Board may brand the mere filing of a pre 10(k)
grievance as unlawful coercion under Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(D)
Thus, we find that the Respondents grievances
filed before the 10(k) determination do not consti
tute coercion because the grievances were arguably
meritorious Indeed, an arbitrator found that the
grievances were in fact meritorious Further we
do not center the analysis on the right of control
question right of control is simply a factor that
may be relevant in determining whether the gnev
ance is arguably meritorious 12
In sum, we modify the Board s original Decision
and Order and dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleges that the filing of grievances before the 10(k)
determination issued violated the Act We other
wise affirm the earlier decision, except as modified
by footnote 3, supra
12 As explained in fn 11 supra Chairman Stephens acknowledges that
these grievances might be found unlawful if considered in a proceeding
based on an 8(b)(4)(B) allegation
94 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board affirms its
Order previously issued in this proceeding at 273
NLRB 363 (1984) except as modified below
I Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(a)
and (b)
(a) Filing in lieu of claims for work performed
by members of Local Union No 194 Association
of Western Pulp and Paper Workers with an object
of forcing or requiring Bellingham Division Geor
gia Pacific Corporation to assign contrary to the
Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute re
ported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work described
below to employees represented by Local Union
No 7 International Longshoremen s and Ware
housemen s Union rather than to employees repre
sented by Local Union No 194 Association of
Western Pulp and Paper Workers The work con
sists of
The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of
piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ
er and located on a pier leased to the Employ
er during times when ships and barges con
taming salt to be deposited on that pad are
being unloaded at the pier by employees of
Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are
represented by ILWU
2 Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a)
and (b)
(a) Withdraw and cease filing in lieu of claims
which have an object of forcing or requiring Bel
lingham Division Georgia Pacific Corporation to
assign contrary to the Board s Decision and Deter
mmation of Dispute reported at 267 NLRB 26
(1983) the work described above to employees
represented by Local Union No 7 International
Longshormen s and Warehousemen s Union rather
than to employees represented by Local Union No
194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work
ers
(b) Reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring Compa
ny and the Pacific Maritime Association for any in
lieu of claims paid to the Respondent for the
above described work following the Board s Deci
sion and Determination of Dispute
3 Substitute the attached notice for that attached
to the Board s original Order
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT file in lieu of claims for work per
formed by members of Local Union No 194 Asso
ciation of Western Pulp and Paper Workers with
an object of forcing or requiring Bellingham Divi
sion Georgia Pacific Corporation to assign con
trary to the Board s Decision and Determination of
Dispute reported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work
described below to employees represented by our
labor organization rather than to employees repre
sented by Local Union No 194 Association of
Western Pulp and Paper Workers The work con
sists of %
The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of
piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ
er and located on a pier leased to the Employ
er during times when ships and barges con
taming salt to be deposited on that pad are
being unloaded at the pier by employees of
Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are
represented by ILWU `
WE WILL withdraw and cease filing in lieu of
claims which have an object of forcing or requir
mg Bellingham Division Georgia Pacific Corpora
tion to assign contrary to the Board s Decision and
Determination of Dispute reported at 267 NLRB
26 (1983 ) the work described above to employees
whom we represent rather than to employees rep
resented by Local Union No 194 Association of
Western Pulp and Paper Workers
WE WILL reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring Co
and the Pacific Maritime Association for any in
lieu of claims paid to our labor organization with
interest for the above described work following
the Board s Decision and Determination of Dis
pute
LOCAL UNION No 7 INTERNATION
AL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WARE
HOUSEMEN S UNION