Teamsters, Local No. 85

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 85 1011
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck .Drivers
Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America and Pacific. Maritime Association and
International I shwxmen's and Warehouse-
men's Union
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America and Pacific Maritime Association and
International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union. Cases 20-CD-266, 20-CD-283,
20-CD-282, and 20-CD-321
February 11, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding, pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following charges filed by the Employer, Pacific
Maritime Association (herein PMA), alleging that
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 85 and Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America (herein Local 85 and
Local 70), violated Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act. The
cases were consolidated and hearing held on various
dates from February 19, 1969, to June 15, 1972,
before Hearing Officer William F. Roche. 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, all parties filed briefs in
support of their positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error. They are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:1
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pacific Maritime Association is an employer
association whose members are stevedore, terminal,
and shipping companies, and their agents, engaged in
1 PMA's request for oral argument is denied since in our opinion the
record , including exhibits and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the
the movement of cargo on oceangoing vessels to and
from Pacific Coast ports of the United States , which,
inter alia, is authorized to enter into collective-
bargaining agreements on behalf of its members.
During the 12-month period preceding the hearing,
the employer-members of the Pacific Maritime
Association engaged in the movement of cargoes
from ports in the State of California to ports outside
the State of California , and other States of the
United States, and ports in foreign countries, and
received in excess of $ 100,000 in payment therefor.
We find that the Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 85 and Local No. 70 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, and International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union (herein
ILWU) are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Following a long history of dispute and strife over
mechanization and make-work practices , PMA and
the ILWU entered into agreements on modernization
and mechanization in 1959 and 1960 to permit the
Employer, inter alia, to change work methods,
introduce labor-saving devices , and avoid hiring
unnecessary men. In exchange , the Employer estab-
lished a trust fund to guarantee fully registered
longshoremen a minimum number of working hours
each year, agreed that longshoremen would operate
any new cargo-handling equipment on the water-
front, and also agreed to Longshoremen's jurisdic-
tion in other areas.
Among the changes which have taken place since
these agreements was the introduction of the large-
scale use of standardized "containers" for the
packing and shipment of oceangoing cargo. Al-
though the use of rigid , reusable containers for
certain cargoes at the convenience of the shipping
company long predated the 1959 and 1960 agree-
ments, they were not standardized nor routinely
used. Containers generally 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 or 40
feet are now used routinely to transport virtually all
positions of the parties.
208 NLRB No. 136
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
types , of cargo aboard both standard cargo vessels
and container ships designed for that purpose.
A variety of cargo may be "stuffed" inside a
container before the , ship on which it is to sail arrives,
thus shortening the time it must spend in port.
Similarly, containers, may be unloaded from a ship
more rapidly than individual pieces of cargo. The
savings in labor and port fees, as well as the time
during which the vessel may be gainfully employed
at sea, are obvious . However , the relative amount of
traditional longshore work available is reduced.
Containers may be "stuffed" and "unstuffed" at
the shipper's or consignee 's premises, or at a
"container freight station" (CFS) or terminal located
at or away from the dock area . ("Stuffing" and
"unstuffing" are the terms used to describe the
packing and unpacking of containerized cargo.) The
work may be performed by longshoremen, teamsters,
or the employees of the shipper or consignee. Once
the container has been stuffed or unstuffed it may be
loaded aboard a flatbed trailer or a chassis specifical-
ly designed to carry containers if over -the-road
transportation is necessary . Depending upon the
circumstances , including the weight and design of the
container , the location of the operation, the availabil-
ity of particular equipment, the needs and work
techniques of the container custodian of the moment,
and numerous other factors , the container may be
loaded or unloaded by cranes , ship's gear, forklifts,
straddle carriers, or other top-lifting equipment. The
operator may be a teamster, longshoremen , or other.
("Loading" and "unloading" are the terms used to
describe the moving of a container on or off of a
truck.)
For a variety of reasons , the lack of suitable
dockside facilities being alleged by PMA as para-
mount , many containers have been stuffed away
from the docks by'motor carriers at container freight
stations employing teamsters. With the growth of
containerized shipping , however, and either parallel
with or pursuant to its agreement with the ILWU,
PMA members began establishing their own CFS
facilities where the work was performed by their own
employees represented by the ILWU.
In August 1969 , a group of shipping lines trans-
ferred their container stuffing and unstuffing opera-
tion, which had been performed by Pacific Motor
Trucking at its CFS using its teamster employees
represented by Local 70, to a new CFS in the Port of
Oakland where longshoremen performed the work
under the PMA-ILWU contract . On August 21,
Local 70 began picketing the new CFS to protest the
use of longshoremen . Local 70's counsel advised
PMA's counsel by phone on August 25 that if the
CFS were closed the picketing would stop, but that
there probably would be more picketing if longshore-
men were brought in again . At a meeting on the
afternoon of August 25, representatives of the
Teamsters asserted that the work was theirs and that
the ILWU had given ' up the work of stuffing
containers and was trying =.to get it back. The dispute
was not resolved and picketing continued until
enjoined following the filing of the charge in Case
20-CD-282.
A day after the picketing began in the Port of
Oakland, a similar dispute came to a head on the San
Francisco side of the bay. Teamsters Local 85 began
picketing there on August 22. The business manager-
secretary of Local 85 protested to PMA that
longshoremen were stuffing containers and that it
was teamsters ' work . The stuffing was stopped and
did not resume until the picketing was enjoined
following filing of the charge in Case 20 -CD-283.
Earlier, disputes had arisen over the loading and
unloading of containers. On or about December 2,
1968, members of Local 85 had refused to disconnect
chassis carrying containers from their trucks so that
they could be unloaded by longshoremen . Later that
day, or early the next, Local 85 began picketing
various sites on the San Francisco docks where
Marine Terminals , a PMA member, was conducting
its operations . Local 85's business manager , Richard-
son, stated that if Marine Terminals would hire one
of its members to load and unload containers on and
off trucks there would be no problem and that its
members had the right to load and unload containers
on San Francisco piers . Thereafter the charge in Case
20-CD-266 was filed.
The same issue led to picketing by Local 70
directed against Universal Terminal and Stevedoring
Corporation, another PMA member, beginning
February 19, 1971. The local's business agent,
Painter, advised Sutliff, a PMA labor relations
administrator, on the morning of the 19th that it
wanted the right to load and unload containers, work
then being done by longshoremen. At a meeting later
in the morning, McNeal, a representative of Univer-
sal Terminal, told Painter that it could not give Local
70 the loading and unloading work. Painter replied
they had nothing to discuss and Local Vs represent-
atives walked out. Picketing continued until February
26, when it was enjoined following the filing of.the
charge in Case 20-CD-321.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute in Cases 20-CD-266 and 321
is the moving of containers on and off truck-trailers,
chassis, and flatbeds (loading and unloading) by
employer-members of the Pacific Maritime Associa-
tion at piers in San Francisco and Alameda;
California. The work in dispute in Cases 20-CD-282
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 85 1013
and 283 is the packing of loose cargo into containers
and securing it for transportation by seagoing ships
and the removal of cargo from containers after it has
been discharged from ships (stuffing and unstuffing)
and all work performed at container freight stations
including stuffing and unstuffing ; moving contain-
ers; driving forklifts and other mechanical handling
and lifting equipment ; stockpiling; palletizing and
depalletizing ; loading and unloading railcars ; shift-
ing, bagging , assembling, and receiving cargo; and
cleaning up , when performed in and around the
greater San Francisco Bay Area by employer-mem-
bers of the Pacific Maritime Association.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
PMA contends that there is reasonable cause in
each of the cases to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act has been violated and that the relevant
criteria favor affirming assignment of the work in
dispute to its employees represented by the ILWU.
The ILWU initially contends that the facts do not
present a typical jurisdictional dispute between two
unions over which group of employees shall do a
particular job, but rather a dispute over which
employer shall do the work. Since, the ILWU argues,
PMA employs only longshoremen and the work has
been assigned to it by contract , the Board need not
proceed to an affirmative award under Section 10(k).
In these circumstances , the Teamsters conduct aimed
at requiring PMA to violate its contract with the
ILWU is a per se violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D),
which demands a cease-and-desist order without
consideration of the substantive merits of the
Employer's work assignment . The ILWU suggests
that the Board leave it to the parties to work out the
underlying dispute. Alternatively, the ILWU urges
that application of traditional criteria requires award
of the work to employees it represents.
The Teamsters contends generally that the Board
lacks jurisdiction to proceed to an award under
Section 10(k) of the Act, and that the PMA-ILWU
contract is unlawful under Section 8(e), but, if the
Board should proceed to a 10(k) award, it should be
in favor of the Teamsters. In Case 20-CD-266, the
Teamsters argues that it has not been demonstrated
that there were rival claims to the work, and,
therefore, an essential prerequisite to any 10(k)
award is lacking . In the remaining cases, it contends
that it was protesting the loss of employment by its
members and therefore a jurisdictional dispute, as
such , is not presented . Finally , the Teamsters urges
that, should the Board find that jurisdiction is
present under Section 10(k), any award should be in
favor of the employees it represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
No argument is advanced in any of the cases over
the facts of the picketing . The dispute relevant to the
applicability oi" Section 8(b)(4XD) is over the intent
of the Teamsters in each case , save 20-CD-266,
where the Teamsters alleges the absence of a
"competing claim" to the work as precluding the
Board 's assumption of jurisdiction under Section
10(k). It is clear, however, that far from disclaiming
the work involved in that case, the ILWU asserts that
the work should be assigned to longshoremen.
Moreover, an active claim from the beneficiary of a
disputed work assignment is not prerequisite to the
application of Section 10(k).2
The Teamsters chief contention is that there is no
jurisdictional dispute because the dispute is between
itself and the Employer over the loss of its members'
jobs and not between itself and the ILWU over
whose jurisdiction the work is to be performed under.
Resolving the factual issue in the face of such a claim
is difficult because the two objectives , recapturing
lost jobs or lost jurisdiction, are not inconsistent.
Here it appears that the disputes are basically
jurisdictional . There is no evidence that the Team-
sters sought employment for its members as other
than Teamsters , even though ILWU witnesses
testified that teamsters, if they applied , would be
referred in due course to work under the ILWU
contract . Further, Teamsters claims were not limited
to the employment of individuals who lost jobs as a
result of the work assignments , but were general
claims to the disputed work , for the most part
precipitated by longshoremen performing the work
and not Teamsters members who had lost jobs. The
thread which ran through the testimony of the
witnesses was loss of employment in general, past
and future, often expressed in terms of "our" or
"teamster" work. The evidence, both word and deed,
supports a finding that jurisdictional claims were
made, not simply attempts to reclaim the jobs of
members regardless of the jurisdiction under which
the work would be performed.
The Board's jurisdiction under Section 10(k) of the
Act attaches when there is reasonable cause to
believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. A
reasonable interpretation of the facts indicates the
presence of jurisdictional disputes which Teamsters
Locals 70 and 85 sought to resolve by means
proscribed by Section 8(bx4)(D).
Based on the entire record , we conclude that there
2 Local 40, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (F
& B/CECO of California,, Inc.), 199 NLRB 903.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is reasonable cause to believe there have been
violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) in Cases 20-CD-266,
282, 283, and 321, and that the disputes are properly
before the Board for determination .3
E. Merits of the Disputes
1. Board certifications
The ILWU was certified in 1938 as collective-
bargaining representative of a multiemployer unit of
all employees engaged in "longshore work in the
Pacific Coast ports of the United States" for the
employer-members of associations which were the
predecessors of Pacific Maritime Association.4 Al-
though that certification is vague and not controlling
with respect to the work in dispute here , in part since
it long predated development of the specific proce-
dures in question , it does favor an award of the work
in dispute to the ILWU at least to the extent it
defines longshoremen as those who "handle said
waterborne cargo," and the business of the employ-
ers as "the transportation or handling of waterborne
cargo."
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
PMA'and the ILWU contend that their collective-
bargaining agreement clearly awards the work
involved in the disputes , here to employees represent-
ed by the ILWU. The Teamsters contends, however,
that the contract violates Section 8(e), that a
complaint has been issued alleging such a violation,
that an Administrative Law Judge of the Board has
found that Section 8(e) was indeed violated by the
contract,5 and that not only will the decision in that
case dispose of the issue here , but also that the
decisions in both proceedings must be consistent. We
do not agree with this reasoning.
As has been noted earlier in this decision, an
employer's work assignment is not dispositive of the
issue . The mere fact that the instrument awarding the
work does not violate the Act does not give it special
status . The majority of contract work assignments do
not violate the Act. Conversely, the mere fact that a
collective-bargaining contract reaches beyond lawful
limits in its assignment of work to one group of
employees in preference to another does not neces-
sarily invalidate the assignment to the extent it is
lawful . Section 8(e) is aimed at agreements directed
against "other employers" and provides that con-
tracts in violation of the section "shall be to such
3 The ILWU contends that, since the work was assigned to it by
contract , any conduct aimed at requiring PMA to violate that contract is a
per se violation of Sec . 8(b)(4)(D). It moves the Board to issue a cease-and-
desist order summarily without making an award under Sec. 10 (k), leaving
the parties to negotiate their differences . The motion is denied as contrary
to the holding in N.LR.B.'v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers
extent unenforceable and void ." It is, therefore, clear
that a finding that a collective-bargaining contract
violates Section 8(e) does not reach beyond the
unlawful clause or clauses and that full legal effect
may be given to lawful clauses.
Of course , to the extent any work was unlawfully
captured pursuant to invocation of contract provi-
sions which are later 4ound to violate Section 8(e), it
would be foreclosed from recurring by the cease-and-
desist order in the 8(e) proceeding, after which the
employer making the assignment would be free of
unlawful constraint.
We find it unnecessary and inappropriate to reach
the 8(e) issue here , but do not rely on the contract for
the purpose of awarding the work in dispute in this
proceeding.
There is no collective-bargaining agreement in
effect between PMA and any of the Teamsters locals
involved in these disputes, although it is claimed that
there was an oral agreement between Teamsters,
Local 85 and Marine Terminal and Stevedoring
Company, a PMA member, assigning the work in
dispute in Case 20-CD-266 to employees represent-
ed by that labor organization . In view of evidence
that the work covered by the claimed agreement is
not the work in dispute in this case, because of a
change in operations , since the contract was not
reduced to writing and cannot be examined to
determine its precise details , and because there is no
indication of its duration, little weight can be
attached to it.
3. Employer and industry practice
PMA members, which is to say employers in the
shipping industry, generally employ longshoremen to
stuff and unstuff containers at their facilities. The
trucking industry employs teamsters to stuff and
unstuff containers at its facilities . Many of the
difficulties which this proceeding presents arise from
the fact that we are dealing with the interface
between two different industries which have tradi-
tionally employed the members of two different
unions.
Testimony asserts that stuffing and unstuffing was
originally performed by employers in the trucking.
industry because of a lack of facilities on the docks.
That has now changed , as witnessed by the disputes
here, two of which originated when PMA members
sought to have containers stuffed by longshoremen
on the docks. In view of the particular circumstances
Union. Local 1211, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CI-
O (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573 ( 1961).
4 Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast, et al., 7 NLRB 1002.
S International Longshoremen and Warehousemen 's Union (California
Cartage Co.), 208 NLRB No. 130.
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 85 1015
of these cases; employer and industry practice cannot
be considered to have great weight, partly because of
the difficulty in determining the appropriate indus-
try. The record does establish, however, that the bulk
of containers as of the hearing, for whatever reason,
were stuffed by employees represented by the
Teamsters.
The loading and unloading of containers on and
off trucks at the docks has, for the most part, been
performed by independent forklift services employ-
ing teamsters. Some PMA members, however, do the
work themselves, using more sophisticated equip-
ment operated by their own employees represented
by the ILWU. On balance this factor cannot be said
to favor an award of all the work of loading and
unloading containers by forklift to employees repre-
sented by the Teamsters.
4. Relative skills
No strong argument is advance by any party that
one group of employees possesses markedly greater
skill in the stuffing and unstuffing of containers.
Although Teamsters witnesses testified that the skills
of its members were necessary to stuff a container
properly for over-the-road shipment, the record
leaves no doubt that the purpose of containerization
is ease of seaborne, and not overland, movement. If
containers are stuffed on the docks, the need for
special skills to stuff containers for over-the-road
transportation would seem to have diminished or
even disappeared.
Conversely, it is contended that longshoremen are
more skilled in stuffing containers for waterborne
transportation, which is the purpose for the contain-
ers in the first place. Although there appears to be
some merit to this contention, the record does not
suggest any great disparity in skill. Thus, while this
factor gives some support to an award to the
longshoremen, it is not entitled to great weight.
With respect to the loading and unloading of
containers from flatbeds and chassis the situation is
more complicated. There appears to he no real
dispute that members of both unions have the skill to
operate forklifts used to load or unload containers on
and off trucks, but that is not the basic issue. In Case
20-CD-266, a teamster was employed initially to
remove containers from flatbeds using either a
forklift or travel lift. Later, an independent forklift
service located on the dock was used for that
purpose. In January 1968, a straddle carrier, a much
larger piece of equipment owned by the Employer
and operated by longshoremen, was put into use to
remove containers from chassis. However, a teamster
continued to use the older equipment to load and
unload flatbed trailers. No teamster has operated the
straddle carrier.
In Case 20-CD-321, the loading and unloading of
containers from flatbeds and chassis was performed
by teamsters employed by an independent forklift
service following a dispute at the beginning of the
operation in January 1969. Initially, the work had
been assigned to longshoremen. However, the forklift
service did not have the equipment to handle
containers over 20,000 pounds (also given as 15,000
pounds elsewhere in the record) and it was agreed
that longshoremen would be permitted to unload
containers over that weight using special top-lifting
equipment owned by the Employer.
There seems to be no question about the skills of
either teamsters or longshoremen. However, that is
not really a factor in Cases 20-CD-266 and 321, or at
least in the latter, for it is not suggested that
assignments involving containers over 20,000 pounds
be made to teamsters.
With respect to Case 20-CD-266, although it is
contended that teamsters could operate the straddle
carrier involved in that dispute, the dispute arose
because the work was not assigned to teamsters, who
would have used forklifts.
It appears that longshoremen possess experience
operating the equipment which the Employer prefers
using, that teamsters do not, and that the independ-
ent forklift services do not have such equipment.
Accordingly, we conclude that the skill factor favors
an award to longshoremen in Cases 20-CD-266 and
321, to the extent equipment other than forklifts is
involved.
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
These cases have arisen because of PMA's need to
mechanize and improve the efficiency of its opera-
tions. Moreover, though containers are the focus of
these disputes, the record convinces us that a
meaningful inquiry into economy and efficiency
cannot be limited to the precise operations involved
in the disputes here. Because of the nature of the
industry. and that of the employment relationship, it
is not only the longshoreman who has an interest in
the availability of longshore work, but also the
Employer.
Work on the docks is cyclical. It peaks whenever a
ship arrives in port and dips when a ship departs.
Moreover, ships do not arrive or depart at regular
intervals but irregularly, either separately or in
clusters. Manpower needs vary drastically and it is in
the Employer's interests to maintain a pool of skilled
longshore employees of sufficient size to meet work
demands during peak periods. 'These peaks have
been flattened somewhat by the use of containers.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Containers can be loaded on ships faster and with
fewer men than break-bulk cargo. The same is
obviously true of the unloading process. Additional-
ly, the work of stuffing and unstuffing containers can
be performed before the ship arrives and after it
departs, respectively.
Although the work may be spread out over a longer
time, it still peaks . Stuffing and unstuffing , at least
potentially, is work which can be performed by
longshoremen who otherwise might not be employed
at other than peak periods. The effect of this is
twofold: It is easier and more practical to attract and
maintain a pool of longshoremen of the size
necessary to perform the required work during peak
periods and it reduces the amount of money the
Employer may be required to pay out under the
mechanization and modernization agreements be-
tween PMA and the ILWU. In short, it permits the
Employer greater economy and the available and
versatile work force necessary to its operations.
Similarly, the use of longshoremen to load and
unload containers employs those who might other-
wise receive pay under the guarantees without
performing useful work. That, however, is only a
minor consideration. More important is the fact that
they would be employed in any event because
longshoremen are required to move containers to
and from the point of loading and unloading. The
practical effect of awarding the work of loading and
unloading containers to teamsters would be to
require the Employer to pay for double handling of
the containers.
Additionally, the employers of the teamsters do not
possess the equipment to do the work in the safest,
most efficient, and economical way. Many contain-
ers are designed to be lifted only from the top, an
operation which the teamster forklifts are not
equipped to perform. In some instances it is
necessary to have two teamster-operated forklifts do
work which could be performed by one top-lifting
device. Not only is the use of forklifts in such
circumstances more dangerous and less economical
and efficient, it also is more likely to damage
containers not designed to be loaded or unloaded in
that fashion.
We conclude that factors of economy and efficien-
cy favor an award of the work in dispute in all four
cases to longshoremen.
6. Interunion agreements
The Teamsters contends that a July 20, 1961,
agreement with the ILWU provides that loading and
unloading of all trucks is within Teamsters jurisdic-
tion. However, the agreement does not mention
containers and was negotiated at a time when
containers were not in widespread use. Further,
virtually all testimony concerning the agreement
supports the view that containers were not involved
in the agreement , or in the dispute which gave rise to
it, and that it was designed to do away with double
handling . The agreement was apparently intended to
apply only if the tractor and driver were present and
not if the tradfor had been detached. However, the
disputes here arose in part when teamsters refused to
disconnect tractors from chassis -carrying containers.
We conclude that this factor can be accorded little
weight.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the entire record and after full considera-
tion of all relevant factors, we shall assign the work
in dispute in this proceeding to the longshoremen.
We reach this conclusion particularly in view of the
certification, the Employer's preference, and eco-
nomy and efficiency of operation.
In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to employees who are represented by
the International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union, but not to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
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
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
putes:
1. Employees employed by Pacific Maritime
Association or its members, who are currently
represented by the International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, are entitled to the
following work:
(a) Packing loose cargo into containers and
securing said cargo in the containers so that it may
be transported in seagoing ships, and the removal of
cargo from the containers after it has been dis-
charged from ships (stuffing and unstuffing) and all
work performed at container freight stations includ-
ing stuffing and unstuffing containers ; moving
containers; driving forklifts and other mechanical
handling and lifting equipment; stockpiling; palletiz-
ing and depalletizing; loading and unloading rail-
cars; shifting, bagging, assembling, checking, and
receiving cargo; and cleaning up, when performed
for Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and Y-S Lines, employer-
members of the Pacific Maritime Association, at
waterfront docks in San Francisco and the Port of
Oakland.
(b) The removal of containers from , and the
placing of containers on, truck trailers by Marine
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 85
Terminals Corp., an employer-member of the
Pacific Maritime Association, at piers located in San
Francisco, California.
(c) The removal of containers from, and the
placing of containers on, truck chassis and/or
flatbeds by Universal Terminal and Stevedoring
Corporation of California, an employer-member of
Pacific Maritime Association, at piers located in
Alameda, California.
2. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, is not, and has not been, entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require the Employer to award the work described
in paragraph 1(a) and (b), above, to its members or
to employees it represents.
3. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
Drivers Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
1017
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, is not, and has not been, entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require the Employer to award the work described
in paragraphs 1(a) and (c), above, to its members or
to employees it represents.
4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes, Brotherhood of
Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85 and
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing, whether they will refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pros-
cribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in
dispute to their members or to employees they
represent rather than to employees represented by
the International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union.