International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 994 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union ; Local 13, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union ; and Local 63, Inter-
national Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union (California Cartage Company, Inc.) and
Robert A. Curry
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union ; Local 13, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union ; and Local 63, Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union and Pacific Maritime Association and
California Cartage Company, Inc. and Pacific
Motor Trucking Company
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union ; Local 10, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union ; and Local 34, Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union and Pacific Maritime Association and
International Cargo Services , Inc. and Richmond
Export Services , Inc. Cases 21-CC-1326,
21-CE-103, 21-CE-112, 21-CE-109, 21-CE-111,
and 21-CE-116
February 11, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel, Re-
spondent Pacific Maritime Association,I the Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union2
and its Locals, and Charging Parties California
Cartage Company, Inc., and Pacific Motor Trucking
Company,-' filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The General Counsel, Respondents PMA and
ILWU, and Charging Parties PMT and California
Cartage Company, Inc., also filed answering briefs.
Charging Party PMT filed a motion to strike the two
briefs filed by Respondent which pertain to other
cases beyond the records herein, and Respondent
ILWU filed a motion for oral argument.
On September 13, 1973, oral argument was heard
before the Board I in the instant cases and in Cases
21-CD-298, 21-CD-308, and 21-CD-314, in which
the General Counsel, Charging Parties California
i Hereafter referred to as PMA
2 Hereafter referred to as ILWU.
' Hereafter referred to as PMT.
4 Without objection from any of the parties Board Member Howard
Jenkins, Jr., then nominated for reappointment , but not yet confirmed by
the Senate , was invited to sit with the Board during oral argument
s Finding meet in certain of the General Counsel's exceptions, we
hereby correct the following errors in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision-
(I) The Administrative Law Judge stated that the container stuffing done
by California Cartage consisted of less than container loads. The record
discloses, however, that a great amount of the stuffing done by this firm
Cartage Company, Inc., and PMT, and Respondents
PMA and ILWU participated. The International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 692, also
participated.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and oral argument and has decided to affirm
the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order, as herein modified.5
The facts in these consolidated cases are not in
dispute. Respondent PMA and Respondent Unions
have a long history of collective bargaining covering
longshoremen and marine clerks. Since 1961 these
employees have been represented under the ILWU-
PMA Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks' Agree-
ment or Document (PCLCA or PCLCD). In 1960,
the parties negotiated and adopted a Modernization
and Mechanization Agreement. This Agreement
recognized for the first time that technological
advances had seriously diminished available work for
longshoremen and attempted to accommodate the
legitimate interests and needs of both parties in the
Pacific coast shipping industry. Under the Agree-
ment PMA members gained the right to use new
equipment to increase productivity and improve
methods for handling cargo. In the future, nonlong-
shoremen delivering merchandise to the dock would
not be required to place the cargo on the "skin of the
dock" to be reloaded by longshoremen on other
pallets for loading aboard ship. It was agreed that the
Union would divest itself of this type of work and
longshoremen would load truckers' pallets with the
merchandise directly on the ship. Cargo could be
unitized in one way or another-boxed, crated,
banded, glued, or palletized in large or small
containers. The idea was to move the cargo in the
safest and most efficient manner on or off the ship.
To accomplish this objective new and improved
winches and cranes became standard equipment.
Moreover, at this time the process of containeriza-
tion, the method whereby bulk cargo is placed in
large containers, 8 by 8 by 20 or 40 feet or larger, was
in its infancy and growing. Matson Navigation
consists of "straight" loads, which are large lots of cargo on a single bill of
lading which completely fill one or more containers
(2) The Administrative Law Judge apparently inadvertently held that if
the agreement involved herein was tactically calculated to satisfy objectives
elsewhere , the Charging Parties are neutral bystanders . i.e., the secondary
employers. In fact , he should have stated that under those circumstances
PMA and its member companies would be the neutral bystanders
(3) Further corrections have been made to the Conclusions of Law, the
Order, and the Appendixes to reflect errors pointed out by certain
exceptions of the General Counsel , including the deletion of Locals 10 and
34 of the ILWU from findings or orders concerning the 8(b)(4) violations.
208 NLRB No. 130
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 995
Company, a member of PMA, had already converted
one of its freighters6 in 1959 to carry a deckload of
containers in addition to conventional cargo in its
hold. While the record shows that longshoremen
exclusively have always performed the actual work of
loading and unloading merchandise, however con-
tained , on and off ships , it is also clear that preparing
cargo for shipment in various types of containers is
work that had been performed over the years by
teamsters and other employees as well as longshore-
men.
In return for the Union's relinquishment of make-
work practices, it was further agreed in the 1960
Agreement that the operation of all new equipment
on the docks would be performed by longshoremen
and, in addition, members of PMA would establish a
mechanization fund of $29 million, subsequently
augmented by, another $34.5 million, to be used in
support of longshoremen 's pension, retirement, and
unemployment.
During the early part of the 1960's, this compro-
mise apparently worked to the satisfaction of the
ILWU and PMA. At the same time, however, and
with increasing acceleration, shipping companies
began to adopt, some exclusively, the new method of
transporting cargo known as "containerization." The
use of boxes or bundles on or off pallets became a
less desirable and uneconomical method of. handling
cargo in the new technology. Following the lead of
Matson, other steamship companies converted their
vessels to carry containers or constructed new ships
solely for that purpose. Obviously, the larger and
more self-contained the load, the less work for
longshoremen to load or unload the ship and, as a
parallel, the less time in port for the ship, with
substantial savings to the shipping industry.
As indicated above, the modem container is a large
enclosure 20 feet or more in length designed to fit
into the slot of a containerized ship, or on the chassis
of a truck, or piggyback on a train. The development
of this method of carrying freight gave rise to the
establishment of container freight stations. From the
beginning shipping companies, members of PMA
and owners of the containers, have contracted with
trucking firms to stuff and unstuff some of these
containers with merchandise from shippers or to
consignees. These trucking firms, such as California
Cartage and Pacific Motor Trucking, the Charging
Parties in several of these cases, employ drivers and
warehousemen represented by the Teamsters.
As the decade of the "1960's neared its end, the
ILWU was concerned at the loss of longshore work
to an extent not contemplated in the 1960 Agree-
ment , and therefore sought and obtained from PMA
the so-called Container Freight Station Supplements
to their collective-bargaining contract . These Supple-
ments were executed on January 5, 1970, and
February 10, 1972, and provided , in effect, that all
stuffing and unstuffing of containers to be loaded or
unloaded from ships docking in Pacific coast ports,
except for shipper" loads and door-to-door deliver-
ies, was work, to be performed by ILWU members.
The intent of the 1970 Supplement was to bring
container work "to the dock or to areas adjacent to
the dock on or before June 30, 1971." This would
require shipping companies to cease subcontracting
container stuffing . work to employers who did not
employ ILWU members and to establish, if necessary,
their own container freight stations on or adjacent
to the docks within the work jurisdiction of the
ILWU.
At issue in these cases is, first, the legality under
Section 8(e) of the above contractual provisions and,
second , the legality under Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of conduct by Respondent International and
its Locals 13 and 63 in taking action to implement
these provisions , as set forth in detail in the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
The Board has considered Respondents' defense
that the work of stuffing and unstuffing modern
containers is work that falls into the category of unit
work traditionally performed by members of ILWU
within the multiemployer PMA unit and that their
attempt to preserve or reclaim this work for ILWU-
representative employees is primary, lawful
activity under the Supreme Court's decision in
National Woodwork Manufacturers v. N.LR.B.7
Although the loss of work on the docks , whether due
to the use of large containers or other technological
improvements , is certainly a matter of legitimate
concern to the ILWU, we cannot agree with its legal
position in these cases.
Initially, it is clear from the language of the
Supplements that the ILWU's claim to container
stuffing work is not limited to work generated by
members of PMA, but extends broadly to all
containers entering or leaving Pacific coast docks,
whether or not the owners of the containers are
members of PMA and statutory employers of
employees within the longshore unit represented by
ILWU. Obviously, as to those shipping companies,
nonmembers of PMA using the Pacific coast docks
to load or unload their containers, the statute does
not permit a restrictive contract or a refusal to
handle their containers to put pressure on them to
cease doing business with trucking, cartage, or other
companies which do not employ ILWU members.
With respect to Respondents ' reliance upon Na-
6 Referred to in the record as Hawaiian Citizen or Hawaiian Merchant.
9 386 U.S. 612 (1967).
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Woodwork, supra, that rule cannot be applied
so broadly as to encompass all efforts by unions to
enlarge the work opportunities for members of a
bargaining unit adversely..; affected by technological
advances. In that case the Court set forth its views in
three opinions , of which Justice Harlan 's concurring
opinion established a majority of five to four. The
main opinion cautioned that the test in determining
the legality of a restrictive clause was not "simple"
and must be made with full concern for "all the
surrounding circumstances." Such circumstances
were defined by the Court as including "the
remoteness of the threat of displacement by the
banned product or services, the history of labor
relations between the union and the employers who
would be boycotted, and the economic personality of
the industry."8 Justice Harlan was careful to note
that the case before him did not involve a restrictive
contract or boycott to acquire for union members
"work that had not previously been theirs"9 Rather,
it was a question of union carpenters seeking to
continue their traditional practice of mortising,
routing, and beveling -blank doors on the jobsite
before installation. In the context of these narrow
facts, he held that Congress had not forbidden this
method of meeting the economic problem arising
from a changing technology. Four Justices, dissent-
ing, held that the union's boycott of the prefitted
doors fell clearly within "the express terms of the
federal labor law." 10
In Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L R. B.,11
upon which Respondents further rely, the Court
restricted its holding of a violation of Section 8(aX5)
in a question involving subcontracting to the facts of
that case; i.e., "the replacement of employees in the
existing bargaining unit with those of an independent
contractor to do the same work under similar
conditions of employment." 12
In the instant case the record shows that the
stuffing and unstuffing of containers, whether large
or small, modem or pre-World War II, is work that
has been performed both by longshoremen and by
other employees, including teamsters employed by
the Charging Parties. It may well be, as the ILWU
contends, that the modem container is, in effect, part
of a ship. But it is also true that the same container is
part of a truck or perhaps a train. The traditional
work of the ILWU has been to load and unload
ships. To a large extent, the make-work rights
claimed by longshoremen with respect to cargo
placed on the dock were effectively bargained away
in 1960. The contract made between the concerned
employers and the ILWU in that year is of historic
8 386 U.S. at 644 , fn. 38.
Id at 648.
Id at 650.
significance because it represented a new approach
to the serious problem of employee displacement as a
result of technological changes . In good-faith collec-
tive bargaining the parties recognized each other's
vital interests in a bargain which accommodated
themselves and the public . Instead of insisting that
technological changes must be restricted , the Union
agreed to progress which was, in any event, inevita-
ble. The Companies , on the other hand, assumed
responsibility for the economic consequences to
union members in the loss of employment . If, indeed,
as Respondents insist, longshore work has fallen to
an unacceptable level,- the way should be clear to the
parties to resolve their differences without renewing
old wars and illegally affecting the rights of other
employers and their employees.
Respondents call to the Board 's attention the fact
that their Container Freight Station Supplements
relate to only a small portion of the work of stuffing
and unstuffing containers since shippers' loads,
representing 85 percent of that work , are not
included . The work of stuffing containers , however,
does not change its essential character because it is
performed by shippers rather than trucking company
employees; Indeed , the evidence indicates that a
substantial portion of the work of California Cartage
employees involves the stuffing of straight or full
loads into containers as well as less than container
loads . While the ILWU does not now seek all
container work , the logic of its position is that it is
legally entitled to all such work without regard to the
identity of the competing employees . Obviously, a
boycott to enforce a claim to stuff shippers' loads
and door-to-door deliveries would have an enormous
impact on the shipping industry. This circumstance,
among others set forth above, clearly distinguishes
this case from National Woodwork, supra. It is,
moreover, a circumstance which , in accordance with
the Court's caveat in that case, warrants the Board's
full concern in determining the validity of the
ILWU's claim of work preservation.
In reaching our decision in this case we find it
unnecessary to pass upon or adopt the Administra-
tive Law Judge 's opinion that both secondary and
primary employers may coexist in the same multiem-
ployer bargaining unit. We reject the General
Counsel 's argument that members of PMA who do
not directly employ longshoremen are neutral,
secondary employers entitled to the protection of
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
The ILWU's unit of longshoremen was found
appropriate by the Board in 1938 . 13 At that time the
Board recognized and accepted the fact that not all
11 379 U.S. 203 (1964).
^2 Id at 215.
" Shipowners' Association of The Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938).
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION
members of the Waterfront Associations, predeces-
sors of PMA, directly employed longshoremen.
Nevertheless, the Board was cognizant then, as it is
now, that employers in the shipping industry on the
Pacific coast have a direct and vital interest in the
terms and conditions of employment for longshore-
men. The history of labor relations in that industry
has been fraught with extraordinary problems, which
have extended beyond the customary employer-
employee relationship. As the Board pointed out in
1938, the statute defines the term "employer" to
include any person acting as an agent for an
employer "directly or indirectly." All members of
PMA have given that agency the authority to act as
their agent and PMA, in turn, is clearly the agent of
employers employing longshoremen. In this particu-
lar industry the community of interest of the
participating employers is unmistakable. We need
not, however, and do not go beyond the facts of this
case and this industry in holding that all members of
PMA are, with respect to the ILWU, primary
employers for the purposes of collective bargaining
in the established unit of longshoremen and marine
clerks.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that by
entering into the 1970 and 1972 Container Freight
Station Supplements, Respondent PMA and Respon-
dent Unions violated Section 8(e) of the Act.
Further, by taeir inducement and encouragement
to the employees of PMA not to handle containers
stuffed by non-ILWU labor, and their refusal to
handle cargo in an attempt to implement the
Container Freight Station Supplement, Respondents
ILWU and its Locals 13 and 63 violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the Administrative
Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 4:
"4. By inducing and encouraging individuals
employed by PMA and its member companies to
engage in work stoppages or refusals to perform
services in the course of their employment, and by
threatening, coercing. and restraining PMA and its
member companies with an object of forcing or
requiring them to cease doing business with Califor-
nia Cartage, Respondent ILWU and its Locals 13
and 63 have engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act."
THE REMFDY
Having found Respondent Unions and Respon-
dent PMA to have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(e), and Respon-
997
dents ILWU and its Locals 13 and 63 to have
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, we shall
order that each Respondent cease and desist from
the proscribed conduct and take certain affirmative
action which we find necessary to remedy and
remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
A. Respondent Unions, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union and Locals 13
and 63 of the Laternational Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union. their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or
attempting to implement in any way the Container
Freight Station Supplements to the master agreement
known as the Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks'
Agreement between the PMA and the ILWU to the
extent and in the manner said agreement has been
found to be unlawful herein, or any other contract or
agreement, express or implied, whereby PMA, on
behalf of its member companies, agrees to cease or
refrain from doing business with any other person in
violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining PMA or
any of its member companies, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or
require such persons to cease doing business with
California Cartage, or any other person.
(c) Inducing and encouraging any individual
employed by PMA or its member companies to
engage in work stoppages or a refusal to perform
services in the course of his employment, where an
object thereof is to force or require such persons to
cease doing business with California Cartage, or any
other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify members of the International Long-
shoremen s and Warehousemen's Union that Re-
spondent Unions have no objections to loading or
unloading containers that have been stuffed, or are
to be unstuffed, by employees of California Cartage,
PMT, International Cargo, and Richmond Export.
or any other employer utilizing non-ILWU members
in the performance of these duties.
(b) Notify all members of the International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union that
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any previous instructions, requests, or appeals which
Respondent Unions may have made against loading
or unloading containers not stuffed, or to be
unstuffed, by other than ILWU members have been
withdrawn and are to have no force or effect.
(c) Notify all members of the International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union that
any and all of the paragraphs contained in the
Container Freight Station Supplements negotiated
by and between PMA and ILWU which limit,
restrain, restrict, tax, or prohibit handling, in the
customary manner, containers that have been
stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by non-ILWU
members have been found to be void and unenforce-
able and are to be stricken from said agreement.
(d) Post at their business offices, meeting halls, and
all dispatch halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 14 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
21, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent International Union, shall be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including the
dispatch halls and all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Unions to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Unions have taken to comply
herewith.
B. Respondent Unions, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union and Locals 10
and 34, of the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from entering into, maintain-
ing, giving effect to, or attempting to implement in
any way the Container Freight Station Supplements
to the master agreement known as the Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement between the PMA
and the ILWU to the extent and in the manner said
agreement has been found to be unlawful herein, or
any other contract or agreement, express or implied,
whereby PMA, on behalf of its member companies,
agrees to cease or refrain from doing business with
any other person in violation of Section 8(e) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify all members of the International
i4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union that
any and all of the paragraphs contained in the
Container Freight Station Supplements negotiated
by and between PMA and ILWU which limit,
restrain, restrict, tax, or prohibit handling, in the
customary manner, containers that have been
stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by non-ILWU
members have been found to be void and unenforce-
able and are to be stricken from said agreement.
(b) Post at their business offices, meeting halls, and
all dispatch halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B" 15 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
21, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent International Union, shall be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including the
dispatch halls and all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Unions to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Furnish said Regional Director with signed
copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by
California Cartage Company, Inc., Pacific Motor
Trucking Company, International Cargo Services,
Inc., and Richmond Export Services, Inc., or such of
said employers as may be willing, at all places where
notices to their respective employees are customarily
posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Unions have taken to comply
herewith.
C. Pacific Maritime Association, San Francisco,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from entering into, maintain-
ing, enforcing, or giving effect to any or all of those
sections of the Container Freight Station Supple-
ments negotiated by and between PMA and ILWU
which restrict, restrain, limit , tax, or prohibit han-
dling, in the customary manner, containers that have
been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by non-ILWU
members.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify all company members of the Pacific
Maritime Association that any previous instructions,
requests, or appeals which Respondent PMA may
have made against loading or unloading containers
that have been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforung an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "15
See fn. 14.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
non-ILWU personnel are to be withdrawn and to
have no force or effect.
(b) Notify all company members of Pacific
Maritime Association that any and all provisions of
the Container Freight Station Supplements which
have been negotiated between the PMA and ILWU
which restrain, restrict, limit, tax, or prohibit han-
dling, in the customary manner , containers that have
been stuffed , or are to be unstuffed , by non-ILWU
members have been found to be void and unenforce-
able and are to be stricken from said agreement.
(c) Mail to each of their member companies and
post at their main office in San Francisco and at each
area office copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix C." 16 Copies of said notice , on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being duly signed by Respondent PMA's
representative , shall be posted by them immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places , including all places where notices to member
companies are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent PMA to insure that
said notices are. not -altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent PMA has taken to comply
herewith.
16 See In. 14.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been found that we
violated the law by committing unfair labor prac-
tices. Accordingly, we post this notice and we will
keep the promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT (a) engage in, or induce or
encourage employees of Pacific Maritime Associ-
ation and/or any of its member companies, or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike
or a refusal in the course of their employment to
use, manufacture , process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities , or to perform any services, or (b)
threaten, coerce, or restrain PMA or its member
companies , or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
by threatening or, refusing to handle or by taxing
or requiring the payment of 'money, or by other
means, where in either case an object thereof is to
force or require any of the member companies of
the Pacific Maritime Association, or any other
person, to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the product of
any other producer, processor, or manufacturer,
or to cease doing business with California Cartage
Company, Inc., Pacific Motor Trucking Compa-
ny, International Cargo Services , Inc., and Rich-
mond Export Services , Inc., or with any other
person.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain in effect,
give effect to, invoke, or in any manner or by any
means enforce sections 1.53, 1.54, 1.55, and 1.57
of the amended Container Freight Station Sup-
plement to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Long-
shore and Clerks' Agreement entered into on or
about February 10, 1972 , section 1 .5 through
1.543 of the 1970-1971 Container Freight Station
Supplement to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement, or any other
contract or agreement, express or implied , where-
by Pacific Maritime Association , on behalf of its
member companies , agrees to cease or refrain
from doing business with any other person in
violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw
any orders and instructions given to our members
and any other individuals not to load or otherwise
handle containers stuffed or to be unstuffed by
other than ILWU personnel.
WE WILL and do hereby notify our members,
and other individuals employed by the Pacific
Maritime Association or any of its member
companies, that we have no objection to their
loading, unloading, or otherwise handling con-
tainers received from, or to be forwarded to,
California Cartage Company, Inc., Pacific Motor
Trucking Company, International Cargo Services,
Inc., Richmond Export Services, Inc., or any
other container freight station operator employ-
ing non-ILWU members.
INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION,
LOCAL 13
(Labor Organization)
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dated By INTERNATIONAL
(Representative) (Title) LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
[Ni ERN A rIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
LocAl. 63
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014,
Telephone 213-688-5254.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been found that we
violated the law by committing unfair labor prac-
tices. Accordingly, we post this notice and we will
keep the promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT enter into , maintain in effect,
give effect to, invoke , or in any manner or by any
means enforce section 1.53, 1.54, 1.55, and 1.57 of
the amended Container Freight Station Supple-
ment to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Longshore
and Clerks' Agreement entered into on or about
February 10, 1972 , sections 1.5 through 1.543 of
the 1970-1971 Container Freight Station Supple-
ment to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Longshore
and Clerks ' Agreement , or any other contract or
agreement , express or implied, whereby Pacific
Maritime Association , on behalf of its member
companies, agrees to cease or refrain from doing
business with any other person in violation of
Section 8(e) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
LOCAL 10
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(-Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION,
LOCAL 34
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not he
altered. defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California
90014, Telephone 213-688-5254.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO EMPLOYEES AND ALL MEMBER COMPANIES OF THE
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION:
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, it has been found that we
violated the law by committing unfair labor practices.
Accordingly, we post this notice and we will keep the
promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain in effect,
give effect to, invoke, or in any manner or by any
means enforce sections 1.53, 1.54, 1.55, and 1.57
of the amended Container Freight Station Sup-
plement to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Long-
shore and Clerks' Agreement entered into on or
about February 10, 1972, sections 1.5 through
1.543 of the 1970-1971 Container Freight Station
Supplement to the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement, or any other
contract or agreement, express or implied, where-
by Pacific Maritime Association, on behalf of its
member companies, agrees to cease or refrain
from doing business with any other person in
violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION
any orders or instructions given to any of our
member companies, PMA employees, or any
other individual not to load , unload, or otherwise
handle containers stuffed or to be unstuffed by
the employees of California Cartage Company,
Inc., Pacific Motor Trucking Company, Interna-
tional Cargo Services , Inc., Richmond Export
Services , Inc., or any other employer utilizing
non-ILWU members for the purpose of stuffing
or unstuffing containers.
WE wiLL and do hereby notify all our employ-
ees and all member companies of the Pacific
Maritime Association that we have no objection
to their leading , unloading, or otherwise handling
containers that have been stuffed or are to be
unstuffed by California Cartage Company, Inc.,
Pacific Motor Trucking Company , International
Cargo Services . Inc., Richmond Export Services,
Inc., or any other employer employing non-
ILWU members.
PACIFIC MARITIME
ASSOCIATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office , Eastern Columbia Building, 849
South Broadway , Los Angeles , California 90014,
Telephone 213-4588-5254.
DECISION I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. RASBURY , Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated matters, proceedings under Section 10(b) of
1 All parties herein were advised by formal document September 28,
1972, that
Charging Party California Cartage Company , Inc, hereby substi-
tutes Mitchell , Silberberg & Knupp, Harry J Keaton, Thomas P
Burke, and David E. Rosenbaum, 606 South Olive Street , Suite 1922,
Los Angeles , California 90014 , as its attorneys of record in the place
and stead of Rutan & Tucker, Harry J. Keaton, Thomas P. Burke, and
David E. Rosenbaum.
2 The original charge in Case 21-4CC-1326 was filed June 30, 1971, and
in Case 21-CE-103 on November 1, 1971, amended December 1, 1971. A
consolidated amended complaint for these two cases only was issued
December 9, 1971. Complaint issued in Case 21 -CE-109 on December 29,
1001
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein
called the Act , were tried before me at Los Angeles,
California , on various dates between January 4 and June 7,
1972, with all parties participating pursuant to due notice
upon consolidated complaint issued by the General
Counsel.2
The complaint in Case 21 -CC-1326 alleges that, during
the month of June 1971 , Respondent International,
Respondent Local 13, and Respondent Local 63 , herein
Respondent Unions, engaged in , and induced and encour-
aged individuals employed by various persons, and
threatened , coerced, and restrained various persons en-
gaged in commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal to
work , where an object thereof was to force or require
persons engaged in commerce to cease handling or
otherwise dealing in shipping containers stuffed or to be
unstuffed by employees of California Cartage Company,
Inc., herein called Cal Cartage , thereby violating Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.3
The complaints in Cases 21-CE-103 and 21-CE-109
allege that Respondent Pacific Maritime Association,
herein PMA, and Respondent Unions have engaged in,
and are engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act,4
in that said Respondents entered into , invoked, and gave
effect to a contract or agreement (the 1970-71 container
freight station supplement), whereby Respondent PMA, on
behalf of its member-companies, agreed to cease or refrain
1971, based on a charge filed on December 7, 1971. At the opening of the
hearing on January 4, 1972. a motion to consolidate the latter case
(21-CE-109) with the former cases was granted . The hearing on the
resulting consolidated matters was completed on January 19, 1972, and the
hearing closed Before time fixed for filing briefs expired and pursuant to
motions duly filed, said record and matters were ordered reopened for the
purposes of consolidation and receiving evidence in Cases 21 -CE-111
(based on charges filed February 24, 1972), 21-CE-112 (based on charges
filed February 24 , 1972, and amended March 2, 1972), and 21 -CE-116
(based on a charge filed April 6 and amended April 19 , 1972) The
additional matters were heard on June 6 and 7, 1972, and the record closed.
Sec. 8(b).
11 shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents
... (4)(1) to engage in, or to mduce or encourage any individual
employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of
his employment to use , manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise
handle or work on any goods , articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services ; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in
either case an object thereof is- . . (B) forcing or requiring any person
to cease using, selling , handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in
the products of any other producer. processor, or manufacturer, or to
cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any
other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the
representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been
certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions
of section 9: Provided That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be
construed to make unlawful , where not otherwise unlawful, any
primary strike or primary picketing. . .
4 The pertinent and relevant portions of Sec. 8(e) of the Act read as
follows:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any
employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied,
whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain
from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any
of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with
any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into
heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such
extent unenforceable and void ...
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from handling certain shipping containers stuffed or to be
stuffed by employees of Cal Cartage or Pacific Motor
Trucking Company, herein called PMT, or from otherwise
doing business with Cal Cartage or PMT.
The complaints in Cases 21 --CE-111, 21-CE-112, and
21-CE-116 alleged that Respondents5 on or about
February 10, 1972, entered into, and since then have
maintained, in force and effect , a contract or agreement
(the 1972 container freight station supplement), whereby
Respondent PMA, on behalf of its member-companies, has
agreed to cease doing business with Container Freight
Station companies not employing workers covered by the
ILWU-PMA contract, including, among others, Cal
Cartage, PMT, International Cargo Services , Inc., herein
called International Cargo , and Richmond Export Serv-
ices, Inc., herein called Richmond Export.
The duly filed answers admit certain allegations of the
complaint but deny that their course of conduct has in any
way violated the Act. --
All parties were ably represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs. Excellent briefs, that
have been most helpful, were received from the General
Counsel, Cal Cartage, PMT, and each of the Respondents
and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the cases I make the
following: 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent PMA, a California corporation with its
principal office and place of business at San Francisco,
California, and a branch office at Wilmington , California,
is an association of companies who are engaged in business
in the States of California , Oregon, and Washington as
steamship companies, or stevedoring companies or in the
operation of marine terminals , or in combination thereof.
Respondent was organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
and engages in, negotiating and entering into collective-
bargaining agreements on behalf of its members with the
collective-bargaining representative of their employees,
including Respondent Unions . In the course and conduct
of their business operations described above, the members
of Respondent PMA annually derive gross revenue in
excess of $50,000 from the transportation of goods and
passengers between the State of California and other States
or foreign countries.
S Locals 10 and 34 of International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse-
men's Union, as well as the International Union and PMA are named as
Respondents in Case 21-CE-116 . Locals 13 and 63 of International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union, the International Union, and
PMA are Respondents in the other four CE cases dealt with herein.
6 At the hearing counsel for the interested parties (the various Teamsters
Locals whose counsel was permitted to participate) moved to have the
record in a current 10(k) proceeding admitted in evidence as a part of the
record in this case . The motion was denied. On July 28 , 1972, after the 10(k)
hearing had been closed, the motion was renewed in writing . The motion is
again denied. See Brady -Hami ton Stevedore Company, 198 NLRB No. 18,
wherein Administrative Law Judge George ( '.Brien refused to accept a
10(k) record as evidedce and was sustained by the Board.
A motion to correct the transcript was filed by Respondent PMA on
March 30, 1972, and served on all parties. No objections having been
The complaints allege , the answers admit, and I herewith
find that Respondent PMA is now, and has been at all
material times herein, an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7), 8(b), and 8(e) of the Act. I
also find the Charging Parties, and each of them respec-
tively, are employers within the meaning of Sections 2(2),
(6), and (7), 8(b), and 8(.) of the Act.
IL THE LABOR UNIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Unions do not deny and I herewith find
that, at all times material herein, each of the Respondent
Unions has been a labor organization within the meaning
of Sections 2(5), 8(b), and 8(e) of the Act. I further find in
accord with a stipulation by the parties hereto that, during
the month of June 1971 , John Pandora occupied the
position of president of Respondent Local 13, and is now,
and has been at all times material herein , an agent of
Respondent Local 13, acting on its behalf, within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: I further find in
accord with the stipulation submitted by the parties hereto
that, during the month of June 1971, Joe Argentio
occupied the position of vice president of Respondent
Local 63, and is now , and has been at all times material
herein, an agent of Respondent Local 63, acting on its
behalf, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
While violations of proscribed conduct under both
Section 8(b) (4) and 8(e) are alleged, a determination of
the purpose , or object, of the disputed contract language
negotiated and agreed to by the party Respondents will
provide a basis for answers to all matters litigated.?
Respondents contend that the language in the supple-
mental contract giving rise to this dispute is nothing more
than work preservation language sanctioned by the Board
and the Supreme Court in National Woodwork,8 and thus
the Respondent Union's conduct in implementing the
contract is not proscribed by the Act.
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties contend
that the disputed language restricting the contracting out
of container freight station operations has been designed to
acquire new work and is thus proscribed by 8(e).
received the motion is granted.
r The 1966-71 ILWU-PMA contract as applied to longshoremen's work
is part of the stipulation and appears in the record as G.C. Exh. 2a; a
contract between the same parties for the same period as applied to marine
clerks is part of the stipulation and is in the record as G.C. Exh. 2b; (these
two contracts are called Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks Agreement, or
the PCLCA). The container freight station supplement negotiated by and
between the Respondent PMA and the Respondent Unions became
effective January 5, 1970, and is part of the stipulation appearing in the
record as G.C. Exh. 2c. The various changes to the three aforementioned
agreements that were negotiated and became effective February I0, 1972, to
run through June 30, 1973 , appear in the record as Appendix A to the all
party stipulation entered in evidence as G.C. Exh. 3.
8 National Woodwork Manufacturers v. N.LRB. 386 U .S. 612 (1967).
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION 1003
B. Background
1. The parties
Respondent PMA is an association of companies
engaged in business in the States of California , Oregon,
and Washington as shipping lines , or terminal operators, or
as stevedores , or as combinations thereof . Since 1934
Respondent PMA and Respondent International have
bargained collectively on a Pacific coastwide basis con-
cerning the longshore employees of the member companies
of Respondent PMA. Since 1947 the parties have bar-
gained on the same basis with regard to marine clerks.
Since 1961 bargaining has been conducted in a single
coastwide unit covering the longshoremen and marine
clerks. -The Board certified the Waterfront Employers
Association of the Pacific Coast as the bargaining agent for
a coastwide unit of longshoremen as an appropriate unit in
1938.9 The association was reorganized and acquired its
present name in 1949. PMA negotiates contracts with the
ILWU and administers them on a daily basis . PMA and
the ILWU jointly operate dispatch halls in each port area.
From the dispatch halls longshore labor is dispatched on a
daily or job basis, to various locations on the waterfront.
Longshoremen are paid by checks issued by PMA and
PMA in turn is reimbursed by the stevedoring or terminal
company to whom the employee is dispatched. PMA
maintains a central records office , an accident prevention
department, a training department , and in the administra-
tion of the union contracts ' processes grievances and
handles arbitration matters . There are 121 member
companies shown on the PMA roster. The principal
governing body is the Coast Board of Directors. Voting is
provided by the bylaws and is based on a rather complex
tonnage formula. However, of the total voting strength, the
shipowners represent approximately 80 percent.
Cal Cartage, which is engaged in California in the
transportation of freight by motor truck and related work,
has, for a number of years, been engaged in the stuffing
and unstuffing of shipping containers for various Japanese
shipping lines engaged in the transportation of container-
ized cargo by ship to and from the ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach, California . Cal Cartage has approximate-
ly 365 employees of which approximately 70 to 75 are
engaged primarily in stuffing and unstuffing containers.
Cal Cartage was first hired by the Luckenbach Shipping
Line to stuff and unstuff a collapsible type container in
1953.
In late 1955 or early 1956 , Cal Cartage performed
services for Coastwise Lines, a steamship company
operating between Los - Angeles and Alaska . This work
consisted of loading and unloading equipment utilized for
unitizing freight . Cal Cartage has also done work for
Matson Navigation Company, Sea Land,American Presi-
dent Lines , and Pacific Far East Lines . Cal Cartage has
performed stuffing operations for other vessel operators,
such as States Lines , as well as for various nonvessel
operators including freight forwarders. Since the fall of
1968, Cal Cartage has been party to agreements with three
of the four members of what has been called the Japanese
consortium-Mitsui Osk Lines, Ltd., herein Mitsui, Kawa-
saki Nissen Kaisha, Ltd., herein K-Line, and Yamashita-
Shinnihon Steamship Company , Ltd, herein Y-S Lines.
These shipping lines ship containers through Los Angeles
Container Terminal , herein LACT, located at Berth 131,
San Pedro, California. Pursuant to these agreements Cal
Cartage, for the account of each of the shipping lines, has
stuffed and unstaffed containers at its container freight
station located at 2401 East Pacific Coast Highway,
Wilmington, California, which is located approximately 3
miles from LACT . The cargo stuffed by Cal Cartage
consists of LCL cargo (less than container load) involving
several bills of lading which completely fill one or more
containers . Cal Cartage has also done stuffing work for the
Nippon Yusen Kaisha Steamship Lines , herein NYK Lines
and Showa Steamship Line, which ship containers through
the Port of Los Angeles on ships operated by NYK Lines.
The terminal and stevedoring work on these ships is
performed by Matson Terminals , Inc., at Berth 208,
Terminal Island , California. The contract between Cal
Cartage and the Japanese shipping lines is nonexclusive
and terminable on written notice . The containers and
chassis (the devices on which the containers are handled
over the road) used by Cal Cartage are owned by the
respective, shipping lines . The employees of Cal Cartage are
represented by the Teamsters.
PMT, which is engaged in the trucking business in
several western States has, since about 1960, been engaged
in the operation of container freight stations for shipping
line customers which ship containers through Matson
Terminals facilities in the Port of Los Angeles , It has. 25
employees regularly hired to perform stuffing and unstuff-
ing in Los Angeles and on occasions has hired as many as
35 additional casuals on a daily basis to supplement its
regular work force in the stuffing and unstuffing of
containers. PMT first performed some of Matson Naviga-
tion's container freight services under a letter agreement
dated August 19, 1958. The letter agreement of August 19,
1958, was supplemented by a contract between PMT and
Matson Navigation dated June 16, 1960. The agreement of
1960 was supplemented by agreements dated November 1,
1961, August 23, 1962, and October 2, 1967. Commencing
in June 1962 , the services performed by PMT for Matson
Navigation and the rates for those services were covered by
tariffs filed by PMT with the Interstate Commerce
Commission. Since 1967 PMT has performed container
freight station services for the NYK and Showa Shipping
Lines in addition to the services performed for Matson
Navigation . Contracts with these companies are terminable
on 30 days' notice and are nonexclusive. The PMT
employees are represented by the Teamsters.
International Cargo and Richmond Export are two
companies engaged in container stuffing and unstuffing at
facilities located in Richmond, California. These two
companies (along with a third-Richmond Transfer and
Storage Co.) have a common ownership , the same officers,
and are subject to common direction and policy. These
companies are engaged in export packing and preservation,
public warehousing and local cartage, manufacturing of
shipping crates, performance of Bay Area operations for
9 Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938).
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interstate freight forwarders , intrastate moving of house-
hold goods .and personal effects, and the '. stuffing and
unstuffing of containers. The Richmond facilities have
been licensed as off-dock container freight stations and the
companies began .their container freight station operation
in 1963 . Their employees are represented by the Teamsters.
The Los Angeles Container Terminal , herein LACT, is a
California corporation which was formed by Mitsui, K-
Line, Y-S Lines, Japan Lines, and their United States
agents, exclusively to perform terminal and stevedoring
services for some of the containcuoperations of these lines.
LACT began operations in November 1968 and performs
no stuffing or unstuffing of containers , but is confined to
the loading and discharging of containers from vessels
operated by the four Japanese lines that , formed the
corporation. LACT is a member of PMA and employs 50
members of the ILWU-PMA unit, some of whom work as
steadies and the remainder are referred , or dispatched
daily, as casuals.
2. The disputed contract
The Respondent Unions have continuously represented
the longshoremen and the clerks on the Pacific Coast for
many years and at least since 1961 both types of workers
have been covered under the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement or Document . (PCLCA
or PCLCD).
According to the testimony of John MacEvoy, who is the
area manager for the Southern California area of PMA, in
1960 the parties reached agreement on what is described as
the Modernization and Mechanization Agreement, or M &
M Agreement. The heart of the agreement was that the
Union agreed to divest itself of make-work, featherbedding
practices that had plagued the industry for many years and
the member companies obtained the right to introduce new
methods and equipment which would increase productivity
and reduce tymaround time of vessels in port by
improving and speeding up the methods of handling cargo.
The agreement provided that the longshoremen were to
have jurisdiction over the operation of any new equipment.
The agreement was to run for 5 years and PMA agreed to
contribute a total of $29 million to the Mechanization
Fund during the 5-year period. The fund was intended to
be used in three ways ; as a pension augmentation; a vested
benefit to be paid on retirement for a man who had been
registered in the industry at the start of the fund; and as an
unemployment fund which was to offset any unemploy-
ment impact on, the West Coast due to the introduction of
revolutionary new methods of cargo handling. At the
10 A shipper's load or door-to-door load is a container that has been
stuffed or packed by the manufacturer or owner consignor , generally at a
point a co siderable distance from the harbor or port , and which is to be
loaded directly aboard the ship and moved directly to - the purchaser or
owner consignee . This type of container load was not brought into this
dispute . We are herein primarily concerned with the less than full container
load (frequently referred to as an LCL or LTL) which is a container whose
contents have more than one consignee and generally more than one owner
consignor and by necessity must be packed, or stuffed (or if inbound
unpacked or unstuffed) at a point very near the port or wharf where the ship
will be moored or berthed.
11 See Appendix A. attacked hereto , reflecting the most pertinent and
relevant language taken from the 1970 Container Freight Station Supple-
ment . The entire contract supplement is G.C. Exh. 2C.
expiration of the first 5-year period it was extended for an
additional 5-year period (until June 30, 1971) and PMA
agreed to contribute an additional $34.5 million to the
Mechanization Fund over the new 5 -year period.
During the life of the latter agreement , Respondents in
January 1970 entered into an agreement known as the
Container Freight Station Supplement which provided,
inter all a. that all container freight station work , other than
shippers' loads and door-to-door deliveries, was. to be
brought to the dock or areas adjacent to the dock and to be
performed by longshore personnel.lo A transition. period
was provided to cover the expiration date of existing
contractual arrangements that PMA member companies
might have with nonbargaining unit members "plus. the
additional necessary time to build, lease, or provide for a
new facility or expansion of present facilities if such is
required." 11
On or about February 10, 1972, the Respondents entered
into a memorandum of understanding , which memoran-
dum was ratified by the parties, providing for a number of
changes to the 1970-71 Container Freight Station Supple-
ment.12 The changes were to become the new Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement and the new agreement
was to run through June 30, 1973. It is the new language
that provided the basis for the alleged violations as set
forth in cases herein numbered Ill, 112, and 116. (See fn.
1, supra ). On May 24, 1972, the Respondents entered into
an agreement which in effect nullified the February 10,
1972, negotiated changes in the Container Freight Station
Supplement and substituted therefor the provisions of the
earlier Container Freight Station Supplement.13
3. The work history
The extensive testimony leaves no doubt that employees
of the charging parties-PMT, Cal Cartage, International
Cargo, and Richmond Export-have , over the years,
prepared cargo preliminary to loading aboard ship. This
preparation included early forms of unitizing or banding
together , or placing in some type of small box or container,
all for the convenience of getting the material to the
shipping line and, after reaching its final destination, to the
consignee . The same is true for the employees and
members of Respondents . From the late 1940's until 1969
the motor carrier, personnel unloaded their unitized or
palletized loads from the trucks and then removed the load
from the pallet and placed the merchandise on the "skin of
the dock." The longshoremen then placed the merchandise
on their pallets and moved the pallets to shipside for
loading aboard ship. In cases of inbound cargo the process
12 The most pertinent changes are attached hereto as Appendix B. The
entire memorandum of understanding is set forth in the record as Appendix
A to G.C. Exb. 3.
13 This substitution of language was apparently a tactical maneuver by
the Respondents. On May 16, 1972, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California Jesse W. Curtis granted a temporary
injunction banning enforcement of the pertinent provisions of the 1972
Container Freight Station Supplement , Civil No. 72-892-JWC. On May
24-as noted in, the text above-the Respondents reverted to the old
language. However, on June 15, 1972 , the court issued an order amending
the May 16, 1972, order to specifically enjoin Respondents ' enforcement of
the provisions put into effect on May 24, 1972 . Johoi e, v. !nterrsmowl
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, at al. (D.C. Calif.),. Civil No.
72-892-JWC, June 15, 1972.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION 1005
was reversed . The Modernization and Mechanization
Agreement cured this type of make -work practice . In 1%1,
an attempt was made by Respondent PMA to assign the
work of loading and unloading trucks at the marine docks
to longshoremen. Following a strike by the Teamsters, the
dispute was resolved , recognizing that such work was that
of the Teamsters .14 The evidence is clear that both
longshoremen and teamsters (or nonlongshoremen) have,
over the past years, engaged in the "work" of preparing
merchandise for loading aboard ship . The marine clerks
and the longshoremen, at least on the basis of this record,
have exclusively performed the "work" of loading and
unloading the merchandise aboard the ship . The I .L.W.U.
marine clerks render services for the terminal operator and
these services might be described as the "paper work" or
"book work" necessary to keep accurate records on just
what is being shipped by whom . The I .L.W.U. longshore-
men render services for the stevedoring company and are
primarily engaged in the loading and unloading of the ship.
4. The containerized ship
The increase in size of the containers into which the
cargo or merchandise is placed has been a gradual process.
Keeping pace with this increase in container size has been
the development of equipment capable of lifting or
handling the larger containers . As these containers have
grown larger it has revolutionized the shipping industry
and resulted in fully containerized ships . The forerunner of
such type ships was the Hawaiian Citizen, owned by
Matson Navigation , and placed in service in 1959. The
Hawaiian Citizen had been a conventional vessel , but was
modified to carry a deck load of containers in addition to
regular freight.
From that beginning the conversion to fully container-
ized ships has been rapid and the following was stipulated
by the parties (G.C. Exh. 2, par . 19). Many PMA member
steamship companies were , by December 1969 or prior
thereto and continuing to date , in the process of phasing
out their use of conventional or "break bulk " cargo vessels
and replacing them with fully containerized vessels. Some
companies have eliminated a high proportion of their
conventional vessels while other companies continue to
operate such vessels , either handling containers in the deck
or in the square of the hatches of those vessels or using
modified vessels that are container vessels in part and
conventional vessels in part . Among the lines that have
acquired vessels and other facilities for fully containerized
operations are Matson Navigation Company (Matson
Navigation), Sea Land , Sea Train, Japan Line (J-Line),
Kawasaki Kissen Kaisha, Ltd . (K-Line), Mitsui Osk Lines,
Ltd. (Mitsui), Yamashita -Shinnihon Steamship Company,
Ltd. (Y-S Lines), Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Lines),
American President Lines , Pacific Far East Line, Ameri-
can Mail Line , Johnson Line , and States Line . Other PMA
member steamship companies are in the process of
converting to fully containerized operations.
This development led to the growth of Container Freight
Stations . At the time the Hawaiian Citizen first docked in
14 See p. 171 of G.C. Exh. 2A.
15 While the language of National Woodwork, supra, seems clear and
concise, the application is extremely difficult. In the instant case , opposing
Los Angeles, the only Container Freight Station in
operation in the area was the PMT Container Freight
Station at Wilmington, California, where nonlongshore-
men were employed to stuff and unstuff containers. PMT
employees stuffed and unstuffed Matson 's containers
under a tariff (schedule of rates to be charged) issued by
Matson covering container freight station work. The
number of containesJreight stations has grown and various
motor carrier employees perform stuffing and unstuffing
services at these stations . In the late 1960's, Respondent
Local 13 entered into agreements with three companies
covering the work.of stuffing and unstuffing containers,
but these agreements were separate and distinct from the
ILWU-PMA master agreement, or the PCLCA, and the
employees were not a part of the longshore work force, but
were called terminal warehousemen . It was not until after
the execution of the Container Freight Station Supplement,
that is the basis of this dispute that employees coming
within the purview of the PCLCA began rendering
container freight station services . Under this factual
situation , it can not be said that the stuffing and unstuffing
of today's huge sophisticated containers is work historical-
ly or traditionally done by the Respondent Unions.
Respondents' Arguments
1. The growth of the small boxes or strapped pallets to
today's 20-foot to 40-foot containers has been a gradual
evolution and the work of stuffing and unstuffing these
containers is traditional and historical work of longshore-
men.
2. The disputed language is clearly addressed to the
labor relations of the employer , PMA, vis-a-vis its own
employees, the longshoremen and clerks.
3. The contracting Respondents have only sought to
preserve or recapture that work which has traditionally and
historically been performed within the bargaining unit.
4. The work of stuffing and unstuffing containers is
"fairly claimable" and may properly be the subject of work
preservation clauses quite apart from historical or tradi-
tional work considerations.
The Arguments of General Counsel and Charging
Parties
1. The stuffing and unstuffing of modem day contain-
ers is not historically or traditionally work of longshore-
men.
2. The Container Freight Station Supplement language
seeks to reach out and acquire, or "capture," new work for
employees in the ILWU-PMA bargaining unit.
3. The disputed clauses of the Container Freight
Station Supplement are union signatory clauses that would
require non-ILWU-PMA bargaining unit employers to join
PMA and their employees to join the Respondent Unions.
Analysis 15
As was indicated by the Supreme Court in National
counsel cited , analyzed. and argued the same cases as support for opposing
views. See also the September 18, 1972, "Analysis" section of 81 LRRM 5.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woodwork, supra, a determination of whether the Contain-
er Freight Supplement (more specifically the clauses set
forth in the attached Appendixes A and B) and its
enforcement violated Section 8(e) and Section 8(bx4)(B)
cannot be made without an inquiry into whether , under all
the surrounding circumstances, the objective was preserva-
tion of work for longshoremen , or whether the agreement
was tactically calculated to satisfy objectives elsewhere. If
the latter is the case , the Charging Parties are neutral
bystanders and the agreement and its enforcement become
secondary . There need not be an actual dispute with the
secondary employer , here the Charging Parties, for the
activity to fall within this category, so long as the tactical
objective of the agreement and its maintenance is that
employer . "The touchstone is whether the agreement is
addressed to the labor relations of the contracting
employer vis-a-vis his own employees."
In this case I can not conclude that the thrust of the
Container Freight Station Supplement is directed toward
the labor relations of the employer's present employees,
but" rather it appears to be directed toward the Union's
concern to enlarge its membership and acquire work now
being performed by nonlongshoremen . I reach this
conclusion based on an analysis of the work covered by the
disputed contract language 'in light of the work customarily
performed by the unit employees here seeking its protec-
tion, as well as the evidence of who is currently performing
the work.
As indicated supra, the traditional and historical role of
the longshoremen is that of loading and unloading the
cargo aboard ship. I can not equate the preparatory work
of stuffing or unstuffing containers with loading or
unloading cargo aboard ship . LACT was formed by four
Japanese shipping lines and their United States agents.
LACT performs terminal and stevedoring services exclu-
sively for the four Japanese shipping lines, all of which are
members of PMA. But, ever since operations of LACT
commenced in November 1968, Cal Cartage has performed
the container freight station work for three of the four
Japanese lines at Cal Cartage's Wilmington facility. Thus,
to paraphrase the Board in its recent U. S. Naval Supply
Center case ,16 the employees (at the Cal Cartage Wilming-
ton Container Freight Station) have never been part of the
work unit covered by the Container Freight Station
Supplement between Respondent PMA and Respondent
Unions. Nor has the precise work which is the focus of the
dispute herein ever been performed by employees working
under that agreement . The sole function of the shipowners
with ' respect to such work historically has been the
receiving and transhipping of cargo to designated ports;
that of the stevedoring companies , the loading and
unloading (aboard the ship) of cargo delivered to them for
that purpose. The ILWU's real dispute is thus with Cal
Cartage . The Respondent Unions' real demands can only
be met if Cal Cartage were to replace its own employees,
now represented by Teamsters , with longshoremen. The
fact that the Container Freight Station Supplement "upon
which Respondents rely as being work preservation
clauses , may in other circumstances have valid work
preservation objectives , does not mean that they can be
used as a shield for conduct aimed not at work preserva-
tion but at acquisition of work historically performed by
employees in another work unit ; 17
What has been related with respect to Cal Cartage and
their operation of a container freight station is equally true
of the Charging Parties PMT, International Cargo, and
Richmond Export. PMT first performed some of Matson
Navigation's • container freight services under a letter
agreement dated August 19, 1958 , a copy of which appears
as part of an all party stipulation (G.C. Exh. 2 S(1)). This
letter agreement has been followed by subsequent agree-
ments (G.C. Exh. 2 S(2), (3), (4), and (5)). Additionally
PMT has rendered substantial container freight station
services for NYK and Showa lines . International Cargo
and Richmond Export have operated off-dock container
freight stations since 1963 with nonlongshore personnel.
The language of the PMA-ILWU Container Freight
Station Supplement seeks , under the guise of work
preservation, to reach out and take the "work" which has
been performed by nonlongshoremen at container freight
stations and place it in the hands of longshoremen. While
the 1972 supplement is worded somewhat differently than
the 1970 Container Freight Station Supplement , the tax or
fine levied against PMA members for handling containers
stuffed or to be unstuffed by non-ILWU members is
coercive and it seeks to preserve the same wrongful
objective as was accomplished in the 1970 supplement; I
find therefore that the Container Freight Station , Supple-
ment-particularly the language therefrom attached hereto
as Appendix A (for the 1970 agreement) and Appendix B
(for the 1972 agreement) -to be an agreement whereby the
employer, Respondent PMA, has contracted with a labor
organization , Respondent Unions, to cease doing business
with another person, in this instance Cal Cartage, PMT,
International Cargo, and Richmond Export, and that such
contract is to such extent unenforceable and void.18
Respondents argue that, even if it is found that the
clauses in question are not work preservation clauses, in
any event the work involved is "fairly claimable" and
within the meaning of Wilson and Co., Is and thus should be
found valid . That longshoremen have the capacity or know-
how to do the work cannot be denied . They have done the
same kind of work that is in dispute . But the work the
Respondent Unions now seek by requiring that all
container freight station work be done by ILWU members
is not recapture of work-in my opinion-but work
acquisition . The evidence shows that the Container Freight
Station Supplement was negotiated to acquire work for the
entire Pacific coastwide bargaining unit . As already
indicated the primary work which the unit employees here
perform is considerably more limited than that which they
seek to preserve. The traditional and historical work of the
unit has been to load and unload cargo aboard ship. As the
Board indicated in Fortunato, supra the fact that the
16 International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1248, AFL-CIO (U. S. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (D. Fortunato,
Naval Supply Center), 195 NLRB 273. Inc.), 197 NLRB 673, and the many cases cited therein.
17 U.S. Naval Supply Center, supra citing Intercontinental Container 19 Meat and Highway Drivers, Dockmen, Helpers and Miscellaneous Track
Transport Corp. v. New York Shipping Association, 426 F.2d 884 (C.A. 2). Terminal Employees, Local Union No. 7)0, IBT [Wilson and Co.] v.
18 See Local Union No. 282, affiliated with the Intl. Brotherhood of N.L. RB., 335 F.2d 709 (C.A.D.C., 1964).
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN' S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1007
"stuffing" of a container off the dock may require the same
skills or knowledge as "stuffing" a container on the dock is
not persuasive that all container -loading is therefore "fairly
claimable" by the ILWU. This is particularly true where
the work, which the disputed contract would take away
from non-ILWU members, has never been performed by
longshoremen.
The conclusion seems inescapable that both Respon-
dents must have foreseen that secondary consequences
within Section 8(e)'s intendment would flow from the
Container Freight Station Supplement to the PCLCA in
view of - the economic history , circumstances of the
industry, size of the unit , and the extent to which the
disputed work has always been done outside the unit.ZO
And I so find.
The Respondents argue most persuasively that the
Container Freight Station Supplement clauses are work
preservation clauses like those involved in National
Woodwork, supra which had been implicitly recognized as
a mandatory subject of collective bargaining in the area of
subcontracting out of work performed by members of the
bargaining unit by the Supreme Court in the Fibreboard
decision.21 This case does not turn on a similar factual
situation and as already indicated is more nearly analogous
to the facts of U.S. Naval Supply Center, supra. I am of the
opinion that the dispute work -stuffing containers at the
Cal Cartage Container Freight Station-has never been
performed by ILWU members.
However, this raises the whole question of the work of
the bargaining unit and whether or not individual member
companies of an otherwise appropriate bargaining unit
within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act may become
secondary employers if and when the skills, or work to be
performed, are so widely variant from company to
company. As has been noted, there are three types of
companies that are members of PMA-shipping companies,
terminal companies, and stevedoring companies. The
geographical area of the unit is the entire Pacific Coast
(California, Oregon, and Washington). The primary work
performed by the employees on the ship is unrelated to
that performed by the terminal or stevedoring employees.
The skills employed by the terminal employees are quite
different from those of the stevedoring company employ-
ees, although the act of accomplishing their common task
of getting the cargo aboard ship is, of course, closely
related. Under these circumstances, and particularly where
as in the instant case some PMA members may not employ
longshoremen, General Counsel argues that the Container
Freight Station Supplement clauses exceed a primary work
preservation aim and cites Old Dutch Farms, Inc.22 wherein
the involved employers were members of the same
multiemployer bargaining unit,. but the court said at page
32: "the integration of Balsam and Old Dutch operations
on a merely functional plane is an improper basis for
concluding that both have primary employer status under
the secondary boycott provisions." The court goes on to
say, "Since the object of every secondary boycott is really
to cause a cessation of business between two independent
20 Wilson and Co., supra.
21 Fibreboard Papes Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203 ( 1964).
22 Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union No. 584, IBT (Old
companies, the labor Act's prohibitions would be nullified
if a union were allowed to claim that the very business
relationship it seeks to end makes both parties 'primary'
employers." While I have not elected to decide this case on
the above-related argument , I nevertheless am of the
opinion that it is possible to have secondary and primary
employers within the same multiemployer appropriate
bargaining unit . Where the multiemployer group is one of
mixed disciplines and widely variant work functions, the
holding in Dixie Mining Co., 23 that "the 'unit' for which
subcontracting clauses may lawfully seek to preserve work
are units appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 of the Act," would seem to be
extremely broad and not to be applied in every situation.
Section 8(b)(4) Issues
Having found the Container Freight Station Supplemen-
tal Agreement to be violative of Section 8(e), I now turn to
a consideration of whether Respondent Unions' conduct in
seeking to compel its execution and/or implementation
violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the Act.
The following was stipulated to by all parties.
Respondent International Union sent a letter to the
various locals on or about June 14, 1971, which in part
read:
The rest of the program of action as report to the last
longshore caucus, namely to see that all containers not
stuffed by the registered work force will not be loaded
aboard ship after 12 : 01 a.m. June 30, 1971 unless such
loads fall under the exception of manufacturers' loads,
military cargo, door-to-door delivery or pickup (domes-
tic trade) remain in effect.
On or about June 17, 1971 , said letter was published in the
official publication of Respondent International, "The
Dispatcher," and copies of "The Dispatcher" were mailed
to the various locals and distributed to their members. On
or about June 24, 1971, Respondent Local 13 published in
its official publication , "Bulletin," an article, a portion of
which read as follows:
The program of not working containers on June 30,
1971-other than those stuffed and unstuffed by
longshoremen, and the exceptions outlined in the
contract, is still in effect. Exceptions : Manufacturers'
regular type Loads & Shippers' Loads.
Copies of the "Bulletin" containing the above item were
distributed to the members of Respondent Local 13.
Mr. Jeffery Amos, night stevedore superintendent for
LACT on June 29 , 1971, whose testimony was not
contradicted, testified that on the late evening of June 29,
1971, at about 11:30 or 11:45, John Pandora, president of
Respondent Local 13 , and Joe Argentio, vice president of
Respondent Local 13 , came to LACT and instructed the
marine clerks and longshoremen employed by LACT that
as of 12 :01 a.m . June 30, 1971, containers stuffed by non-
Dutch Farms, Inc.), 146 NLRB 509, enfd . 341 F.2d 29 (C.A. 2, 1%5).
23 International Union. United Mine Workers of America (Dixie Mining
Co.), 165 NLRB 465,468.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ILWU personnel were not to be accepted or loaded aboard
vessels at LACT, unless the containers were, shippers'
loads . Containers to be unstuffed by non-ILWU personnel
were not to be made available for pickup. Thereafter the
ILWU clerks requested copies of the container load plan.
(The load plan showed the container number, port of
discharge, port of loading, point of loading , shippers,
consignees , weight, cube and seal number.)
Mr. Chodzko, vice president of Cal Cartage, testified
that he was called to LACT at about 9:50 a.m. on June 30,
1971, and there learned that LACT was refusing to accept
a Cal Cartage stuffed container. Mr. Chodzko further
testified that he talked by telephone with two men who
identified themselves as Mf. Pandora and Mr. Jackson,
president of Respondent Local 63, and that they informed
him that in accordance with the contract language
contained in the Container Freight Station Supplement
"they would not allow the container to be received by L.A.
Container Terminal." According to Chodzko, Pandora and
Jackson were careful to point out that "your beef is with
LACT and not with us." Thereafter, Chodzko requested
Mr. Charles Brown , manager of . LACT, to direct the
marine clerk to receive the container. According to
Chodzko, Mr. Brown replied, "I wish you wouldn't make
me do this because if I do the entire longshore group will
walk off the ship and he will close us down." Thereafter, at
the suggestion of his attorney, Mr. Chodzko directed the
container to be returned to the Cal Cartage Container
Freight Station and no further attempt was made to deliver
containers stuffed by Cal Cartage employees.
A similar refusal by the ILWU clerk at Consolidated
Marine Terminal to handle inbound containers for pickup
by Cal Cartage nonlongshore personnel to be delivered to
the Cal Cartage warehouse on the morning of June 30,
1971, was related by Perry Luallin, a truckdriver for Cal
Cartage. I credit his testimony and regard the incident as a
violation of the Act, but have not analyzed this incident in
great detail herein, because it is not necessary for my
decision and would not alter my remedy and Order.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Unions did induce
and encourage the employees of PMA in the course of
their employment to refuse to handle the containers stuffed
by Cal Cartage with an object of forcing the PMA member
companies to cease doing business with Cal Cartage,
thereby bringing pressure to bear on Cal Cartage to
displace its own employees engaged in stuffing and/or
unstuffing containers at its Container Freight Station with
ILWU members , and in so doing Respondent Unions
violated Section 8(b)(4xi) and (iiXB) of the Act.24
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pacific Maritime Association and its many member
companies and the Charging Parties, California Cartage
Company, Inc., Pacific Motor Trucking Company, Inter-
national Cargo Services, Inc., and Richmond Export
Services, Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Unions are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. John Pandora and
Joe Argentio are agents of Respondent Unions within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
3. By entering into, maintaining , and enforcing the
provisions of the Container Freight Station Supplement as
negotiated between Respondent Unions and Respondent
PMA, wherein Respondent PMA agreed to cease doing
business with other persons, including Cal Cartage, PMT,
International Cargo, and Richmond Export, Respondents
and each of them have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act.
4. By inducing, encouraging and restraining PMA and
its member companies with an object of forcing or
requiring them to cease doing business with Cal Cartage,
Respondent Unions have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found Respondent Unions and Respondent
PMA to have engaged in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(e) and the Respondent Unions to
have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(bx4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend
that each Respondent cease and desist from the proscribed
conduct and take certain affirmative action of the type
which is conventionally ordered in such cases which I find
necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
24 International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers Local No. 12, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse Electric Corp.). 193 NLRB
40; and Natio,lal Woodwork , supra.
APPENDIX A
Section 1
Scope of Work
1.1 The stuffing and unstuffing of containers in a
Container Freight Station (hereinafter referred to as CFS)
is work covered by this Supplement.
S s s * s
1.5 Transition Period. It is the intent and purpose of this
Contract Supplement to have all container work brought to
CFS on the dock or in areas adjacent to the dock on or
before June 30, 1971 by removing the option under the
Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document to have this
type of work done elsewhere, except where (1) there is
mutual agreement to perform such work elsewhere, (2)
some other employer or the federal government has a
legally enforceable right against the involved PMA
member to require that it be continued to be done
elsewhere , or (3) where exceptions listed below are
applicable.
1.51 Exceptions. Where there are existing contracts
between ILWU locals and PMA companies, or between
PMA companies and other unions, or between non-PMA
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
companies and other unions, or between non-PMA
companies and ILWU locals, the transition period will and
no earlier than the expiration dates of such other contracts
plus the additional necessary time to build., lease, or
provide for a new facility or expansion of present facilities
if such is required. Transition periods may be agreed to for
any length of time up to and including June 30 , 1971. It is
agreed that status quo as to jurisdiction and conditions of
work under those existing aforementioned arrangements
will continue at least until the expiration date of those
agreements. It is understood that no PMA member
company shall renew, extend or execute new subcontracts
for CFS work.
1.53 Containerized Cargoes, Foreign Trade:
1.531 The parties agree that inbound containers to a
consignee and delivered by steamship company without
checking of contents can move straight through to the
consignee.
1.532 The Employers agree that containers utilized by a
steamship company for its own convenience will be
unstuffed by men working under this Contract Supplement
or under the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document.
1.533 The parties agree that outbound shippers' loads
may go direct to the vessel.
1.534 The Employers agree that outbound cargo not
shippers' loads will be stuffed or containerized by men
working under this Contract Supplement or under the
Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document, except that
for a period of six (6) months following the date this
Contract Supplement is placed in effect , PMA member
companies will be permitted to accept full containers from
consolidators and put them aboard ship. The Employers
will keep a daily log of such shipments during the six-
month period and at the end of the period review with the
Union the volume of cargo so handled. If it is determined
that the practice involves a minimal number of containers,
the Employers will be permitted to continue. Or if it is
established that the volume is appreciable, the parties will
review this item only, and endeavor to reach agreement as
to its disposition.
1.54 Containerized Cargoes, Domestic Trade:
1.541 Shippers' loads, both inbound and outbound, will
move as directed by the employer.
1.542 The store door or door-to-door method of stuffing
and unstuffing containers now in effect with domestic
carriers shall be permitted to continue and such containers
will move to or from vessels as directed by the employer.
1.543 Handling of consolidators' or freight -forwarders'
loads shall be the same as • under the foreign trade
provisions, and subject to the same time period , reporting
and review.
APPENDIX B
1.53 Container Tax. Except as provided below, all cargo
in containers , as defined in Section 1.51, which is loaded
aboard or discharged from vessels will be assessed a tax of
$1.00 per long ton of 2,240 pounds . Such tax shall be
collected and be used as an offset toward the cost of the
1009
Pay Guarantee Plan, with surplus, if any, to be used to
reduce unfunded past service pension liability.
1.531 The tax described in Section 1.53 shall not apply
to:
(a) Cargo in containers stuffed or unstuffed by
ILWU labor employed by PMA members under terms
of the PCL & CA or this CFS Supplement.
(b) Cargo in outbound containers originating outside
of any Port Area CFS Zone or cargo in inbound
containers destined for delivery outside of any Port
Area CFS Zone.
(c) Cargo in containers originating within or destined
for delivery within any Port Area CFS Zone to or from
retail or wholesale warehouses, factories , or processing
plants.
(d) Household goods in containers which are stuffed
or unstuffed by a moving company.
(e) Cargo in containers moving coastwise or inter-
coastal . "Coastwise" means the West Coast of the
North American Continent.
(f) Cargo in containers stuffed or unstuffed in the
"store door" method of pick -up or delivery in the
"domestic trade." "Store door" method is defined to
mean the stuffing or unstuffing of cargo into or out of
containers at one or more wholesale or retail warehous-
es, factories, or processing plants when pick-up or
delivery service is the responsibility of the Ocean
Carrier. "Domestic trade" includes intercoastal, West
Coast of the continental United States including
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and any other
U.S. insular possession.
(g) Cargo in containers which are transhipped and
where the tax has been paid once.
1.54 Containers originating in or destined for delivery
within a Port Area CFS Zone, which are to be loaded on or
have been discharged from a non-PMA member steamship
company vessel, shall be stuffed or unstuffed by ILWU
labor employed by an employer signatory to the PCL &
CA or this CFS Supplement, unless cargo in such
containers has tax-free status under Section 1 .531 (c)
through (g).
1.55 Containers originating at or destined for delivery to
a non-PMA member facility employing ILWU labor
within the Port Area CFS Zone shall be stuffed or
unstuffed by ILWU labor employed by an employer
signatory to the PCL & CA or this CFS Supplement, unless
cargo in such containers has tax-free status under Section
1.531 (c) through (g).
s s s s •
1.57 Effective on the date of ratification of the new PCL
& CA agreement, of which this is a Supplement, PMA
members shall discontinue their past practice of subcon-
tracting of stuffing or unstuffing of containers in the
Waterfront Zone or the Port Area CFS Zone by employers
not parties to this agreement. Such subcontracting prac-
tices may continue during the period legally required by
the subcontractor plus any additional time required to
build, expand, lease, equip or provide facilities to be
operated within the Waterfront Zone under the Agree-
ment. During such period containers may be received from
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or delivered to such subcontractors without tax, but such be operating under this Agreement, and such information
tax-free period shall not extend beyond 90 days from date will be furnished , to the Union . Facilities built, leased, or
of ratification of this Agreement : ` Each company having expanded or provided under this subsection will be within
subcontracts will promptly notify PMA of the date . it will the designated Waterfront Zone.