Warehousemen's Union Local 6, Etc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1489 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION LOCAL 6, ETC . 1489
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Solo Cup Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Warehousemen 's Union Local 6, International Longshoremen's
& Warehousemen 's Union and Puget Sound Tug & Barge
Company ; Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co ., Ltd.; and
Bay Cities Transportation Company. Case No. 20-CD-92.
November 12, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act following
charges filed by Puget Sound Tug & Barge Company, herein called
Puget Sound, alleging that Warehousemen's Union Local 6, Inter-
national Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, herein called
Respondent or Local 6, had induced and encouraged employees to
strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring Puget Sound, Ship-
owners & Merchants Towboat Co., Ltd., herein called Shipowners,
and Bay Cities Transportation Company, herein called Bay Cities, to
assign particular work to members of Respondent rather than to
members of the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, affiliated with
the Seafarers' International Union of North America, herein called
the IBU. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before William F.
Roche, Hearing Officer, on March 25, April 29, and May 16, 1963, at
which all parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, Respondent, IBU, and Puget Sound, et al., filed briefs
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board' makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employers
Puget Sound, a Washington corporation with its principal office in
Seattle and an office in San Francisco, is engaged in the business,
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Leedom , Fanning,
and Jenkins].
144 NLRB No. 132.
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inter alia, of operating barges which carry interstate commerce under
tariffs approved by the Federal Maritime Commission. In each of the
years 1961 and 1962, Puget Sound's gross income exceeded $500,000
and the value of the cargo carried on its barges exceeded $50,000.
Shipowners, a California corporation with its principal office in
San Francisco, is engaged in general towing in both offshore and
inland waters and tows vessels which are engaged in interstate com-
merce. In 1961 and 1962, Shipowners' gross income exceeded $500,000
per year and in each of these years it towed vessels carrying cargo
valued in excess of $500,000.
Bay Cities, a California corporation with its principal office in San
Francisco and an office in Oakland, is primarily engaged in maritime
towing. Its gross income in 1961 and 1962 exceeded $500,000 and the
value of the cargo transported exceeded $500,000 per year.
Oakland Dock & Warehouse Co., herein called Oakland Dock,
operates a marine terminal at Oakland, California, providing facili-
ties for berthing vessels and loading, unloading, and warehousing
cargo. It annually receives in excess of $50,000 for such services
performed in connection with cargo carried in interstate commerce
and for various firms engaged in interstate commerce.
We find that Puget Sound, Shipowners, Bay Cities, and Oakland
Dock 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 jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The labor organizations involved
Respondent and IBU are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
The Work at Issue
The work involved in this dispute consists of the handling of the
mooring lines on the pier for tying up, letting go, and shifting of
seagoing barges. The handling of mooring lines on board the barges
is performed by tugboat crew members who are represented by IBU,
and is not claimed by the Respondent.
The Basic Facts
Puget Sound has engaged in transporting cargo between the San
Francisco area and Alaska in seagoing barges since about March 1960.
These barges are towed from Seattle to San, Francisco by either Puget
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION LOCAL 6, ETC. 1491
Sound's oceangoing tugs or Shipowners' offshore tugs, and are shifted
between the various marine terminals in the San Francisco Bay area
by Bay Cities' harbor tugs. Puget Sound, Shipowners, and Bay Cities
are affiliated corporations.
IBU represents the unlicensed crew members employed on the tugs
operated by Puget Sound, Shipowners, and Bay Cities, and has col-
lective-bargaining contracts with each of the three companies cover-
ing such employees. From the inception of this type of operation,
Puget Sound has assigned the work of handling lines of its seagoing
barges to the IBU deck hands on the towing tug, including handling
lines upon arrival, when shifting berths, and upon departure. Ac-
cordingly, when Puget Sound engaged Shipowners and Bay Cities
to tow its seagoing barges, all of the work of handling lines in con-
nection with these barges at Oakland Dock's terminal and other marine
terminals in the area was performed by the IBU deckhands of the
towing tug's crews.
On July 2, 1962, at a time when a representative from Oakland
Dock was present, Respondent demanded that Puget Sound use Local
6 members to handle mooring lines on the pier for seagoing barges
berthing in the East Bay area. Puget Sound did not agree and,
when on or about July 14 Puget Sound's seagoing barge Fairbanks
arrived in San Francisco Bay under tow by Shipowners' tug Sea
Wolf and was berthed at the Oakland Dock terminal, the tug's crew
members handled the mooring lines. On or about July 17, when it
was planned to move Fairbanks to the Army base terminal, Respondent
demanded that Puget Sound assign to Local 6 members the work of
handling the mooring lines on the pier. Puget Sound refused, and
Respondent placed a picket line at the head of the pier where Fair-
banks was moored. Later in the day the picket line was moved out-
side the terminal to a gate leading to this pier, where picketing
continued the following day. Trucks hauling cargo destined for Fair-
banks and employees scheduled to load and unload cargo refused to
cross the picket line.
On July 19, at a meeting with Oakland Dock and Puget Sound,
Respondent agreed to discontinue its picket line and permit Fair-
banks to off-load and take on new cargo. At this time Respondent
stated that its "beef" was not with Puget Sound, but was with Oak-
land Dock. However, on July 23 Respondent told Puget Sound that
it could not bring seagoing barges into the Oakland Dock terminal
unless it agreed to use Local 6 line handlers on the pier. Thereafter,
and at least until an injunction issued in a 10(1) proceeding in the
United States district court, Puget Sound barges were not brought
to the San Francisco area.
727-083-04-vol. 144-95
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination of a dispute, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act has been violated. The Respondent contends
that no such finding can be made here. It concedes that it picketed at
the Oakland Dock terminal, but argues that the picketing was directed
against Oakland Dock for a protected objective, i.e., to compel Oak-
land Dock to assign the work of handling mooring lines of seagoing
barges to Respondent's members as agreed to between Respondent and
the East Bay Marine Terminals Association, herein called EBMTA,
as more fully discussed infra. The evidence establishes that,the pickets
solicited and appealed to employees to cease performing work in con-
nection with the operations of Fairbanks. As a result of these picket-
ing activities, truckdrivers for Bay Cities and other carriers refused
to deliver cargo to the barge. Longshoremen and crane operators em-
ployed by Marine Terminals and by Oakland Dock and its wholly
owned subsidiary, Bulk Terminals, Inc., and the ships' clerk employed
by Puget Sound and Bay Cities refused to load or work on cargo for
the barge. Thus, the record clearly demonstrates that Respondent
induced or encouraged employees at the Oakland Dock terminal to
engage in work stoppages, and that the employees did engage in such
stoppages. In our opinion, an object of the Respondent's foregoing
conduct was to force Puget 'Sound to assign the disputed work to
Local 6 warehousemen, rather than to IBU dockhands.
On the basis of the entire record, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that as violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred,
and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination
under Section 10(k) of the Act.
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 2 The following factors are asserted in support of
the claims of the parties herein :
1. Collective-bargaining agreements. Respondent relies on its con-
tract with EBMTA and a May 3 meeting between Respondent and
EBMTA amending this contract to support its claim to the dis-
puted work, while IBU contends that custom and practice as well as
its contracts with the towboat operators herein clearly establish its
right to this work.
Directing our attention to Respondent's contract contentions, it
appears that Respondent and EBMTA are parties to a contract which
2 International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743 (J A. Jones Construction
Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION LOCAL 6, ETC. 1493
provides, inter alia, the minimum requirements for handling ships'
mooring lines. Bulk Terminals adopted this contract in September
1961 by a memorandum of agreement which specified that the work
covered included "the work involved in handling of all ships' lines
and shall be applicable to the operations of the Employer at the
facilities of the Oakland Dock and Warehouse Company." Oakland
Dock, which acquired Bulk Terminals as a wholly owned subsidiary
on or about March 1, 1962, has not independently entered this or
any other agreement with Respondent, but has apparently abided
by the terms of the EBMTA agreement.
On or about May 3, 1962, at a meeting of the special labor relations
committee comprised of representatives from the Respondent and
EBMTA, the Respondent claimed the work of handling mooring
lines on the pier for seagoing barges. The EBMTA agreed but pro-
posed that fewer line handlers be used for barges than are customarily
used for handling ships' mooring lines. Respondent agreed to a
reduction in the number of men for the next two barges, provided
that no precedent would be established. At the district court 10(1)
proceeding in the instant case Respondent testified that it meant by
this that if this arrangement was "all right, it would continue."
Neither Oakland Dock nor Bulk Terminal was informed of the May 3
agreement until the July 19 meeting between the Respondent Oak-
land Dock and Puget Sound when Respondent showed Warren H.
Brackett, general manager of Oakland Dock and president of Bulk
Terminals, a copy of the minutes of the May 3 meeting. The IBU
relies upon (1) its contract with Shipowners which sets forth special
provisions for crew members called out to handle lines when they
are off watch; and (2) its contract with Bay Cities which describes
deckhand duties, in part, as "tying up and letting go as required by
the operation . . . ."
Upon examination and analysis of the contracts in evidence herein
we conclude that both contracts are subject to the interpretation
advanced by their proponents and are in direct conflict with regard
to the assignment of the work in question. Under these circumstances
neither contract is persuasive and cannot constitute the basis for an
award of the disputed, work.
The IBU and the towboat operators further contend that the agree-
ments between Respondent and EBMTA apply only when line-
handling services are requested by the vessel 8 and such services were
not requested by Fairbanks. We find merit in this contention as we
find that these agreements cannot supersede the published tariff No. 1.
2. Efficiency of operation. There is no serious dispute in the record
about the ability of the IBU d,eckhands or the Local 6 warehousemen
8 Oakland Dock's Tariff No 1, filed with the Federal Maritime Commission, specified that
line-handling services will be provided at the terminal "upon request of the vessel or
carrier 11
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to perform the line-handling work in dispute herein. Puget Sound's
seagoing barges, such as Fairbanks herein, are moored by light water-
proof lines which lead from cleats on the barge to cleats, bollards, or
bitts on the pier. Normally three or four lines are used-a headline
from the bow, one or two springlines from the middle, and a stern-
line. Unlike the larger and heavier manila lines used in mooring
ships, barge lines are handled by hand, without the use of powered
winches.
A barge, seagoing or harbor, is moored by being maneuvered along-
side and held in place against the pier by one or more tugs while the
deckhands step from the barge to the pier carrying the end of the
mooring line. Each line has an eye, or loop, on its end which is
dropped over a cleat, bollard, or bitt on the pier. The deckhand then
steps back aboard the barge, takes the slack out of the mooring line,
and fastens it to a cleat on the barge. This operation is repeated for
each line, and the entire job can be performed by one deckhand. In
undocking, it is held fast against the pier by one or more tugs. The
deckhand unfastens the line on the barge to allow slack, steps off
onto the pier, and removes the loop from the cleat. He then returns
on board the barge, hauls in the line, sand secures it. The entire opera-
tion of mooring or unmooring a seagoing barge usually takes from
5 to 10 minutes. Testimony in the record indicates that due to various
factors such as tide, winds, weather, etc., the arrival time of a sea-
going barge is not susceptible to accurate advance determination.
Because of this, and the fact that shore-based line-handling parties
must be at the pier waiting for the arrival of the vessel, assignment
of the disputed work to Local 6 warehousemen would result in line
handlers being stationed and waiting for inordinately long periods of
time. It is clear, therefore, that use of shoreside handlers results in
a less efficient operation.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the assignment of the
disputed work to the IBU deckhands is therefore consistent with
efficiency of operation in the handling of seagoing barges' mooring
lines on the pier.
3. Company and industry practice. The record shows that the
practice of the towboat operators herein, and of all other towboat
operators in the San Francisco area, as well as in other ports of the
Northwest and Pacific Coast, has been for tugboat deckhands to handle
the mooring lines of seagoing barges docking or undocking. We find
no merit to Respondent's contention that the seagoing barges, be-
cause of'their size, are more closely akin to ships and therefore ship
practices- concerning line handlers should apply.' Indeed, the record
4 The Respondent claimed the work in dispute "because of its fear that the new and
expanded use of 'sea-going ' barges would cut into the line-handling work performed by its
members "
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION LOCAL 6, ETC. 1495
shows that handling the mooring lines for seagoing barges is virtually
the same as those of harbor barges. Accordingly, we find that the
assignment of the disputed work to the tugboat crew members con-
forms to past practices in the industry.
Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
Having considered the relevant factors, and upon the record as a
whole, we believe that the IBU deckhands rather than the ILWU
warehousemen are entitled to the work in dispute between these two
groups. In reaching this conclusion, we rely upon company and in-
dustry practice, the collective-bargaining agreements adduced in
evidence herein, assignment by the employer, and efficiency of opera-
tions. We reject the contention that the agreement between the Re-
spondent and the EBMTA, which was entered into by Bulk Terminals,
assigns the work in dispute to warehousemen. That agreement must
be viewed in the context of Oakland Dock's published Tariff No. 1 and
cannot supersede it.
We conclude, therefore, on the basis of the foregoing evidence and
the entire record herein, that deckhand members of the tugboat crews,
represented by the IBU, should be assigned the disputed work. Ac-
cordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by
deciding that deckhand members of the tugboat crews, represented by
the IBU, rather than warehousemen, who are represented by the Re-
spondent, pare entitled to the work in question. In making this deter-
mination, we are assigning the disputed work to deckhands represented
by the IBU, but not to the IBU or its members. Our present deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to
this proceeding.
Determination of Dispute
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Deckhand members of tugboat crews employed by Puget Sound,
Shipowners, or Bay Cities, who are represented by the Inlandboat-
men's Union of the Pacific, are entitled to perform the work of han-
dling mooring lines in connection with tying up, shifting, and letting
go Puget Sound's seagoing barges at Oakland Dock's terminal in the
East Bay area.
2. Warehousemen's Local 6, International Longshoremen's &, Ware-
housemen's Union, is not and has not been, lawfully entitled to force
or require Puget Sound, Bay Cities, or Shipowners to assign the dis-
puted work to warehousemen.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Warehousemen's Local 6, International Longshoremen's
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
& Warehousemen's Union, shall notify the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring Puget Sound, Bay Cities, or Shipowners, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the
work in dispute to warehousemen who are its members, rather than
to tugboat deckhands who are represented by the Inlandboatmen's
Union of the Pacific.
Bagdad Copper Company and Construction, Building Material
& Miscellaneous Drivers Union, Local #83, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Petitioner . Case No. 28-RC-1115. No-
vember 12, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before J. W. Cherry, Jr., Hearing
Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
.from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs filed by
both the Petitioner and the Employer, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Construction, Building Material & Miscellaneous Drivers Union,
Local #83, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers (hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner), requests that the Board find appropriate a unit of all pit
department employees at the copper mining and milling operations
of Bagdad Copper Company (hereinafter referred to as the Em-
ployer), excluding all clerical, managerial, and professional employees,
and all guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer
opposes the petition, contending that the only appropriate unit con-
sists of all employees.
The Employer operates an open-pit copper mine and concentrating
mill at Bagdad, Arizona. These operations and the contiguous town-
144 NLRB No. 141.