United Industrial Workers of North America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA
United Industrial Workers of North America, Anchorage
Longshore Unit , affiliated with Seafarers ' International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO and Albin Steve-
dore Company and International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local,302, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CD-149
May 21, 1970
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) charge filed on June 26, 1969, by
Albin Stevedore Company.' The charge alleged that
on or about June 22, 1969, United Industrial Workers
of North America, Anchorage Longshore Unit, affiliated
with Seafarers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO,' caused a work stoppage, by the Employer's
employees to force or require assignment of the work
of operating whirly cranes at the Anchorage City Dock,
Anchorage, Alaska, to members of the Seafarers rather
than to members of International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO.3
A hearing was held at Anchorage, Alaska, on August
21 and 22, 1969, before Hearing Officer Eugene R.
Nielson.4 All parties appeared at the hearing and all
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Seafarers and
the Operating Engineers filed briefs in support of their
positions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds them free from prejudicial
error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record
in this case, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following findings: '
Hereinafter referred to as Albin or Employer.
' Hereinafter referred to as the Seafarers
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 302, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter referred to as the Operating Engineers), was permitted
to intervene and participate in the hearing
" At the outset of the hearing , the Employer stated it wished to
withdraw the charge A recess was granted to allow the presentation
of this request to the Regional Director for Region 19 The Regional
Director refused to approve the withdrawal noting that , in view of
the Seafarers ' opposition to the request , the parties had not settled
the dispute among themselves nor had they agreed to permit an outside
body to resolve it The Employer took no exception to the denial
of its request
S The Seafarers also filed a motion to correct the official transcript
in certain minor respects , together with affidavits of service on the
parties In the absence of opposition thereto , the Seafarers ' motion
was granted on November 4, 1969
633
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EJ4PLOYER
Albin Stevedore Company is a State of Washington
corporation engaged at the Port of Anchorage, Alaska,
in selling loading and unloading services to shipping
companies. During its last fiscal year, Albin sold these
services valued in excess of $50,000 to Sea-Land Freight
Service, Inc. and other water carriers engaged in shipping
cargo from points, outside the State of Alaska directly
to the Anchorage City Dock and from the dock directly
to points outside the State. The parties stipulated, and
we find, that the Employer is 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 jurisdiction herein
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties have stipulated , and we find , that United
Industrial Workers of North America , Anchorage Long-
shore Unit , affiliated with Seafarers' International Union
of North, America , AFL-CIO, and International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local 302 , AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Since early May 1964, Albin has performed stevedor-
ing services with its own personnel for shipping compa-
nies in the State of Alaska. During a portion of this
time, Albin also engaged in longshoring operations at
the port in Seattle, Washington." Presently, however,
its Seattle operations have been discontinued and the
problem raised in this case is limited to the city dock
at Anchorage, Alaska. In'connection with its Alaskan
business, Albin has maintained collective-bargaining
agreements with the Operating Engineers' and with the
Seafarers.
" The Board takes notice of a prior decision , International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen 's Union and International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Local No 19 (Albin Stevedore Company and
Alaska Freight Lines, Inc ), 144 NLRB 1443, which related to Albin's
Seattle longshoring business and which concerned a dispute between
the Longshoremen and Warehousemen and the Operating Engineers
over crane operation work at the port of Seattle
Albin's most recent collective-bargaining agreement with the Operat-
ing Engineers was effective from July 1, 1966, to July 1, 1969 Prior
to the expiration date, and in accordance with the contract's provisions,
the Operating Engineers gave notice to the Employer of its desire
to modify this agreement The record indicates that both the Employer
and the Operating Engineers consider the terms of this expired agreement
of continuing force and effect until their ongoing negotiations culminate
in a new collective -bargaining agreement
In addition to recognizing the Operating Engineers as the representative
of "all engineers , apprentices and mechanics employed for the purpose
of operating or maintaing equipment used by the Employer in the
loading or unloading of water vessels, trucks , railroad cars and other
types of carriers," art II, Sec 2, of the 1966-69 agreement also
provides that '
The Employer recognizes that the following equipment falls within
the jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers Union but that the
jurisdiction is not limited to the equipment listed herein hoisting
equipment, mobile or stationary, all tractors, pumps, power plants,
(Cont.)
182 NLRB No. 99
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As part of Albin \s loading and unloading services,
various types of cranes located both on board ship
and on the dock are used Thus, prior to 1965, the
Employer's practice under its agreements with the unions
was to divide the work of operating these cranes between
the two groups of employees Operating engineers
manned dockside whirly cranes and longshoremen han-
dled special shipboard cranes Both types of cranes
were used to maneuver conventional bulk and container-
ized freight cargo " However, the large shipboard crane,
mounted on rails fitted to the midsection of the vessel,
was used primarily for containerized cargo stored in
the ship's center hatches Because of certain automatic
devices on this crane, its longshore operator could manip
ulate the crane by himself with only the aid of a longshore
hatchtender who functioned to protect the safety of
shipboard personnel and cargo by guiding the crane
operator so as to avoid "blind" hazards on and below
deck Whirly cranes, on the other hand, require a crew
of variously classified longshoremen to assist operating
engineer operators by attaching crane slinglines to cargo
and by holding loads level during movement between
ship and dock
In late 1965, Sea-Land Freight Service, Inc (the
Employer's principal customer), converted its vessels
for haulage of only containerized cargo With apparent
regard for the possibility of changing work assignments
in light of this development, the Operating Engineers
filed a representation petition with the Board, Case
19-RC-3777, seeking generally all loading and unloading
work performed by use of equipment, and excluding
work performed by longshoremen under their existing
contract with the Employer The seafarers intervened
to dispute the appropriateness of the requested unit
Noting that the basic concern of both unions was an
anticipated future dispute over the assignment of crane
operation work, the Regional Director" refused to enter-
tain the issue citing the Board holding that "work assign-
ment disputes are not properly matters for consideration
and resolution in a representation proceeding " The
Gas Service Company, 140 NLRB 445, 447 Thereafter,
an election was held and the Operating Engineers cer
tified on January 20, 1966, for a unit composed of
All engineers, apprentices, and mechanics employed
by the Employer in the operationg [sic] and/or
maintenance of equipment used in the loading or
unloading of water vessels, trucks, railroad cars,
and other types of carriers in the Port of Anchorage,
Alaska, excluding longshoremen and checkers, off
ice clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
steam boilers compressors locomotives derricks loaders of all
types all types of cranes used in the loading or unloading hoisting
or placing of any and all building materials ore aggregate oil
and wood products machinery or materials conveyed by water
vessel trucks or railways [Emphasis supplied I
Containerized cargo refers to vans or flatbeds 35 feet in length
which are suitable for transporting on land via railroad cars or trailer
chassis pulled by tractors
" Unpublished decision dated November 30 1965 determining the
appropriate unit and directing an election
On May 10, 1966, Sea-Land installed a hammerhead
crane on the Anchorage city dock This crane, also
referred to as "Super-Sam," is similar to the shipboard
crane except that it is capable of servicing an entire
vessel from its dockside location The Seafarers immedi-
ately claimed jurisdiction to operation of the hammer-
head crane and, with the Employer's announced intention
of awarding jurisdiction to the Operating Engineers
because of the Board certification, supra, a Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) proceeding developed In its decision
issued January 18, 1967,"' the Board concluded that
longshoremen were entitled to operate the hammerhead
crane Thereafter, Sea-Land vessels at the Anchorage
City Dock were loaded and unloaded by use of their
shipboard cranes and by use of the dockside hammerhead,
crane, both manned by members of the Seafarers
Early in 1969, Sea-Land modernized its vessels with
the removal of cranes aboard ship to allow room for
an increased number of containerized cargo vans Whirly
cranes, manned by members of the Operating Engineers,
were substituted for shipside cranes in loading and
unloading procedures 11 About January 28, 1969, the
Seafarers began a training program for its members
in the operation of whirly cranes 12 During subsequent
months, various rumors circulated that longshoremen
wanted the job of operating whirly cranes Finally,
on June 13, 1969, the Seafarers made a written demand
upon Albin for jurisdiction, and advised that it "will
seek such remedies as are legally available to it under
the law and its agreement with you, including financial
liability to the Anchorage Longshore Unit and its mem-
bers for lost wages and your failure to bargain in good
faith, and persistent and willful violation of the agree
ment "13 On June 22, 1969, when members of the Operat-
"' United Industrial Workers of North America Anchorage Longshore
Unit Affiliated with Seafarers International Union of North America
AFL-CIO and Albin Stevedore Company 162 NLRB 1005
11 The effect of this modernization program in terms of longshoreman
employment has been the elimination of two men with the removal
of ships cranes and the reduction of crew size aboard ship by two
because of the method of containerization itself In addition of specific
job loss the mechanization and modernization program has resulted
overall in turning ships around faster even though they are transporting
larger numbers of vans with a consequent loss of employment hours
for all longshoremen
12 The Employer rented a whirly crane from the port of Anchorage
for this purpose and the Seafarers reimbursed Albin for rental charges
and also assumed liability for the deductible in Albin s insurance policy
covering crane operation The training program itself was conducted
by a representative of the whirly crane manufacturer eight longshoremen
participated in and completed the program
13 Albin s current collective bargaining agreement with the Seafarers
is effective July 1 1966 to June 30 1971 It specifies that
The provisions of this agreement shall apply to the handling of
cargo and its transfer from vessel to and including shorting and
piling of cargo on the dock the transfer of cargo from vessel
to railroad car van flatbed barge warehousing or vice verso
[sic] when such work is performed by longshoremen employed
by the EMPLOYER The status quo to the scope of longshore
men s work shall be maintained [Emphasis supplied ]
Sec I of this contract defines longshoremen as Men in the following
occupations are included and considered as longshoremen for the pur
pose of this Agreement-i e Slingmen Holdmen Longshore Walking
Bosses Hatch Tenders Winch Drivers Jitney Drivers Lift Operators
Boom Men Dock Men Checkers Donkey Drivers Warehousemen
Freight Handlers and/or Cranemen Bull Dozer operators when bull doz
UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA 635
ing Engineers began preparing to unload a Sea-Land
vessel with a whirly crane, the Seafarers called a 3-
to 4-hour work stoppage by longshoremen in furtherance
of its jurisdictional claim 14 Subsequently, Albin filed
a charge with the Board on June 26, 1969, alleging
a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(D) of the Act
B The Work in Dispute
The dispute arises from competing claims by the
Seafarers and the Operating Engineers, as bargaining
representatives from Albin's employees, to the operation
of whirly cranes at the Anchorage city dock in Alaska
There are four whirly cranes on the Anchorage city
dock, installed around 1962 when construction of the
dock was completed The whirly crane has a movable
boom and rotates through 360 degress on its base It
does exactly the same job as the hammerhead crane,
except that it performs about half as fast Although
operation of the hammerhead crane is fairly easy because
of its limited rotation swing and fixed boom, the more
difficult operation of the whirly crane is considerably
simplified by a luffing device which automatically levels
each load when the boom moves up and down Generally,
whirly cranes perform a greater variety of tasks around
the dock and, while operating engineers have run these
cranes up to the present time, increasing use is currently
being made of them for new methods of cargo handling
in connection with ships calling at the port It is this
loading and unloading aspect of their work which is
now being sought by longshoremen
C The Contentions of the Parties
1 The Employer (Charging Party) Albin prefers that
the work in question be assigned to operating engineers
Its position rests on the Board's certification which
Albin interprets as requiring this assignment, and also
because of its contract with the Operating Engineers
Moreover, Albin points out that past practice has always
been to have operating engineers run whirly cranes
and that there is a greater supply of competent and
experienced operating engineer operators available
2 The Seafarers Overall, the Seafarers contend that,
inasmuch as whirly cranes are now being used to perform
traditional longshore work as a result of mechanization
and modernization in the shipping industry, and have
in fact replaced shipboard cranes which were operated
by longshoremen, it is entitled to the work assignment
Furthermore, there are provisions in its contract with
the Employer clearly governing and requiring assign-
ment Finally, while there is no area practice significant
for either of the contending labor organizations when
ers or cranes are used aboard ship [Emphasis supplied 1
'" Specifically it appears from the record that for a number of
years two particular operating engineers have done most of the Employ
er s whirly crane jobs Longshoremen were prepared to allow these
two individuals to continue working the cranes without protest but
they were not willing to permit the Employer to train replacements
for them It was the fact that a new operating engineer started to
unload cargo on June 22 with a whirly crane which precipitated the
events in question
these cranes are used for loading and unloading purposes,
longshoremen possess the requisite operating skills and
factors of industry practice, economy, and safety also
support its position
3 The Operating Engineers Initially, the Operating
Engineers argues that the statutory requisites necessary
for a 10(k) hearing have not been met because a work
stoppage did not occur and, in any event, if there
was one it was of momentary importance and not directed
by the Seafarers for the purpose of securing a work
assignment as would be unlawful under Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act On the merits, the Operating Engineers
argues that both its certification and current contract,
as extended, dictate that whirly crane operation remain
assigned to operating engineers Additionally, the
Employer's preference and past practice shoud be hon-
ored, and such considerations as competence and effici-
ency of operation weigh in its favor
D Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination 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
Notwithstanding the Operating Engineers contention
that a wgrk stoppage, directed by the Seafarers, did
not take place on June 22, 1969, we find that as hereina-
bove set forth, the record evidence supports the finding
of reasonable cause After rumors that longshoremen
felt entitled to operate whirly cranes and the Seafarers
written demand for the work, matters came to a head
on June 22 when a new operating engineer began to
train for the job The work stoppage immediately called
by the Seafarers was for the purpose of inducing the
Employer to assign the disputed work to its longshore
members rather than to operating engineers
Accordingly, we conclude that on the basis of the
entire record, there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act
E Merits of the Dispute
In the CBS ca§e,i' the Supreme Court charged the
Board with the "responsibility and duty to decide which
of two or more employee groups claiming the right
to perform certain work tasks is right and then specifical
ly to award such tasks in accordance with its decision "
Pursuant to the mandate, the Board in the J A Jones
case", stated that it would thenceforth determine the
proper assignment of disputed work only after taking
into account and balancing all relevant factors The
following factors are asserted in support of the claims
of the parties herein
' N L R B v Radio & Telesision Broadcast Engineers Union Local
1212 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO
(Columbia Broadcasting S) stem) 364 U S 573 586
" International Association of Machinists Lodge No 1743 AFL-CIO
(J A Jones Construction Compan)) 135 NLRB 1402
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements 2. Company and industry practices
Both the Employer and Operating Engineers rely,
in part, on the Regional Director's January 1966 certifica-
tion of the Operating Engineers as the exclusive repre-
sentative of certain named categories, of employees
engaged , inter alia, in operating equipment used in load-
ing and unloading water vessels as the basis for their
position in this dispute. We note that there is other
language in the certification excluding longshoremen
from the unit, and the Seafarers collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer (in effect during January
1966, with the same language used in the parties' July
1966 to June 1971 contract applicable herein) covers
employees engaged in handling and 'transferring cargo
between water vessels and the dock. Moreover, the
Regional Director , in determining the appropriate operat-
ing engineers unit , specifically noted that crane operation
work in the course of loading and unloading ships was
a subject of contention between the two unions and
that no jurisdictional award of this work was being
made by means of the representation proceedings.
Subsequently, in July 1966, even though the Operating
Engineers signed an agreement with the Employer which
ostensibly conferred all crane loading and unloading
work on its members, predicated on their interpretation
of the certification, the Employer, at the same time,
continued in effect until 1971 its contract with the Seafar-
ers which remained applicable to all general stevedoring
work. It was this situation which confronted the Board
in January 1967, relative to the hammerhead crane on
the Anchorage City dock, and the Board concluded
that neither the Operating Engineers certification nor
the parties ' agreements, with their conflicting provisions,
was controlling (supra , fn. 11 at 1010). In the present
situation, involving whirly cranes, nothing has changed
in this regard" and we again find that these documents
are not controlling.
" The Operating Engineers contend herein that the Board, in the
hammerhead crane case , erroneously overlooked a provision in the
Seafarers contract defining longshoremen as men in the occupation
of "cranemen operators when cranes are used aboard ship " Therefore,
it argues , the longshore agreement does preclude the award of dockside
crane operation work to longshoremen , albeit the hammerhead crane
in the prior case or whirly cranes in this case
While it is true that the Seafarers contract does contain a provision
to this effect , the contract also contains a statement that, "the status
quo to the scope of longshoremen ' s work shall be maintained " (supra,
fn 14), and a provision (Sec 21 ) recognizing the need to study mechaniza-
tion and modernization in the stevedoring industry generally These
statements represent the thrust of the issues presented to the Board
in both dockside crane cases, and also in the general crane operation
case which developed out of Albin's Seattle operations ( supra, fn
7) Prior to 1966, only ships' cranes operated by longshoremen were
used in any significant way for traditional stevedoring purposes at
the Anchorage dock After that date, changes in shipping methods
have resulted in the substitution of machines for manual longshore
work in a way that the Board has likened to "the establishment of
an entirely new operation " (supra, fn II at 1010) Since the decision
awarding hammerhead crane work to longshoremen on this basis was
only issued in 1967, it is obvious that the still current 1966-71 longshore
agreement cannot now be expected to reflect a new definition of long-
shoremen occupations relative to crane operators
Although Albin has' consistently divided the work
of operating cranes used in its Alaskan stevedore busi-
ness between two groups of employees in terms of
the location of cranes on board ship or on the dock,
the evidence-shows that, however valid this distinction
may have been, with the increased use of containerized
cargo for shipping purposes and, moreover, with the
elimination of ships' cranes altogether, this dichotomy
no longer serves to delineate traditional longshore work
from other kinds of port jobs also requiring the use
of cranes. The trend in the maritime industry for the
past decade has steadily been toward the replacement
of manual labor by mechanized equipment. This reality
was recognized early by parties concerned with shipping
on the West Coast of the United States and it culminated
in 1961 with the West Coast Longshore Agreement
executed by the Pacific Maritime Association (of which
Albin, was a member) and various craft unions. The
primary aim of that agreement ,was to lighten the impact
of unemployment upon longshoremen due to mechaniza-
tion, and thereby promote industrial peace in this area
of American industry. The Board has recognized the
soundness of this objective,'" and indeed relied upon
it as a factor favoring longshoremen in the hammerhead
crane case (supra, fn. 11 or 1011) even though that
dispute also involved the Seafarers, which is not a
signatory to the agreement , and the Alaskan port, which
is not covered by the agreement.
We see no reason to deviate from implementation
of the above policy in this case, for clearly the disputed
work is in the broadest sense longshore work as it
involves the loading and discharging of cargo from ves-
sels. Furthermore, the record discloses that in Seattle,
as well as in other ports, longshoremen are employed
to operate whirly cranes for cargo handling purposes.
In view of such considerations, we find that industry
practice favors the longshoremen.
3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency of operations
The factor of relative skill in operating whirly cranes
seems, at the outset, to favor operating engineers since
this is a type of crane which they have worked since
the beginning of Albin's stevedore operations in Alaska.
Their advantege, however, is tempered by the record
evidence that most of the Employer's whirly crane work
on the dock has in fact been performed by only two
specific operating engineers . Apart from these particular
individuals , it appears that all other operating engineers
assigned to the job possess relatively little experience
in actually manipulating whirly cranes for cargo handling
purposes. On the other hand, longshoremen have been
in the process of training to run these cranes and there
" See International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union and
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local No.
19 (American Mail Line, Ltd and Mobile Crane Company), 144 NLRB
1432, Albin Stevedore Company and Alaska Freight Lines, Inc , supra,
fn 7, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union and
its Local Union No 10 (Howard Terminal), 147 NLRB 359
UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA
are presently eight longshoremen qualified to do so
It appears, also, that during several recent emergency
situations these longshore operators were called upon
to work the cranes
In terms of economy and efficiency of operations,
not only are longshoremen more readily available on
the dock than operating engineers in emergencies, but
longshoremen also interchange between the positions
of whirly crane operator and hatchtender This eliminates
the need for a relief operator, and it also means that
the longshore operator performs with a high degree
of safety and efficiency because he switches off the
job at regular intervals and in the process gains from
familiarity with physical conditions aboard ship As
regards operating engineers, their crane operators work
with an oiler as helper, and neither interchanges with
the hatchtender
Balancing all of the foregoing considerations, we find
that, while both groups of employees possess the neces-
sary skills to perform the disputed work, the factors
of economy and efficiency of operations favor the Seafar
ers claim to the work
4 Gain or loss of employment
Whereas membership in the operating engineers local
involved in this dispute totals several thousands of
employees, membership in the longshoremen's local is
less than 100 Moreover, by far the largest number
of employment opportunities open to operating engineers
in the Alaskan area is in the building and construction
industry, for longshoremen, employment opportunities
are limited to the Alaskan shipping industry Placed
in this context, the loss of two longshore crane operators
due to the removal of ships' cranes and the reduction
of crew size aboard ship by two men because of contain-
erized shipping methods must be viewed as a significant
employment loss In addition, the ability of longshoremen
637
to accomplish increased cargo handling faster with the
aid of modern methods and machinery and, thereby,
actually reducing overall longshore employment hours
cannot be ignored Thus , we conclude that a finding
herein that operating engineers are entitled to whiny
crane operation work would bring about a significant
loss of employment opportunities for longshoremen as
contrasted with a minimal gain for operating engineers
Conclusions
Upon the entire record in this case and the foregoing
consideration of all relevant factors, we conclude that
longshoremen represented by the Seafarers are entitled
to the work in question, and we shall determine the
dispute in their favor We do not, however, award
the work to the Seafarers or its members In making
the determination, we particularly rely upon the factors
of industry practice, economy, efficiency of operations,
and employment opportunities Overall, we are persuad-
ed by the realities of mechanization and modernization
within the maritime industry that assignments of steve-
doring work to longshoremen will be of longrun benefit
to the industry as a whole
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the forego-
ing findings and the entire record in this proceeding,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the
following determination of the dispute
Longshoremen employed by Albin Stevedore Compa-
ny, Anchorage , Alaska, who are currently represented
by United Industrial Workers of North America, Anchor-
age Longshore Unit , affiliated with Seafarers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO, are entitled
to operate whirly cranes located on the city dock of
the port of Anchorage , Alaska, in the loading and unload-
ing of water vessels