Longshoremen's Local 8

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 328 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union , Local 8 and Alaska Steel Co. and Woodbury
& Co. and General Teamsters, Auto Truck Drivers
and Helpers Local 162 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America . Case 36-CD-97
April 30, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
the filing of a charge by Alaska Steel Co., hereinafter
called Alaska, and Woodbury & Co., hereinafter
called Woodbury,[ alleging that International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local
8, hereinafter called Longshoremen or Local 8, violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer-
tain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the Employers to assign certain work to em-
ployees represented by Longshoremen rather than to
employees represented by General Teamsters, Auto
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 162, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Hereinafter called
Teamsters or Local 162. This charge also alleges that
Teamsters engaged in like illegal conduct for the pur-
pose of forcing the Employers to continue the assign-
ment of the work to employees represented by it
instead of to employees represented by Longshore-
men.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Richard V. Stratton on January 9 and 10,
1973. All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, a brief was filed by
the Employers.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Alaska and Woodbury are collectively referred to herein as Employers
2 In a letter to the Board dated February 16, 1973, Teamsters advised that
it "adopts and accepts" Employers' brief herein
Board makes the following findings:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Alaska Steel Co., a division of Schnitzer Steel Prod-
ucts Co., an Oregon corporation, is engaged in the
business of buying, warehousing, and selling structur-
al steel and also buying, processing, and selling scrap
steel. Woodbury & Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Schnitzer Steel Products Co., is an Oregon corpora-
tion engaged in the business of buying, storing, and
selling steel and industrial hardware. The parties stip-
ulated that during the past year Alaska and Wood-
bury separately received goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Oregon and that Alaska and Woodbury are
engaged in commerce wihtin the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. Accordingly, we find that
the Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters
and Longshoremen are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE DISPUTE
A. Facts
Steel shipped to the Employers is received by them
at the Port of Portland. At the three terminals of the
Port of Portland, steel (and any other cargo) is taken
off ships by members of Local 8 employed by various
stevedoring companies who are members of the Pacif-
ic Maritime Association. The steel is then moved by
members of Local 8 to a designated "place of rest" on
Port of Portland property. After the steel has reached
its "place of rest," the consignee or his agent may pick
it up and remove it from terminal property. However,
before it can be removed from terminal property a
Port employee, represented by another local of the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, must check out the goods in question to assure
that the proper ones are released.
Alaska and Woodbury have about 16 trucks and 12
drivers each. These drivers haul steel consigned to
their respective employer from the docks of the Port
of Portland to warehousing facilities, from warehous-
ing locations to customers, between warehousing fa-
cilities, and occasionally directly to the customer from
the dock. Until recently all such hauling from the port
203 NLRB No. 51
LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 8 329
terminal involved the use of public roads. Approxi-
mately 10 to 15 percent of the drivers' time is spent in
hauling steel from docks to warehousing locations.
Both Employers have collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Teamsters covering the loading, haul-
ing, and unloading of steel. Neither has ever had a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Longshore-
men.
On October 1, 1972,' Woodbury leased from
Schnitzer Investment Company, a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Schnitzer Steel Products Co., a warehouse
facility on property adjacent to Terminal 4 of the Port
of Portland. This property had recently been pur-
chased by Schnitzer Investment Company from Port
of Portland. Shortly thereafter, Alaska and Wood-
bury started hauling steel from Terminal 4 to this
facility, hereinafter called St. John's. The property on
which the St. John's facility is located is separated
from Terminal 4's northern boundary by a fence. Be-
cause it was closer to drive through a gate in this fence
rather than going out onto the public road and then
into the St. John's property, Alaska and Woodbury
trucks transporting steel to this facility from Terminal
4 began using the aforementioned gate shortly after
this facility was leased.
On the afternoon of October 17, Bond Easly, gener-
al manager and vice president of Woodbury, and Pat
Henne, who is in charge of labor relations for both
Alaska and Woodbury, engaged in a conversation at
Terminal 4 with Phil Badalamenti, Local 8's chief
business agent at that time, after finding that their
drivers at that terminal were not working. Badalam-
enti protested that the loading and hauling of steel
from that terminal to the St. John's facility without
going over a public road was longshoremen's work.4
Henne testified that Badalamenti threatened to shut
the port down unless this work was assigned to long-
shoremen. Easly testified that with reference to the
possibility of this work not being assigned to long-
shoremen, Badalamenti stated, "You don't want any
problem on the docks." Badalamenti denied making
either of the foregoing statements attributed to him
and also denied making any threats at any time in
regard to this matter. Following this conversation,
Woodbury and Alaska sent their drivers home. Later
that day Henne contacted Cal Rogers, business agent
of Local 162, and was told that Local 162 claimed this
work under its collective-bargaining agreement with
the Employers.
It is undisputed that during the early afternoon of
Unless otherwise noted, all dates hereinafter refer to 1972
Badalamenti also claimed as longshoremen's work the breaking down of
certain piles of cargo It is undisputed that this matter was resolved that same
day in favor of longshoremen and that there has been no further dispute
concerning that work
the following day employees of the Port represented
by a sister local of Longshoremen stopped checking
out cargo to be loaded and hauled to the St. John's
facility from Terminal 4 by drivers of Alaska and
Woodbury. Following this development, Henne testi-
fied that he had another discussion with Bandalamen-
ti who took the position that unless the Employers
used longshoremen to move this cargo from Terminal
4 to the St. John's facility the port would be shut
down. However, at Henne's request and on his assur-
ance that it would not be taken to the St. John's facili-
ty, Badalamenti did arrange for cargo for one
Woodbury truck to be checked out.
On this same day, October 18, Rogers testified that
he had a telephone conversation with Don Ronne,
president of Local 8, concerning this dispute and that
Ronne claimed he and Joe Edgar, secretary-treasurer
of Local 162, had an agreement that gave this work
to longshoremen. Rogers stated that he denied there
was any such agreement and Ronne replied that he
would shut the port down. Ronne denied asserting
there was an agreement concerning this work between
Edgar and him and also denies telling Rogers that he
would shut the port down. A conference call including
Rogers, Edgar, and Ronne was arranged but no reso-
lution of this dispute was reached.
During the afternoon of October 20 Easly engaged
in a discussion with Ronne and Badalamenti at Ter-
minal 4 concerning the disputed work. Easly testified
that Ronne claimed it was longshoremen's work and
that if the Employers continued to have teamsters
perform this work they would have trouble on the
docks. Later in the conversation Ronne asked, "Sure-
ly, you don't want problems on the dock?" Easly re-
sponded, "That's correct; I sent my men home twice
before in the same week trying to avoid trouble on the
docks." Easly also testified that Ronne made refer-
ence to a ship at Terminal 4 and stated that if the
Employers continued assigning the disputed work to
teamsters the port would be closed and the unloading
of that ship would stop. Easly told Ronne that he did
not want any trouble with longshoremen and sent his
drivers home. Ronne denied saying anything about
shutting down the port or stopping the assignment of
the work in dispute to teamsters through economic
action. He also denied making any reference to the
ship referred to by Easly.
It is undisputed that on October 23 Edgar told Eas-
ly and Henne in separate conversations that the dis-
puted work belonged to teamsters and they "would
have trouble with the Teamsters" if this work was
given to longshoremen. Thereafter, by letter from at-
torneys representing Teamsters the Employers were
advised: "Any attempt by your companies to assign
the work of the members of Teamsters, Local 162 to11
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Longshoremen , Local 8 , would result in Teamsters,
Local 162 taking appropriate economic action here-
in." Edgar testified that reference in this letter to "eco-
nomic action " meant that "[I ]f necessary , we were
prepared to place pickets on it."
Alaska and Woodbury have continued to use their
own drivers represented by Teamsters to load, haul,
and unload steel from Terminal 4 to the St. John's
warehouse by having these drivers use the public
road , rather than the shorter route through the gate in
the fence separating Terminal 4 property from that on
which the St. John's facility is located.
None of the parties asserts there is an agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute here is the loading, hauling,
and unloading of steel from its "place of rest" on
Terminal 4, Port of Portland, to the St. John's facility
of Woodbury & Co. when that facility is reached with-
out driving on a public road.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employers and Teamsters take the position
that the Employers' assignment of the disputed work
was justified by the Employers' collective-bargaining
relationship with Teamsters, the Employers' past
practice, the area practice respecting similar work, an
agreement between Teamsters and Longshoremen re-
specting work jurisdiction, and the fact that the work
would be performed more economically and efficient-
ly when done by employees of the Employers rcpre-
sented by Teamsters.
Longshoremen, on the other hand, contends that
the disputed work should properly be assigned to em-
ployees represented by it because its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Scrap Loaders, Inc., which is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Schnitzer Steel Products
Co. engaged in the business of providing stevedore
services provides that longshoremen will do all steve-
doring work in the Port. Inasmuch as the property on
which the St. John's facility is located was formerly
owned by Port of Portland and was used as a dock
storage area, Longshoremen contends it is still part of
Terminal 4 if cargo is transported there from that
terminal without using a public road.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of 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, and
that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
Longshoremen's representatives, Badalamenti and
Ronne, are alleged to have threatened to shut the port
down unless the work in dispute was assigned to em-
ployees represented by it on several occasions set
forth above. Both Badalamenti and Ronne deny hav-
ing made these statements. In a proceeding under
Section 10(k) the Board is required only to find rea-
sonable cause that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat-
ed and need not conclusively resolve conflicts in
testimony.' It is undisputed that Teamsters threatened
to cause a work stoppage with the object of requiring
the Employers to continue the assignment of the work
to employees represented by it instead of to employ-
ees represented by Longshoremen. We also conclude
that there exists no effective method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Sec-
tion 10(k) of the Act.
Upon the record as a whole, we find that there is
reasonable cause to believe that violations of Section
8(b)(4)(D) have occurred based on the conduct of
both Teamsters and Longshoremen. Accordingly, the
matter is properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
due consideration to various relevant factors. The fol-
lowing factors are relevant in making a determination
of the dispute before us.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no evidence that either of the labor organi-
zations involved herein has been certified by the
Board as the collective-bargaining representative for
a unit of either of the Employers' employees.
Neither of the Employers has any employees repre-
sented by Longshoremen nor has there ever been a
collective-bargaining agreement between either of the
Employers and that labor organization. On the other
hand, Woodbury and Alaska have had a collective-
bargaining relationship with Teamsters for the past 15
and 20 years, respectively, and both are parties to a
current contract with that labor organization.
Neither of the Employers is a party to the collective
contract between Longshoremen and Scrap Loaders,
Inc., upon which Longshoremen appears to base its
claim of the disputed work. As noted above, the basis
5 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers, Local 348, AFL-CIO (Dick Tile and Marble Company, Inc ), 193 NLRB
769
LONGSHOREMEN 'S LOCAL 8
of this assertion appears to be a contention by Long-
shoremen that , because the property on which the St.
John's facility is located was formerly owned by Port
of Portland and used as a dock storage area , it is still
part of Terminal 4 if cargo is transported there from
that terminal without using a public road. However,
it is undisputed that Port of Portland no longer owns
this property and no provision is cited in the afore-
mentioned collective -bargaining agreement regarding
the use of public roads (or lack of it) to transport
goods from port property to destinations not located
on port property that supports Longshoremen's con-
tention.
2. Employers ' assignment and past practice
As stated , the Employers assigned the work in dis-
pute to their employees who are represented by Team-
sters . This assignment was consistent with its
established practice of assigning such work to those
employees . Longshoremen has not previously claimed
the work of loading , hauling , and unloading steel con-
signed to Alaska or Woodbury from its "place of rest"
on port property to any of their warehouse facilities.
However , it appears that neither Alaska nor Wood-
bury has previously transported steel to a warehouse
located on property adjacent to port property that
could be reached without use of a public road. Long-
shoremen has not suggested any basis , and none is
apparent to us for distinguishing this work from iden-
tical work merely because of the use or nonuse of a
public road.
3. Area practice
The uncontroverted testimony adduced on behalf
of the Employers is that for at least the past 15 years
the Port of Portland area practice has been consistent
with the Employers ' assignment of work . Although
employees represented by Longshoremen have per-
formed such work , this occurs when the consignee, at
his option , contracts with the Port of Portland for
such services . The employees of the Port who perform
this work are represented by Longshoremen.
In addition , the agreement referred to above be-
tween Teamsters and Longshoremen respecting work
jurisdiction provides , inter alia:
The handling of all cargo from the ship to a place
of rest on the dock shall be recognized as the
work of the longshoremen when such cargo is
under the control of the steamship , terminal or
stevedore operator ; the handling of all cargo
from the place of rest on the dock , onto the truck
shall be recognized as the work of the teamsters
when such cargo is under the control of the truck-
331
ing or dryage company or shipper... .
It is undisputed that "such cargo is under the control
of the trucking or dryage company or shipper" when
it has been checked out as described above.
4. Relative skill and efficiency and economy of
operations
The uncontroverted testimony adduced on behalf
of the Employers is that over the years they have
regularly assigned work identical to that in dispute to
their employees represented by Teamsters, all of
whom are properly licensed to operate the type of
vehicles involved and experienced both in operating
the trucks and handling the material . In addition, the
performance of the disputed work is integrated with
their other operations to achieve maximum efficiency
and economy and any change in the assignment of the
work in dispute , asserts the Employers , would result
in idle time for both their equipment and employees.
The undisputed testimony adduced on behalf of
Longshoremen is that at least some of its members are
licensed to operate and have some experience in driv-
ing trucks of the type here involved.
Conclusions
Upon the entire record as a whole , and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved , we con-
clude that the Employers ' employees represented by
Teamsters are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion upon the facts that the as-
signment is consistent with the Employers ' past prac-
tice , there is no inconsistent area practice, the
agreement concerning work jurisdiction between
Teamsters and Longshoremen appears to sanction
such assignment, the employees represented by
Teamsters possess the requisite skills to perform the
work, and such assignment will result in greater effi-
ciency , economy, and continuity of operations. Ac-
cordingly , we shall determine the dispute before us by
awarding the work in dispute to the Employers' em-
ployees represented by Teamsters , but not to that
Union or its members . In consequence , we also find
that Longshoremen is not entitled by means pros-
cribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or
require the Employers to assign the disputed work to
employees represented by it.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Alaska Steel Co. and Woodbury &
Co. of Portland, Oregon, who are represented by Gen-
eral Teamsters, Auto Truck Drivers and Helpers Lo-
cal 162, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
are entitled to perform the work of loading, hauling,
and unloading steel from its "place of rest" on Termi-
nal 4, Port of Portland to the St. John's facility of
Woodbury & Co. when that facility is reached without
driving on a public road.
2. International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, Local 8, is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require Alaska Steel Co. and/or Woodbury & Co.
to assign the above work to employees represented by
it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local
8, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring the Employers, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dis-
pute to employees represented by Longshoremen,
rather than to employees represented by Teamsters.