ILA, Local 1830

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Longshoremen's Association, Local No.
1830, AFL-CIO and Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring
Company, Inc.
International Longshoremen's Association, Local No.
1833, AFL-CIO and Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring
Company, Inc. and International Longshore-
men's Association, Local No. 1497 and Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, Local No.
3000 and International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, Local No. 1802. Cases 15-CD-273 and
15-CD-274
June 16, 1981
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of charges by Ryan-Walsh Stevedor-
ing Company, Inc., herein called Ryan-Walsh or
the Employer, alleging that International Long-
shoremen's Association, Local No. 1830, AFL-
CIO, herein called Local 1830, and International
Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1833,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1833, had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer-
tain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring Ryan-Walsh to assign certain work to
employees represented by Local 1830 and Local
1833, herein also called the Baton Rouge Locals,
rather than to employees represented by Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, Local No.
1497, herein called Local 1497, International Long-
shoremen's Association, Local No. 3000, herein
called Local 3000, and International Longshore-
men's Association, Local No. 1802, herein called
Local 1802.'
Pursuant to notice,2 a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Lyn J. Beck on February 3, 4, and
5, 1981. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer, the Baton
Rouge Locals, Local 1497, Local 3000, and NOSA
filed briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
' Local 1497, Local 3000, and Local 1802 shall he called collectively
the New Orleans Locals Local 1802, which was permitted to intervene
at the hearing, was represented by counsel for Local 1497 and l.ocal
3000. However, the brief submitted by said counsel purports to represent
only Local 1497 and Local 3(X0
2 The notice of hearing also named the New Orleans Steamship Asso-
ciation (herein called NOSA), agent of the instant Employer and other
stevedores for purposes of collective bargaining, as a party of interest to
the dispute We find no merit in the Employer's contention that NOSA is
not a proper party to this proceeding and should have been precluded
from participating in the hearing
256 NLRB No. 113
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Based upon the entire record in this case and the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is an Alabama corporation, licensed to do
and doing business in the State of Louisiana, and is
engaged in the business of providing stevedoring
services for the loading and unloading of ships in
interstate commerce. The parties stipulated, and we
find, that during the preceding 12-month period, a
representative period, the Employer received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points located outside the State of Lou-
isiana. 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. We fur-
ther find that it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Baton Rouge Locals and the New Orleans Locals
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.3
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In June or July 1980,4 Ryan-Walsh contracted to
perform stevedoring work for Delta Bulk Termi-
nal, Inc., at its new grain transfer facility, herein
called the Delta Bulk Terminal, located at Con-
vent, Louisiana. Convent, located on the Mississip-
pi River, is south of the Ascension-St. James Parish
Line.
On September 1, Ryan-Walsh, as a member of
NOSA, entered into collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Local 1497 and Local 3000, which pur-
ported to cover "work performed . . . at the Port
of New Orleans and all other terminals and facili-
ties on the Mississippi River and adjacent or con-
necting waterways extending from the Gulf of
Mexico up to the Port of Baton Rouge (Ascension-
St. James Parish Line)...."
On November 1, after receiving written assur-
ances from a vice president of the International
Longshoremen's Association that an executive
council committee of the International had deter-
' Ilhe Hearing Officer reopened the record for Ihe purpose of recci -
inig written stipulations submitted by all parties after the close of the
hearing, stipulating as to the labor organization status of Local 1802.
4 All dales hereinafter refer to 11)8(, unless other¥wise indicated
ILA, LOCAL 1830 609
mined that the Baton Rouge Locals' jurisdiction in-
cluded Convent, Ryan-Walsh entered into a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Baton Rouge
Locals, which purported to cover "longshore work
performed in the general area of Convent, Louisi-
ana."
The Employer began operations at Convent on
November 4, utilizing employees represented by
the Baton Rouge Locals. Thereafter, Local 1497
and Local 3000 filed a grievance, alleging a breach
of their contracts. When the Employer notified the
Baton Rouge Locals that it might have to employ
employees represented by the New Orleans Locals
to perform the longshore work at Convent, the
Baton Rouge Locals threatened to picket the Em-
ployer's Convent operations.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute herein is the longshore
work involved in the loading and unloading of
grain at the Delta Bulk Terminal located at Con-
vent, Louisiana.
C. Contentions of the Parties
NOSA contends that the Board has no jurisdic-
tion over the instant case, because the filing of a
grievance by Local 1497 and Local 3000 does not
constitute coercion within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(D), nor should the Baton Rouge Locals'
threat to picket constitute the necessary coercion
because members of those Unions had already been
assigned the work in dispute. In the alternative,
NOSA argues that an outstanding Board certifica-
tion, collective-bargaining agreements, and past
practice in the area support the awarding of the
work in dispute to employees represented by the
New Orleans Locals. Local 1497 and Local 3000
filed a brief with the Board, essentially adopting
the legal principles enunciated in NOSA's brief.
The Employer contends that the Baton Rouge
Locals' threat to picket constitutes coercion within
the meaning of the Act. The Employer further
contends that its agreements with the New Orleans
Locals are not applicable to the disputed work. Fi-
nally, the Employer argues that the International's
award, industry practice, increased efficiency and
economy, and its work assignment and preference
favor awarding the disputed work to employees
represented by the Baton Rouge Locals.
The Baton Rouge Locals contend that the work
in dispute is properly assigned to employees repre-
sented by them. In support of this contention, they
point to their collective-bargaining agreement with
the Employer, their charters as clarified by the In-
ternational, past area practice, and potential loss of
jobs if the work is awarded to employees repre-
sented by the New Orleans Locals.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a 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 the parties have no agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
As set forth above, upon being informed by the
Employer that it might have to award the work in
dispute to employees represented by the New Or-
leans Locals, the Baton Rouge Locals notified
Ryan-Walsh that should it use employees other
than those represented by them they would picket
the Employer's Convent operations. This threat to
picket clearly constitutes a threat of serious eco-
nomic harm, and is coupled with the stated aim of
forcing the Employer to continue to assign particu-
lar work to employees represented by the Baton
Rouge Locals rather than to employees represented
by the New Orleans Locals. We find no merit in
NOSA's argument that, because the Employer had
already assigned the work to employees represent-
ed by the Baton Rouge Locals, their threat to
picket should the Employer assign the work else-
where does not constitute coercion within the
meaning of the Act. See Glaziers and Glassworkers
Local Union No. 767 (Sacramento Metal & Glass
Co.), 228 NLRB 200, 201 (1977). Accordingly, we
find that reasonable cause exists to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
No party takes the position that there is an
agreed-upon method for the voluntary settlement
of the dispute herein.
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
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 fac-
tors.
i. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
NOSA, citing Aluminum Line, 9 NLRB 72
(1938), urges that the New Orleans Locals have
been certified as collective-bargaining representa-
tives of the employees performing the work in dis-
pute. However, we note that the certification re-
ferred to pertains only to longshore work at the
Port of New Orleans and does not encompass Con-
LA, LOCAL 1830
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vent. Accordingly, we find that none of the labor
organizations has been certified by the Board as
collective-bargaining representative for a unit of
the Employer's employees working at the Delta
Bulk Terminal in Convent.
As mentioned above, the Employer currently has
collective-bargaining agreements with both the
Baton Rouge Locals and the New Orleans Locals.
Each of these contracts covers the work in dispute.
Consequently, the factor of collective-bargaining
agreements does not favor an award of the disput-
ed work to either group of employees.
2. Employer's assignment and preference
On November 4, the Employer commenced op-
erations at Convent and assigned the disputed work
to employees represented by the Baton Rouge
Locals. The record indicates that the Employer
maintains a preference for this assignment. These
factors support an award of the work in dispute to
the employees represented by the Baton Rouge
Locals.
3. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer maintained at the hearing that
factors of economy and efficiency support assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represent-
ed by the Baton Rouge Locals. Thus, to man the
Delta Bulk Terminal, which utilizes relatively new
technology, the Employer needs 9 longshoremen, a
waterboy, and a clerk-an 11-person gang. Of the
nine longshoremen, seven perform functions aboard
an unloading barge and two aboard a receiving
vessel. The Baton Rouge Locals' contract con-
forms exactly with these manning requirements.
Although not without doubt, the manning re-
quirements under the New Orleans Locals' con-
tracts appear considerably larger. For example,
Local 3000's contract specifies eight-person long-
shoremen crews, four of which must work on the
receiving vessel. Thus, to obtain the requisite 7
longshoremen on the barge, the Employer appar-
ently must hire 16 longshoremen. 5
Clearly, the Employer's use of employees repre-
sented by the Baton Rouge Locals would afford a
more efficient utilization of manpower. Therefore,
we find that the factors of economy and efficiency
of operations favor assignment of the disputed
work to employees represented by the Baton
Rouge Locals.
6 Even assuming Local 3000 would waive the 8-person gang size, the
contract would still require II longshoremen-4 to man the receiving
vessel. And, two of those four, according to the Employer, would serve
no functional purpose, since the Delta Bulk Terminal can operate opti-
mally with only two longshoremen on a receiving vessel.
4. Award of the International Longshoreman's
Association
Although we do not consider this award control-
ling, we do consider it a factor in determining the
proper assignment of the work in dispute. We note
that this dispute is between two Locals of the same
International Union, and that the International re-
tains ultimate control over the various locals' juris-
diction. Pursuant to guidelines established by the
International, the Baton Rouge Locals sought clari-
fication of their geographical jurisdiction. The In-
ternational resolved the dispute in favor of the
Baton Rouge Locals. On October 22, the Employ-
er received a telegram from the International stat-
ing that the Baton Rouge Locals had jurisdiction
to negotiate for longshore work at Convent. Only
after receiving this confirmation that the Baton
Rouge Locals were authorized to negotiate con-
cerning the Convent operations did the Employer
enter into the contract with the Baton Rouge
Locals. Based on the circumstances of this case
(i.e., that the International specifically resolved the
dispute in favor of the Baton Rouge Locals, and
that the International gave notice to Ryan-Walsh
of this resolution prior to the Employer's execution
of its contract with the Baton Rouge Locals), we
find that this factor favors awarding the work in
dispute to the group of employees represented by
the Baton Rouge Locals. See Drywall Tapers and
Finishers, Local 2006, a/w International Brotherhood
of Painters and Allied Trades of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood
of Painters and Allied Trades of the United States,
and Canada, AFL-CIO, 248 NLRB 626, 629-630
(1980).
5. Area practice
The record evidences that employees represented
by the Baton Rouge Locals have worked within
the geographical jurisdiction claimed by the New
Orleans Locals, and that employees represented by
the New Orleans Locals have worked within the
geographical jurisdiction claimed by the Baton
Rouge Locals. Consequently, we find that the
factor of area practice favors awarding the disput-
ed work to neither group of employees.
6. Relative skills
The parties point to evidence which they insist
establishes that one group of employees is more ca-
pable of performing the disputed work than the
other. Our examination of the record, however,
convinces us that both groups of employees are
equally capable of performing the disputed work.
ILA, LOCAL 1830 611
Therefore, this factor favors neither group of em-
ployees.
7. Job impact
Assignment of the disputed work to employees
represented by the New Orleans Locals would
have a direct adverse impact upon the employment
status of employees represented by the Baton
Rouge Locals, since the latter group of employees
now doing the work would have to be laid off. As-
signment of the work to employees represented by
the Baton Rouge Locals would have less impact
upon the employment status of employees repre-
sented by the New Orleans Locals, since the New
Orleans Locals' contracts with the Employer may
provide longshoring work elsewhere. We therefore
find that the factor of job impact favors the contin-
ued assignment of the work to employees repre-
sented by the Baton Rouge Locals. Cf. Internation-
al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UA W (General
Motors Corporation), 239 NLRB 365, 367 (1978).
8. Arbitration award
NOSA points out that, on January 12, 1981, an
arbitrator, pursuant to the grievance filed by Local
1497 and Local 3000, held that the disputed work
was covered by the Employer's contracts with
those Unions. NOSA urges that this arbitration de-
cision should be considered as a factor favoring
award of the work to employees represented by
the New Orleans Locals.
We are unable to agree with this argument. The
Baton Rouge Locals were not contractually bound
to accept the arbitration award and were not per-
mitted to participate as parties in the arbitration
proceeding. We therefore find that the arbitration
award is of no significant help in the determination
of the instant dispute.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after considera-
tion of all relevant factors involved, we conclude
that the employees who are represented by the
Baton Rouge Locals are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying
on the Employer's assignment and preference, the
award of the International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, economy and efficiency of operations, and
job impact, all of which favor an award of the dis-
puted work to employees represented by the Baton
Rouge Locals. In making this determination, we
are assigning the work to employees represented
by the Baton Rouge Locals but not to those
Unions or their members. The determination in this
case is limited to the particular controversy which
gave rise to this proceeding.
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
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
Employees of Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Compa-
ny, Inc., who are represented by International
Longshoremen's Association, Local 1830, AFL-
CIO, and International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, Local No. 1833, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the longshore work involved in the load-
ing and unloading of grain at the Delta Bulk Ter-
minal located at Convent, Louisiana.
ILA, LOCAL 1830 11
award is of no significant help in the determination