International Longshoremen's Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 686 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(Cases Nos. 24-RC-359 and 24-RM-12.)
Group 4--All employees engaged in cleaning, painting, car-
pentry, mechanical, and electrical work employed by the Puerto
Rico Dry Dock and Marine Terminal, Inc., at its drydock in
San Juan, Puerto Rico, excluding all other employees, exec-
utive, administrative, and professional employees, office and
clerical employees, 'guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. (Case No. 24-RC-225.)
Group 5--All repair and maintenance employees, including
welders, cutters, carpenters, masons, helpers, and laborers,
personnel on motor launches, captains, tally clerks on board,
bag sewers on board, and workers on the unloading of sugar
cane from Vieques Island and presently handling the shipment
of molasses to the ship's side, employed by the Eastern Sugar
Associates at Punta Santiago port, but excluding all other
employees, executive, administrative, clerical, and office em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act. (Case No. 24-RM-8.)
Group 6--All warehouse stevedores and unloaders, workers
in the unloading of sugar at the piers, workers in transferring
of sugar in the warehouses, workers in the loading and un-
loading of material, in the cleaning of warehouses, scrubbing
and washing of warehouses, sewing, checkers of sugar bags,
tallymen in the warehouse, loading and unloading of trucks,
winchmen on the docks, transfer table in wharf and warehouses,
waterboys in the warehouse and wharf employed by the East-
ern Sugar Associates at Punta Santiago Port, but excluding
all other employees, office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. (Case No. 24-RM-8.)
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT); IN-
TERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDE-
PENDENT); AND NEW YORK DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (IN-
DEPENDENT)' and NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION.
Case No. 2-CC-246. January 6, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
i The names of the Respondents have been changed to reflect the disaffiliation of the Re-
spondent International from the American Federation of Labor.
107 NLRB No 152.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 687
that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the General Counsel, the charging party, the Respondent
International, and the Respondent District Council filed excep-
tions and briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, except for certain changes in his recommended
order.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
I. The Respondent, United Marine Division, Local 333,
International Longshoremen ' s Association ( Independent), its
officers , representatives , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
A. Cease and desist, by picketing activities or in any other
manner, from inducing or encouraging the employees of the
employers listed on Schedule A of the Intermediate Report or
T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., or of any other employer members of
the New York Shipping Association, or of employers engaged in
the transportation of freight and cargo to and from the piers
of any of the aforementioned employers, to engage in a strike
or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods , articles , materials , or commodities at piers or places
of business of the aforementioned employers or otherwise to
perform services .for their respective employers, where an
object or objects thereof are to force or require any such
employer or employers of employees so induced or encour-
aged, or other person , to cease handling , transporting, or
working with cargo or freight at said piers or places of busi-
ness, or to cease doing business with any other person with
whom they normally do business at said piers or places of
business, or otherwise to cease their normal business opera-
2 In footnote 6 of the Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner cites "John Nolan of New
York" as a recipient of one of President Ryan' s telegrams The Respondents except to this
statement , apparently because, as the record indicates , Nolan is of Hoboken, New Jersey.
We hereby make this correction of the Intermediate Report . This change does not materially
affect our. findings.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions at said piers or places of business ; except insofar as any
such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act.3
B. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) Post at each of its business offices copies of the notice
attached hereto as Appendix A.4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by its official representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
said Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(2) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Second Region
copies of said notice for posting, on bulletin boards where
notices to employees are customarily posted, at the piers and
places of business of the Shipping Association members, mem-
bers of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Em-
ployers Association, and other suppliers and customers of the
Shipping Association members who normally do business at
their piers, the employer in each case being willing.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
II. The Respondents, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation (Independent), and New York District Council of the
International Longshoremen's Association (Independent), their
respective officers , representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
A. Cease and desist from assisting Local 333 in any labor
dispute or controversy Local 333 may have with New York
Marine Towing and Transportation Employers Association,
with its members, or with any other employer with whom it
may stand in a contractual or bargaining relationship (a) by
authorizing, approving, sanctioning, or supporting picketing
activities, or other forms of inducement and encouragement of
employees, by Local 333 from which said Local has been
specifically ordered to cease and desist by the provision
contained in paragraph I (A) of this Order, and/or by them-
selves, directly or through affiliated locals, engaging in, or
inducing or encouraging the employees of the employers listed
in Schedule A of the Intermediate Report of T. Hogan & Sons,
3 The Trial Examiner has recommended certain language in the cease- and-desist order
designed, as we understand it, to make it clear that the Board is not prohibiting lawful
picketing in furtherance of a primary dispute . We deem this language unnecessary and de-
lete it since our Order proscribes only that conduct which we have found unlawful and does
not proscribe any conduct which is lawful under the statute
41n the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
UNITED MARINE DIVISION , LOCAL 333 689
Inc., or of any other employer members of the New York
Shipping Association , or of employers engaged in the trans-
portation of freight and cargo to and from the piers of any of
the aforementioned employers , to engage in a strike or a
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use,
process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles , materials , or commodities at piers or places of
business of the aforementioned employers, or otherwise to
perform services for their respective employers , where an
object or objects thereof are to force or require any such
employer or employees so induced or encouraged , or other
person, to cease handling , transporting , or working with cargo
or freight at said piers or places of business , or to cease
doing business with any other person with whom they normally
do business at said piers or places of business ; except insofar
as any such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) of the
Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) Post in conspicuous places at each of their respective
business offices located in or about the Port of New York, and
distribute to all locals affiliated with the New York District
Council for like posting in places where notices to members
customarily are posted , a copy of the notice attached hereto
as Appendix B.5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Second Region, shall , after being duly
signed by their respective official representative , be immedi-
ately posted and maintained for a period of sixty (60) days
thereafter . Reasonable steps shall betaken by said Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by other material.
(Z) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Second Region
copies of said notice for posting , on bulletin boards where
notices to employees are customarily posted, at the piers and
places of business of the Shipping Association Members, mem-
bers of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Em-
ployers Association, and other suppliers and customers of the
Shipping Association members who normally do business at
their piers, the employer in each case being willing.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps they, and each of them, have taken to comply herewith.
5 Subject to amendment as indicated in footnote 4.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED MARINE
DIVISION, LOCAL 333, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT)
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our members
that:
WE WILL NOT, by picketing or in any other manner,
induce or encourage employees of employer members of
the New York Shipping Association or of employers en-
gaged in the transportation of freight and cargo to and
from the piers of the aforementioned employers, to
engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use , process , transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, mate-
rials , or commodities at piers or places of business
operated by such members of the New York Shipping
Association , or otherwise to perform services for their
respective employers, where an object or objects thereof
are to force or require any such employer or employers
of employees so induced or encouraged , or other person,
to cease handling , transporting , or working with cargo or
freight at said piers or places of business , or to cease
doing business with any other person with whom they
normally do business at said piers or places of business,
or otherwise to cease their normal business operations
at said piers or places of business ; except insofar as
any such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) of the
Act.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333,
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT),
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof, and, must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 691
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONSTITUENT LOCALS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
(INDEPENDENT ) AFFILIATED WITH THE NEW YORK
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT)
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our members
that:
WE WILL NOT assist United Marine Division, Local
333, International Longshoremen ' s Association, in any
labor dispute or controversy Local 333 may have with
New York Towing and Transportation Employers Associa-
tion, its members , or any other employer with whom it
may stand in a contractual or bargaining relationship,
(a) by authorizing , approving , sanctioning , or supporting
picketing or other activities by Local 333 directed at
inducing or encouraging employees of employer members
of the New York Shipping Association , or of employers
engaged in the transportation of freight and cargo to and
from the piers of any of the aforementioned employers,
to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, process , transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, mate-
rials, or commodities at piers or places of business of
aforementioned employer members of the New York
Shipping Association , or otherwise to perform services
for their respective employers , where an object or
objects thereof are to force or require any such employer
or employers of employees so induced or encouraged,
or other person, to cease handling , transporting, or
working with cargo or freight at said piers or places of
business , or to cease doing business with any other person
with whom they normally do business at said piers or
places of business , or (b) by ourselves, directly or
through affiliated locals, engaging in, or inducing or
encouraging employees of the employer „ referred to in
(a) above to engage in any such strike or concerted re-
fusal as is there specifically set forth ; except insofar
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as any such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4)
of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION ( INDEPENDENT),
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
NEW YORK DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT),
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by New York Shipping Association, herein called the Shipping
Association, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued his complaint, dated February 11,
1953, against the Respondents named in the caption and herein called respectively Local 333,
the ILA, and the District Council, alleging that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing without
objection, alleged in substance that, following a strikedeclared by Local 333 against members
of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Employers Association,i an association
of employers engaged in the business of marine transportation and towing in and around the
Port of New York, Local 333, on or about February 3, 5, and 6, 1953, established pickets
at piers operated by Shipping Association members in the Port of New York as well as at
other places of business of stevedoring contractors belonging to the Shipping Association,
and induced and encouraged employees of'Shipping Association members employed at the
places picketed, along with employees of other employers engaged in making deliveries of
cargo and freight to and from such places, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, with the
object of forcing or requiring employer members of the Shipping Association, as well as
employers transporting cargo and freight to and frompiers and places of business of Shipping
Association members, to (1) cease handling, transporting, or working with any cargo or
freight at piers and places of business of Shipping Association members, and/or (2) cease
their business dealings with employers and other persons with whom they normally do
business at such places, and/or cease their normal operations at such places, in order to
assist Local 333 in its labor dispute with the Towing Association and its members The Re-
spondents ILA and District Council are alleged to have sanctioned and approved the alleged
picketing and other illegal activities of Local 333, and through instructions issued to their
i Ilerein called the Towing Association.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION. LOCAL 333 693
affiliates whose members worked at the places picketed , to have engaged along with Local
333 in the alleged illegal inducement and encouragement of employees that forms the basis
of the complaint against Local 333.
The Respondents in their duly filed answers denied generally all allegations of the com-
plaint attributing to them the commission of unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City between April 28 and June 4, 1953,
before Arthur Leff, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner All parties were represented by counsel , and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues . A motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground of mootness was denied.
Various motions made by the Respondents at the close of the General Counsel's case, to
dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of proof, were denied with leave to the Respondents
to renew upon the entire record at the end of the case Upon renewal, ruling upon the motions
was reserved. The motions are now disposed of in accordance with the findings of fact and
conclusions of law made below At the close of the hearing, a motion of the General Counsel
was granted to conform the pleadings to the proof with regard to minor variances. Opportunity
was afforded all parties to argue orally upon the record at the close of the case, and to file
briefs and proposed findings and conclusions The General Counsel and the charging party
argued orally at the hearing , and the Respondents filed briefs thereafter
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED AND THEIR BUSINESSES
The New York Shipping Association, the charging party, is an association of more than
170 employers engaged in the various operations involved in the shipment of cargo and
passenger freight in and out of the Port of New York It exists largely for the purpose of
negotiating and administering collective - bargaining agreements made on behalf of its members
with the ILA. The membership of the Shipping Association includes steamship companies
and their agents, contracting stevedoring companies , a contracting cargo repair company,
contracting checker and clerks companies , contracting maintenance companies , and con-
tracting marine carpenter companies All of these companies employ workers who render
the services which are necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of piers in the
Port of New York at which cargo and passenger freight is loaded and unloaded from ships
entering and leaving the Port of New York None of the members of the Shipping Association
is engaged generally in the business of tugboat operation , although 2 of the steamship com-
pany members, Grace Line, Inc , and Moore McCormick Lines, Inc , own and operate their
own tugs in conjunction with shifting operations about their own piers , as does also Jarka
Corporation , a contracting stevedore member . Grace and Moore McCormick (companies that
are also members of the Towing Association and Jarka (whose name does not appear on the
Towing Association list in evidence) bargain for their tugboat employees with Local 333. In
addition , 2 other Shipping Association contracting stevedore members , International Elevating
Company and Anthony O'Boyle Company, Inc , are members as well of the Towing Association
through which they deal with Local 333, international Elevating Company, for certain em-
ployees on self-propelled grain elevator barges it operates , and O'Boyle for certain of its
employees on non-self-propelled tank vessels. Except as noted, the approximately 170 em-
ployer members of the Shipping Association do not employ any workers who are represented
by Local 333
The New York Marine Towing and Transportation Employers Association is an association
of employers engaged in the business in whole or in part of marine towing and transportation
in and around the Port of New York It exists principally for the purpose of negotiating and
administering collective-bargaining agreements made on behalf of its members with Local
333, a local which represents licensed and unlicensed employees employed on tugboats (other
than employees on railroad - owned and -operated tugboats who are represented by another
labor organization), licensed and unlicensed employees employed on self-propelled lighters
and oil tank vessels, and certain employees employed on non-self - propelled oil tank vessels
Included in the Towing Association's membership are the following employer groups, for each
of which separate agreements are negotiated by the Towing Association with Local 333--some
70 owners and operators of tugboats and self-propelled lighters , 9 owners and operators
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of self- propelled oil tank vessels , and 20 of non-self- propelled oil tank vessels. Except for
Grace Line , Inc , Moore McCormick Lines, Inc., International Elevating Company, and
Anthony O'Boyle, Inc., none of the members of the Towing Association appears to be a member
of the Shipping Association. Several additional members of the Towing Association, who are
not members of the Shipping Association , will on occasions employ a class of longshoremen
known as shenangoes in connection with other operations they also perform . But, by and
large , the Towing Association members perform no pier operations not directly related
to the operation of their harbor craft , later to be more fully described . Nor do they main-
tain offices or places of business on the piers of the companies belonging to the Shipping
Association.
Facts stipulated in the record establish , and it is found, that the members of the Shipping
and Towing Associations are instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce and are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Marine Division , Local 333, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL, is
composed of employees engaged in the operation and maintenance of tugboats , self-propelled
lighters , self-propelled and non-self-propelled oil tankers and oil barges, and other harbor
craft Its principal agreements are negotiated with the Towing Association.
International Longshoremen ' s Association , AFL, of which Local 333 is a constituent local,
is an international labor organization , with some 80,000 members organized in some 500
locals which represent longshoremen , checkers , clerks, tugboatmen , tidewater -boatmen,
deckmen, gearmen , dockmen, tractor operators , tractor crane operator , cargo repairmen,
general maintenance men, and other workers in the longshore and marine shipping industry
in American and Canadian ports. Organizationally the ILA is divided into 4 districts, the
Atlantic Coast District, the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, the Pacific Coast District,
and the Great Lakes District. In the Port of New York the ILA directly negotiates with and
is a party to the contracts with the Shipping Association relating to (1) general cargo (long
shore) work including the rigging and coalingofships , the loading and unloading of all cargoes,
and the handling of lines in connection with the docking and undocking of ships, (2) the work
of cargo repairmen (3) the work of checkers who tally and check deep - water cargo at the
piers; (4) the work of cargo receiving and delivery clerks and timekeepers employed at the
piers ( 5) the work of general , maintenance. mechanical , and miscellaneous workers who
perform work in conjunction with pier operations ; and (6) the work of marine carpenters who
perform services in connection with the fittingofships , repair of docks, shoring of cargo, etc.
The New York District Council of the International Longshoremen ' s Association is an
organization composed of two delegates from each of the ILA constituent locals operating
in the Port of Greater New York . It has its own officers and meets as a body once a month.
It was created pursuant to the provisions of the ILA constitution which provides that whenever
two or more locals exist in any one port they shall form a District Council for the purpose
of dealing with local matters affecting such local unions. The purpose of the Council is to
achieve coordination between locals in the port . The bylaws of the Council provide, inter
alia:
Locals having differences or disputes with other locals under the jurisdiction of the
District Council , or between a local and locals and their employers, shall present
same . . to the Council for their consideration and action.
The same bylaws elsewhere provide:
Any motion made and seconded and carried by a two-third (2/3) vote of the District
Council shall be binding and observed by all locals affiliated [ subject to a right to
appeal.] .
President Joseph P. Ryan of the ILA, while testifying, described the District Council as the
"governing body" of the group of locals in the Port of New York. The verified answer of
the ILA and the District Council identifies the Council as "an administrative subdivision of
the ILA in the Port of New York which deals with certain local matters affecting ILA local
unions in the Port of New York."
At the hearing , it was stipulated , and it is found , that Local 333, the ILA, and the District
Council is each a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 695
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Pier operations generally
This case stems from certain picketing and related activities that followed a strike called
by Local 333 against the operators of tugboats and other harbor craft with whom Local 333
had a contract dispute . The alleged illegal picketing was conducted mainly at piers operated
by steamship lines , stevedoring , and other companies not involved in the Local 333 contract
dispute . The piers are the places where ships ale docked , where ship cargo is loaded, dis-
charged , tallied and checked , where trucks and lighters call to deliver and to receive freight
and cargo , and where the numerous other services incident to ship terminal operations are
performed . The piers are the situs of employment of various categories of employees of
steamship lines, contracting stevedores and other employer parties to the collective-
bargaining agreements between the Shipping Association and the ILA. They are also a point
of call for employees of additional employers not involved in the Local 333 contract dispute
having business on the piers, such as employees of trucking companies and of railroad
companies operating their own lighters and tugboats.
2. The operations of tugboat and other harbor craft subject
to the contract jurisdiction of Local 333
To some extent the employees represented by Local 333 who operate the tugboats, self-
propelled lighters, oil barges, derricks, and other craft within the jurisdiction of that Local
also perform work at or in the vicinity of the steamship piers. Before plunging into an ac-
count of the illegal conduct alleged to have been engaged in by the Respondents, it would be
helpful to determine the extent to which that is true, by considering generally the operations
of the various harbor craft that fall within Local 333's contract jurisdiction. Such considera-
tion will serve to place in clearer perspective the events narrated below It is also important
to an evaluation of certain of the Respondent's defenses, for example, their contention that
the steamship piers constituted a primary situs of its labor dispute, and their further con-
tention that picketing of the piers was necessary to protest and prevent the performance by
other employees of work which but for the strike would have been performed by Local 333
members.
There are about 450 craft operated by members of the Towing Association, roughly 300 of
them tugboats, and the balance self-propelled lighters, self-propelled and non-self-propelled
oil tankers or barges, and heavy-hft derricks Some of the tugs have little, if any, contact
with steamship pier operations, such as tugs owned by dredging companies that tow mud to
sea. Others tow non-self-propelled craft such as barges, scows, and lighters to and from
various piers in the harbor. Still other tugs are operated by oil transportation companies to
tow non-self-propelled oil barges, the functions of which are described below. But the 2
principal types of tugs functioning directly inconnectionwith pier operations are the transport
tugs that are utilized to berth and unberth seagoing vessels at the piers, and the shifting
tugs that are used to shift "dummy" (i.e., non-self-propelled) lighters , barges, and scows
from place to place in the piers' slips and along the ship's hatches.
Tugs engaged in berthing and unberthing vessels operate under contracts between the towing
companies and the steamship lines When a vessel is due to arrive, the tugboat company is
advised. The tugboat company then dispatches the necessary number of tugs, which will
vary according to the size of the ship, weather conditions, and the strength of the tide, to
meet the vessel in the vicinity of the pier where it is to dotk. When the vessel is met, a
docking pilot, who is normally the captain of one of the tugs, boards the vessel and relieves
the harbor or "Sandy Hook" pilot who has piloted the vessel into the harbor from the sea.
The docking pilot then becomes technically an employee of the vessel, subject to the master's
command, and is paid for his time aboard the vessel by the steamship company, as well as
by the tugboat company. Under the guidance of the dock pilot who issues the necessary dock-
ing instructions, the vessel is maneuvered by the tugs into the slip. Lines handled on the
ship's side by the ship's crew, and on the dockside by longshore labor, are then thrown out,
and the ship is made fast to the pier. Normally the tugboat crew does not handle the Imes
used to secure the vessel to the dock, although it may on occasion pass a ship's hawser on
the dock when the hawser has been used by it for the purpose of pulling After the ship has
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been docked , the dock pilot returns to his tug, and the docking tugs depart for the next job
to which they are dispatched . Undocking a ship is roughly the same operation in reverse.
Rarely does a tug linger at a given pier after its docking operation , which normally consumes
about an hour, has been completed . At night , or when there is not work for the tug , it returns
to the tieup point of the towing company . Docking tugs do not have any fixed piers at which
they work; in the course of years a given tug may be called on to perform docking or undock-
ing operations at practically all of the approximately 300 piers in the Port of New York which
take deep-sea vessels . The use of tugs is not essential to the berthing or unberthing of
vessels even in the Port of New York , and even large vessels under favorable weather and
tide conditions may be maneuvered into a docking position under the guidance of the ships'
master by means of the vessel 's own power and equipment. Normally , however, tugs are
used because , particularly when conditions are not ideal, it is considered a more expeditious
and safer method.
Tugs are not always employed for shifting operations ; at certain piers and under proper
conditions the shifting of scows , barges , and dumb lighters may be performed by hand with
longshore labor or with the aid of winches on the ship . When shifting tugs are used, the work
is done jointly by a longshoreman , known as a harbormaster, who ties up the line to the craft
being shifted , and by the tugboat crew which handles the lines on the tugboat side. With
isolated exceptions, such as the Grace Line and the Moore McCormick Line, steamship
companies and other pier operators do not have their own shifting tugs , but contract such
work out to towing companies as and when required . When a towing company receives a call
for shifting work, it dispatches a tug to the pier requiring such services. After the work has
been completed at that pier , the tug is dispatched to another pier where similar work is to
be done . At night, or when there is no work available , the shifting tugs return to the towing
company's own berthing place . A shifting tug has no single pier station but may be dispatched
to a number of piers in the course of a single workweek or even day . Similarly , during the
same week or even day , different tugs may be assigned to the same pie;:. A given tug may
be assigned to shifting work at any of the piers in the port. At the hearing Local 333 sought
to establish by oral testimony that a shifting tug has a given pier at which it will normally
perform its functions day in and day out. But that testimony is found clearly rebutted by
documentary evidence to the contrary and is not credited. 2
Self-propelled lighters resemble tugs , except that they have cargo space fore and aft and
have their own hoisting engines, masts, and booms for loading and discharging cargo. They
are used not only to tow dummy lighters , but also to pick up and deliver cargo at the various
piers. They operate under contract with shippers in much the same manner as do trucks,
except that both their pickup and delivery points are on the waterfront. The slinging and
handling of cargo from dock to lighter, and vice versa, is normally done by the lighter's
crew. At times extra labor is required for that purpose and at such times specialized long-
shoremen known in the trade as shenangoes are hired. When cargo is transferred direct
from ship to lighter or from lighter to ship , the loading and discharging is done by regular
longshore gangs , the lighter crew assisting in the proper securing of the cargo in the hold
of the lighter. Lighters may be required to call for pickups or deliveries at any of several
hundred piers in the harbor , and have no fixed routes --their destinations and points of call
depending on the orders they receive . Over 50 percent, perhaps as high as 80 percent, of
the working time of the self -propelled lighters is spent in handling cargo at the piers , and the
balance in traveling from pier to pier. When not in actual use, the lighters are tied up at
the fixed berthing points of the lighterage company. Cargo handled by lighters can also be
carried by truck.
Oil barges and tankers, both self-propelled and non-self-propelled, are used to carry bulk
oil from oil refineries on the waterfront to ships docked at the piers. Deliveries may be
made to ships docked at any of the several hundred deep-water piers in the port. As it takes
about 6 to 8 hours to load and 9 to 10 hours to unload an oil barge , must of the working time
of the crew members of such craft is spent at the piers rather than in transport. Under
Coast Guard safety regulations , oil barges and tankers are prohibited from remaining in a
slip any longer than is actually necessary for the discharge of their cargo.
2 While it does appear that tugs of one towing company ( Mesek ) spend substantial periods
of their time at the piers of a single steamship company (United States Lines ); that situation
seems to be an unusual one; it is accounted for by the fact that United States Lines which
operates a number of piers is engaged in large scale operations and is the biggest single
customer of Mesek.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 697
Heavy-lift derricks are owned by one member of the Towing Association--Merritt-Chapman
& Scott--and the crews on such derricks, other than the captains and the operating engineers,
are represented by Local 333. These derricks are normally contracted for by shipping and
stevedoring companies when it is necessary to load or discharge extraordinarily heavy cargo
which cannot safely be handled by a ship's own lifting equipment. In the slinging and lifting
of cargo from the hold of a ship and in placing it at rest upon the derrick deck or the deck
of a lighter, barge, or scow lying alongside the derrick, members of the derrick crew work
cooperatively with longshoremen in handling the cargo. Upon completion of a job, the derrick
will normally be ordered to another pier. A given derrick on any given day may be assigned
to work at any of the piers in the port. Unlike the other craft under the jurisdiction of Local
333, the derricks at the end of a workday do not return to a regular berthing place but tieup
at the pier or bulkhead where it last worked until ordered to another job.
3. Employment practices on the piers
One of the defenses particularly stressed by the Respondents in their brief makes it neces-
sary to say something about employment practices relating to the pier workers who are
among those claimed by the General Counsel to have been illegally induced and encouraged
to engage in proscribed activities. Among such employees are longshoremen, checkers,
clerks, and miscellaneous dockworkers.
Longshoremen who load and unload cargo from ships are required each morning to "shape
up" for work. The shapeup takes place at 7:55 a. in. at the entrance to the particular pier
where the work is to be performed. At that point the selection of those who are to work that
day is made by the stevedore or hiring foreman, who, although usually an ILA member, is
a management representative. Each pier has longshoremen who regularly follow that pier,
that is, who make themselves available for work at that pier when work is to be done, and
who seek extra work at other piers only when their services are not required at their regular
shapeup point. The contract between the Shipping Association and the ILA provides: "The
foreman stevedore shall give precedence in hiring to men who have regularly worked on the
pier for which they are being hired."
In working a ship, the longshoremen are organized into units known as gangs. Practices
governing the selection of such gangs are not uniform throughout the port. At some piers,
apparently a minority in number, the selection and assignment of gangs is made each time a
ship comes in by the stevedore foreman from among the longshoremen assembled at the
shapeup. However, even at such piers it is recognized as a matter of custom, though it is not
obligatory under the contract, that once a gang is organized to work a ship that same gang
will continue on the ship from day to day until its work has been completed. As one of the
Respondents' witnesses put it, there is a "practical guaranty" that a longshoreman who
starts a ship will finish it unless he is found incompetent. In actual practice, therefore, the
hiring stevedore does not select individual longshoremen, except for fill-ms, once a gang is
organized to work a ship, but at later shapeups merely announces by hatch number the gangs
for which work is available that day, a fact normally known to the men anyway because of
their knowledge of the conditions on their particular hatch. At the piers where that practice
is followed, it is also common for a stevedoring foreman who is satisfied with a particular
gang to retain that gang when the work on a given ship has been completed and move it on
to another.
The more prevalent practice, however, and the one that appears from testimony of the
Respondents' witnesses to be followed throughout Brooklyn as well as at some Manhattan
piers , is that of the "steady gang" system. Under that system, each pier has five previously
organized gangs, each under a gang leader, that work steadily at that pier whenever work
is available. Each gang has a given hatch assignment, and if work is not available for all
gangs, only those gangs will be called whose hatches are being worked. The steady gangs
usually know in advance on what mornings they are expected to report for work, either
through notification by their gang leader who in turn is contacted by a management repre-
sentative, or from their knowledge the previous night of the conditions of the hold of the
ship they have been working on. Where the "steady gang" system is used, the steady gangs
are as a matter of established custom selected first for work at the shapeup, and only such
others are then hired as are necessary to fill in for absentees on the steady gangs or to
form extra gangs if more than five are needed.
Longshoremen hired at the 7:55 a. m, shapeup are hired for the full day unless notified
by r.••c_, that their services will not be required after 1 p. m.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Checkers also obtain their work initially at a shapeup But, unlike longshoremen , they are
not thereafter obliged to appear at each morning ' s shapeup for work Once hired, their em-
ployment is ordinarily deemed continued from day to day unless they are differently notified
and paid off at the end of a day ' s shift.
Clerks, like checkers , are put on for an indefinite period , and need not shape up for em-
ployment each morning . The clerking agreement between the Shipping Association and the
ILA provides for the payment of employees in this category on a weekly basis
As for the miscellaneous workers on the piers covered by the ILA-- Shipping Association
General Maintenance , Mechanical and Miscellaneous Workers agreement - - covering such
categories as sweepers , mechanics , helpers, handymen , or shore gangs and porters -- there
is no oral testimony as to the employment practices governing them The agreement , however,
reflects that some companies at least employ such categories on a steady basis, for it stipu-
lates their pay rates in both weekly and hourly terms
All agreements , including the one covering cargo longshoremen , reflect by certain of their
provisions an intent to establish a relationship between employers and employees that in
certain aspects at least possesses characteristics of continuity , even in those instances
where men must shape up for hiring each morning Thus , for example , the agreements make
provision for compulsory union membership " on and after the thirtieth day following such
employment . by any of the parties of the first part [ members of the Shipping Associa-
tion ] " Thus, too, the agreements provide that v.orkers shall be paid at least 1 week 's vaca-
tion pay by the Association if they have worked for association members not less than 700
hours in a year Provision is also made for welfare and pension plans.
B. Local 333' s strike; the role of the ILA and the
District Council
Following a failure during negotiations theretofore conducted between Local 333 and the
Towing Association to reach a meeting of minds on new collective -bargaining agreements to
succeed the agreements expiring on January 31, 1953, Local 333 declared a strike, effective
on February 1, 1953, against the members of the Towing Association and other employers
with whom it had theretofore enjoyed contract relations The strike lasted until February 10,
1953, when new ' agreements were consummated
With regard to strikes by its constituent local unions, the ILA constitution contains the
following provisions.
Article XX , Section 1 No strike shall be ordered , except by the international President
of the I.L.A. In addition thereto, whenever conditions arise wherein it becomes necessary
for the protection of the rights of the members of a Local Union or of Local Unions to
call a strike, such Local Union or Unions shall refer the question to all interested Locals
for consideration and if a majority of the membership of the interested locals vote in
favor of a strike , the calling of such a strike shall be requested of the International
President No Local shall go out on strike without obtaining the consent thereto of the
Executive Council through international headquarters Upon such consent , the international
President shall order the said Locals to quit work
Section 2 : A local union entering upon a sympathetic strike without the consent of the
International President , shall be deemed to be conducting an unauthorized strike, and
shall not be supported therein by the I.L.A.
At a meeting in January, the membership of Local 3.33 had voted to authorize the strike
upon the expiration of the then current contracts in the event no new contracts were agreed
upon in the meantime Also in January, Captain Bradley, president of Local 333, had reported
on the state of the pending negotiations to the District Council, and, as appears from the
minutes of the council meeting, a motion unanimously carried that body "that the NYDC
support the just demands of Local 333 if they have to strike " In January, too, Local 333 had
sought and obtained the approval of International President Ryan to the strike action
Before the strike actually began, Local 333 and the Towing Association, in accordance with
past custom , entered upon an agreement under which Local 333 undertook to have its members
return all craft to their neup points before work ceased and to provide men to service the
craft during the course of the strike The Towing Association , in turn, agreed that its em-
ployer members would not attempt to operate the struck harbor craft during the period of
the strike , nor otherwise to engage in strikebreaking activities
UNITED MAR:'IE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 699
This agreement was carried out by both sides Save for the Merritt-Chapman & Scott
derricks, which were allowed to remain idle at the piers last worked, substantially all the
tugs and other harbor craft under Local 333 jurisdiction were returned to their regular
berthing places and there left for the strike's duration These berthing places, except in the
case of a few tugs, such as those owned by Moore McCormick and Grace Line, were at
locations removed from the piers where ship terminal operations are conducted. No attempt
was made by operators of the tugboats and other struck harbor craft to engage in the opera-
tion of such craft while the strike continued
After the strike began, the steamship lines, contracting stevedores, and others not involved
in the strike, continued to pursue their regular business operations at the piers of course,
certain adjustments had to be made to meet the strike situation Most important of these was
that the seagoing vessels which normally were docked and undocked by tugs were now
maneuvered into the slips by use of the ship's own power and equipment, and there made fast
to the docks by lines handled by the ship crew on shipside and by longshoremen on dockside
The handling of lines by longshoremen and ship crew is, however, usual even where docking
is done by tugs There is no evidence to support the Respondents' assertion that "scab"
docking pilots were hired by steamship companies to substitute for the striking tugboat cap-
tains who normally served in that capacity The Respondents claim that longshoremen were
required to handshift dummy craft, such as railroad barges, which but for the strike would
have been shifted by tugs, and, further, that at least some of the dry cargo that normally
would have been transported to and from steamship piers by self-propelled lighters was
transported during the strike by trucking companies The Respondents adduced no direct
evidence of probative value to substantiate their claim It is not unreasonable to assume,
however, that handshifting methods, which to some extent are usual even when shifting tugs
are available, were employed to a greater degree during the strike and, similarly, that to
some extent truck transportation was substituted for lighterage transportation made unavail-
able by the strike
At no time did any of the Respondent Unions complain or protest to the Shipping Association
or to its members about the use of substitute operational methods in the place of the withdrawn
facilities normally supplied by the strikebound towing and lighterage companies Local 333's
President Bradley testified, however, and it is found, that on February 2 or 3, he spoke to two
representatives of the Teamsters Union, complained that truckmen were hauling drums of
oil from New Jersey that, but for the strike, would normally have been transported by Local
333 craft, and asked the cooperation of the Teamsters "not to break the strike."
There was no picketing activity by Local 333 during the first several days of the strike,
save in 1 isolated instance at 2 Staten Island piers 3 Bradley testified that the abstention
from picketing conformed to a policy Local 333 had followed in previous strikes to refrain
from picketing because of the customary agreements by struck employers not to operate
the struck craft or engage in strikebreaking activities Bradley would have it believed that
the only reason leading Local 333 later in the 1953 strike to depart from that policy was
the receipt by the strike committee of reports on February 4 and 5 that ships were being
docked by "scab" methods, that longshoremen and at times railroad tugs were being used
to shift barges, and that other substitute methods were being used to accomplish what nor-
mally would have been done by Local 333 mien I do not credit Bradley's testimony in full in
that respect Bradley's testimony that the decision to picket was not reached until the
SNicholas Scaleri, a witness for Respondent Local 333, testified that on February 3 he
picketed piers 15 and 16 at Staten Island (His testimony does not clearly identify the occu-
pant or occupants of these piers ) There were 2 ships docked at the piers at that time, but
no tugs, self-propelled lighters, oil barges, or other craft involved in the Local 333 strike
Scaleri, according to his testimony, was not instructed to picket at that time, but voluntarily
undertook to do so on his own initiative, as did 3 other Local 333 members who joined him
in picketing the 2 piers on that day The Respondent, Local 333, contends that the picketing
on that occasion (represented individual action not attributable to Local 333 However,
Scaleri's testimony on cross discloses that before picketing he and the others asked 1 of the 2
Local delegates in charge of that particular Local office for permission to remove the
picketing placards that were already stored there, and at the same time ascertained from
the delegate that he had no objection to the proposed picketing On the basis of this testimony,
I find that the picketing activity of Scalers and others was in fact conducted with the knowl-
edge, authorization, and approval of a Local 333 business delegate, and that responsibility
therefor,must be attributed to Local 333
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evening of February 4 at the earliest is patently inconsistent with other clearly established
record facts Thus, for example, documentary evidence establishes that picket signs were
billed to Local 333 several days earlier and, as will hereinafter more fully appear, Local
333's picketing plans were announced by Bradley toa District Council meeting on February 3.
Moreover, a principal reason for Local 333's decision to picket the piers in 1953, contrary
to its past practice, is, I believe, revealed by another portion of Bradley's testimony, in
which he explained that the situation in 1953 was different from what it had been at the
time of Local 333's last strike in 1946 in this crucial respect: Although in 1946, Local 333
was in a position to, and did, secure the cooperation of longshoremen in closing down pier
operations without the need of a picket line, the Taft-Hartley Act had since intervened, and
it was now advised by counsel that former procedures could no longer be followed.
I am persuaded on the basis of facts reported below that Local 333 delayed its picketing
activity until February 5 to enable it first to clear that proposed activity with the District
Council so that the picketing- -calculated to enlist sympathetic action from ILA-affiliated
locals and their members working at the piers--would carry the imprimatur of ILA-authorized
action
On Tuesday, February 3, 1953, the District Council held a regular monthly meeting at which
the Local 333 strike was taken up as a special order of business. Bradley delivered a report
on the status of Local 333 negotiations and the strike He advised the Council that it had been
originally planned to have pickets out at the piers on Wednesday, February 4, but that the
picketing had been set back to Thursday, February 5, in order to give the Teamsters advance
notice 4 He asked for Council support of the strike ILA President Ryan requested that
army piers be excepted from the picketing, and Bradley assured him that this would be done.
The Council then voted to give Local 333 full support in its strike 5
Pending the Council's action, Local 333 had refrained from issuing any general directions
to its membership with regard to picketing. Immediately after the meeting, however, and
that same evening, it mailed printed post cards to its members to report for picket duty.
On February 4, J. P. Lyon, chairman of the New York Shipping Association, dispatched a
telegram to ILA President Ryan Lyon referred to press reports that the ILA and the District
Council had authorized the establishment of picket lines at the piers and had issued a tieup
order that nonstriking longshoremen and other pier workers were expected to honor the
picket line, pointed out that, if true, such action would violate existing agreements and would
constitute illegal picketing of terminal operations not involved in a labor dispute, and re-
quested Ryan to advise him immediately whether the press reports were true. Ryan withheld
answering Lyon's telegram until February 11, the day after the strike was settled, and then
did little more than point out that the strike had already ended. He did not in his telegram
deny Lyon's charges based upon the press reports.
Evidence that the press reports were not without substance is to be found in two telegrams
by Ryan, introduced in evidence by the General Counsel
One, dated February 4, 1953, is addressed by Ryan to 11 individuals, all of whom (except
Council President Gannon) are vice presidents of either the ILA or its Atlantic Coast District,
and 9 of whom (excluding Gannon and Bradley) are, in addition. ILA organizers--4 being
ILA organizers in the Port of New York 6 The telegram reads
4A telegram in evidence from Ryan to Hugh Sheridan, impartial chairman under Tearri-
sters contract, reflects that this was done at the request of Ryan
5 The findings in this paragraph are derived from a synthesis of (1) testimony to the extent
credited of ILA President Ryan, Council President John Gannon, International Organizers
Moriarty and William Coughlin, and Thomas Gleason, business agent of one of the ILA
constituent locals--all of whom were present at the meeting; (2) the minutes of the meeting;
and (3) the telegram of Ryan, reported below, advising ILA officials of action taken at the
meeting Bradley's testimony, that he merely delivered a report on the strike and picketing
plans and that the Council took no action at the meeting other than to accept the report, is
not credited
6 The four are A. DeBrizzi of Staten Island, Joseph Moriarty and Gus Scannavino of Brook-
lyn, and John Nolan of New York. According to a statement on the record made by counsel for
the ILA, the organizers named in the telegram include all but 1 or 2 of the ILA organizers in
the Port of New York In addition to the ILA officials located in New York, the telegram was
addressed to ILA organizers and vice presidents stationed at Norfolk, Boston, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 701
This is to advise that Local 333, United Marine Division, ILA, will have pickets around
the piers as of Thursday February 5th 1953, and members of our organization will
respect said picket lines. Stop Any ships diverted to other ports are not to be worked
Joseph P. Ryan, International President?
The other telegram, dated February 5, 1953, is addressed to 6 individuals of whom 1 is
the ILA Atlantic Coast District vice president out of Philadelphia, another is the Philadelphia
port agent of the Seafarers International Union, and the other 4 are the presidents and
secretaries of ILA tugboat locals (counterparts of Local 333) in Philadelphia and Norfolk
This telegram reads as follows:
Local 333 United Marine Division ILA agreements expired on January 31st, 1953 at
midnight, negotiations were broken off as of midnight January 31st and pickets were
ordered for Thursday February 4th, 1953 Stop The New York District Council endorsed
this strike at their meeting on Tuesday February 3rd, 1953 giving full support. Picket
lines are out men are refusing to work any ship in harbor, except cargoes for Korea Stop.
Norfolk is following through same procedure, expect Philadelphia to take same action
Joseph P. Ryan, President8
On February 5 Local 333 established picket lines at the entrances to a substantial number
(though not all) of the piers, docks, wharves, and waterways where steamship terminal
operations are performed and, in one case, in front of an inland building occupied by a
contracting stevedoring company for its offices, garage, and maintenance shop. The pickets
in each instance carried placards with the following legend.
UNITED MARINE
DIVISION
LOCAL 333, I.L.A.
on
STRIKE
TUGBOATS & OIL TANKERS
The manner in which picketing was conducted, the conditions existing at places picketed,
the extent, revealed by the record, to which local and international officers sought to induce
longshoremen, checkers, and clerks to honor the picket lines, and the effects of the picket-
ing--all are reserved for more detailed analysis below. Picketing continued until about 11 a in.
on February 6, when it was halted by a State court restraining order secured by the Shipping
Association. Though the State court restraining order was vacated the following day by an
appellate court ruling, a temporary restraining order was shortly thereafter obtained from
the Federal district court in a proceeding, based upon the charge in the instant case, insti-
tuted under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The Local 333 strike was settled before the expiration
of the 5-day temporary restraining order in the Section 10 (1) proceeding, and that pro-
ceeding consequently was not pursued further Except for the isolated instances, above
referred to, involving the picketing of 2 Staten Island piers, the alleged illegal secondary
action of the Respondents occurred during the 2-day period between the establishment of
picket lines on February 5 and theissuanceof the State court restraining order on February 6
7 The telegram was authenticated by Western Union records made in the regular course of
business, showing the receipt, transmission, and delivery of the telegram and the fact that
it was billed to and paid by the ILA. Ryan, while testifying as an adverse witness, denied
generally that he had issued any orders or instructions for longshoremen to respect picket
lines He did not, however, after the telegram was identified and received in evidence, take
the stand to deny that he dispatched it Two of the addresses Moriarty and Scannavino, denied
receipt of the telegram, and a third, Bradley, disclaimed knowledge of it. Their testimony is
not credited.
'Although at first disclaiming recollection, Ryan later, when the telegram was exhibited to
him, admitted sending it
337593 0 - 55 - 46
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Picketing
1. Prefatory statement
No witness was available with comprehensive personal knowledge of all piers that were
picketed and the conditions at such piers . To prove that element of his case, the General
Counsel called some 16 witnesses connected with member companies of the Shipping Associ-
ation, each of whom testified as to the picketing and related matters within his personal
knowledge at piers worked by his particular company. The testimony of these witnesses,
cumulatively , establishes that Local 333, on February 5 and 6, 1953 , engaged in picketing
at some 25 piers located at scattered points in the Port of New York , as well as at an inland
office and place of business of one of the stevedore members of the Shipping Association,
T Hogan & Sons , Inc. Attached to this report as Schedule A is a list of the steamship lines
and agents , terminal operators , and/or contracting stevedoring companies shown by the
testimony of these witnesses to have been picketed , along with their identification of the
particular piers they saw picketed.9
It is not disputed that , in addition to those listed on Schedule A, a substantial number of
other piers operated or worked by Shipping Association members were also picketed. 19 The
only dispute is as to their number , Local 333 contending that only about 45 in all were
picketed , and the General Counsel and Shipping Association insisting that picketing was
widespread , covering most of the deep-sea piers on which work was being performed at the
time 11 At the hearing , the General Counsel expressed himself as ready, able , and willing
to establish through . additional witnesses whom he was prepared to call that Local 333, on
February 5 and 6, 1953 , engaged in picketing at piers operated by at least 25 Shipping
Association members in addition to those listed on Schedule A and that the picketing occurred
under conditions which in controlling respects (including , for example , the absence of any
harbor craft owned and operated by employers involved in the primary strike of Local 333)
corresponded to conditions shown to have existed at the piers listed on Schedule A. The
Trial Examiner , however , ruled out the proffered additional testimony on the ground that
it could only have a cumulative effect, unnecessarily prolonging the hearing . The basis for
the ruling was that the testimony of the 16 witnesses already called , if sufficient to establish
illegal secondary action against the Schedule A companies , would also be sufficient to support,
in the light of the entire record of this case , a remedial order enjoining such illegal action
not only with reference to the Schedule A employers , but also with reference to any other
employers similarly situated . 12 A detailed offer of proof made by the General Counsel was
rejected solely upon the ground that the proffered proof would be cumulative. 13
9In instances where it appears that both a steamship line and a contracting stevedore were
both performing pier operations requiring the use of employees at the time of picketing, the
names of both are bracketed.
10 Peripheral testimony by certain of the Respondents ' witnesses reveals picketing at 11 or
more piers in addition to those listed on Schedule A. With regard to most of them , however,
the record does not detail full information concerning the ships or harbor craft , if any, that
were at these piers at the time , nor of other matters here considered necessary for a de-
finitive appraisal of the legality of the picketing at such points,
The General Counsel does not take issue with the legality of the picketing at two of these
piers , operated by Moore McCormick Lines and Grace Line, respectively . As has been
noted, both these companies operated their own tugs in conjunction with their other business
As tugboat operators they were directly and primarily involved in the labor dispute with
Local 333.
11 The Port of New York has approximately 300 deep-sea piers , that is piers that can
handle deep -sea vessels
12 See, e. g , N L. R B. v. United Mine Workers , 198 F . 2d 389 (C. A. 4).
13The Shipping Association member companies specifically n-med in the offer of proof
were American Hawaiian Steamship Company, American Export Lines , Booth American
Steamship Company, Belgian Steamship Company , Bo-Insular Steamship Company, Ber-
covici Navigation Agency, Inc., John T. Clark, Cunard Steamship Lines, Cosmopolitan
Shipping Company , Faber Lines , The French Line, Ellermans Wilson Line , Garcia and Diaz
Steamship Company, Barber Line , Grand Columbiana Steamship Company, International
Freighting Corp , Holland- America Steamship Lines, Luckenbach Steamship Company,
Panama Canal Steamship Company , Muller Steamship Company , Prudential Steamship Corp.,
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 703
2. Analysis of evidence with regard to picketing of the piers
The evidence relating to the picketing at the piers listed in Schedule A shows, with respect
to all, these common characteristics:
(a) All pickets carried placards in the form described above.
(b) The picketing occurred at or near the entrances or the approaches to the piers,
through which longshoremen, checkers, clerk?, and other pier workers, as well as employees
of other companies, such as trucking companies, with work or business at the piers, normally
had to pass In almost all instances, the picketing occurred at or close to the points where
longshore labor shaped up for work
(c) None of the pier operators listed on Schedule A owned or operated tugboats, self-
propelled lighters, oil tankers, or other harbor craft normally covered by Local 333 contracts,
none had employees represented by Local 333, and none was in any way involved in the
contract dispute which had led to the Local 333 strike The same is true of all other em-
ploying companies which were engaged in the actual functioning of their business on or about
the listed piers at the time the picketing was conducted.
(d) At none of the listed piers or in the adjacent slips, with one exception, 14 was there
present at the time of the picketing any tugboat, lighter, oil tanker, derrick, or other harbor
craft (whether or not of the type within Local 333's normal contract jurisdiction) belonging
to or operated by any employer member of the Towing Association or any other employer
with whom Local 333 was then involved in its contract dispute Nor did any employer involved
in the Local 333 contract dispute have any office, place of business, equipment, or regular
neup or berthing point at any of the listed piers
As for other conditions relating to the piers picketed, there is no uniformity. The record
discloses that deep-sea vessels, which normally would have utilized tugs for docking or
undocking operations, were lying in berth at 13 of the 251isted piers, at least at sometime
during the period of picketing, but not at the 12 others. 15 Because of the absence of ships,
some of the piers did not at the time of the picketing require the services of longshoremen
covered by the General Cargo agreement between the ILA and the Shipping Association, that
is longshoremen whose work is related immediately to the loading and unloading of cargo
on and from berthed ships, and shapeups for such longshoremen were not held. But at all
the listed piers picketed there was nevertheless some work to be done requiring the services
of ILA-represented employees, if not of longshoremen covered by the General Cargo agree-
ment, then at least of miscellaneous dockworkers, checkers, clerks, public loaders, and
other employees who are covered by other agreements between the ILA and the Shipping
Association and for whom work exists even during periods when no ship is actually berthed
at a pier. 16 The record reflects, moreover, that operations at most, if not all, the piers were
such at the time of the picketing as to require trucks to come on the pier premises for the
purpose of picking up and delivering freight on the docks
North Atlantic and Gulf Steamship Company, Inc., Royal Netherlands Steamship Company,
Jules Sofnic and Company, and Thor Eckert and Company
14 At Black Diamond Steamship Company's Court Street pier, 1 of the 2 piers operated by
that Company, there were moored 2 oil tankers owned and operated by another company
which was involved in the Local 333 contract dispute. The normal tieup point for that other
company was at an adjacent pier but because of overcrowding at the adjacent pier, the
tankers had been berthed at the Court Street open pier. The tankers were lying idle at the
time, and were not engaged in the normal business of their owner and operator
15 At least one ship was at some pier of all the companies listed in Schedule A, except
those of Boise-Griffin, Newtex, and United States Lines. The last-named company had cleared
its slips of ships the day before in anticipation of the picketing. Of the ships then lying in
berth at the 13 piers, 2 had arrived before the Local 333 strike began and had been berthed
with the aid of tugs, 5 had been berthed without tugs after the beginning of the strike and
before the picketing began, and 6 were berthed without the use of tugs while picketing was
being conducted. At the piers where no ships were berthed, ships at almost all of them were
either expected shortly or else had but recently departed. At only 1 pier, that of Nextex,
does it clearly appear that no ship was expected for a substantial period.
IS For example, work in connection with the receipt on the dock from truck and railroad
lighter of cargo destined for incoming vessels and the dispatch of cargo previously received
on the dock from departed vessels via truck and railroad lighter
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For the most part, the picketing succeeded in paralyzing normal operations at the picketed
piers by virtue of the failure of longshoremen , checkers , clerks, or miscellaneous pier
workers to respond to shapeup calls or , in the case of those not subject to shapeup, to enter
upon the pier premises to perform work that was there available for them. That was true on
both days of the picketing at the picketed piers of Bay Ridge Operating Co., Boise-Griffen,
Alcoa Steamship Co., Farrell Lines, United States Lines , Augentine State Line , and Ryan
Stevedoring Co. At Newtex , where the picket line was not established until after the beginning
of the workday , longshoremen ceased working at noon after the picket line was established
with the statement that they were going to respect the picket line At the pier of Seas Shipping
Company, the longshoremen , checkers , and clerks crossed the picket line and worked on
February 5, but on the morning of February 6, after again crossing the picket line, they walked
off the pier under circumstances more fully to be related below . At the pier of Black Diamond
Steamship Corporation , dock employees crossed the picket line on February 5 but not on
February 6 At States Terminal Co , where the pickets arrived shortly after the beginning of
the workday , the longshoremen and other pier employees went to work on the morning of
February 5 but did not return after the lunch hour , and on the following day did not work at
all until after the picketing was discontinued At Associated Operating Co , the longshoremen
and other pier employees for whom work was available on Pier 3 did not cross the picket
line on February 5 or 6, although they did report for work after the picket line was dis-
continued the second day. At Pier 1, where there was no picketing at shapeup time, the
longshoremen and others came to work on the morning of February 5 but, following a visit
to the pier by Constantino Scannavino , ILA International organizer and vice president--more
particularly detailed below -- left that pier at noon and did not return to work until after the
picket line was removed the following day only at the pier of the West Coast Line did the
longshoremen and other employees work on both days--except for the public loaders who
honored the picket line--even though , as will later more fully appear , Scannavino appeared
at the pier to express the position , supported by a telegram he said he had from International
President Ryan, that the men were to respect the picket line 17
3 Picketing of T. Hogan & Sons, Inc
T. Hogan & Sons , Inc , a contracting stevedore , which owns no craft within the jurisdiction
of Local 333 and is unrelated to any company involved in the contract dispute with that Local,
maintains offices unconnected with any pier at 531 West 19th Street , New York City. The
offices are over a garage and shop used by Hogan The garage is used as a shapeup point for
longshoremen classified as tractor drivers, who, after shaping up at the garage , are assigned
to work at different piers at which Hogan performs stevedoring work The shop is used by
maintenance employees who work both at the shop and on the piers , and who are covered by the
contract between the ILA and the Shipping Association of which Hogan is a member.
On February 5, and again on the morning of February 6, a picket , carrying the form of
picketing placard used at the piers, paraded in front of the office building used by Hogan.
As a result of the picketing none of the maintenance employees reported for work while the
picketing was in progress , though there was need for their services that day
D. Activities of International and Local ILA officials in con-
junction with the picketing
The record contains evidence of a number of specific incidents involving active intervention
by officials of the International and of ILA locals (other than Local 333) to implement the
Local 333 picketing Thus:
1. Thomas F. Malone, pier superintendent of the West Coast Line at pier 4, Brooklyn,
testified credibly , and it is found: On the morning of February 5, ILA International Organizer
and Vice-President Constantino Scannavino appeared at his office with Lawrence Camarada,
17 As for the effect of the picketing upon employees of trucking companies with business
on the piers , the record shows generally--at least in the case of such piers as to which there
is any evidence on that point -- that at the piers and on the days that longshoremen and other
pier employees crossed the picket line, trucks also crossed , but not so on piers and days
when the picket line was honored by the pier employees Although this aspect was not gener-
ally developed as to all piers , it appears in the case of one company ( Alcoa ) that trucks
were turned back by the company because no checkers were available to handle them.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION , LOCAL 333 , 705
the stevedore hiring boss Camarada informed Malone that Scannavino had taken the position
that the men had no right to cross the picket line established at that pier by Local 333.
Thereupon Scannavino exhibited to Malone a telegram which he stated he had received from
ILA President Ryan, and reiterated to Malone the substance of that telegram, that the picket
line should be respected. After Scannavino left, Malone told Camarada that he wanted the
ship worked nevertheless. Camarada then went out and held a shapeup The longshoremen
reported for work across the picket line and worked that day and the next, while picketing was
in progress As has been noted previously, this is the only pier, covered by evidence in the
record, where it is shown that longshoremen and other ILA members--except public loaders
who refused to cross--worked on both days despite the picketing.
2. As has previously been found, longshoremen and other employees at Associated Oper-
ating Company's Brooklyn terminal came to work on the morning of February 5 at pier 1,
but did not cross the picket line at pier 3. William J. Hanley, vice president of Associated,
testified credibly, and it is found, that he was advised later that morning that union delegates
were at pier 1. Going to that pier, he met Scannavino who told him, "We are stopping work
on the ship at 12 noon." Hanley asked Scannavino whether he had issued such instructions
to the employees, and Scannavino admitted that he had The longshoremen left pier 1 at noon
that day. None of the employees crossed the picket line that afternoon or the following morning
while picketing was in progress. 19
3. At the pier of Seas Shipping Co , the longshoremen, checkers, and clerks worked on
February 5, and also reported for work across the picket line at the beginning of the workday
on February 6. At about 8:30 on the morning of February 6, however, the longshoremen
walked off, but the checkers and clerks continued working. At about 10:30 a. in , 3 ILA local
officials, Strachan, Downing, and Devoe, the first 2 business agents of Local 975, a checkers
local, and the third the business agent of a Staten Island local, came to the pier office and
spoke to the checkers and clerks there present, telling them in substance that they were
not to work but were to get off the pier and respect the picket line. When it was pointed out
to the local officials that a mail delivery was expected, one of them told the chief clerk that
it would be all right for him, the dock boss, and one checker to remain on to accommodate
the mail but when that was done, they too were to leave As a result of the visit of the busi-
ness agents, the checkers and clerks left the pier and did not return for work until picketing
was discontinued 20
4. Robert Brown, assistant pier superintendent of the Argentine State Line, testified that
he was present at his pier gate on the morning of February 5 while the men were assemblirg
for the 7:55 a in shapeup, and that shortly before shapeup time Jeremiah Hickey, the
business agent of ILA Local 1272, appeared and told the men who were assembling for a
shapeup to go across the street, away from the shapeup point This they did, and the checkers
and clerks along with them Accordingly, there was no shapeup for the extra labor required
that day. The checkers and clerks did not report for work. Brown's testimony concerning
this incident was disputed by Hickey, who testified that he did not arrive that morning at
the Argentine State Line pier until about 8:30 a in Brown's testimony on the facts in issue
isScannavino denied having any conversation with Malone and Camarada. According to
him, he merely passed by the pier that morning, saw that the men were working, and made
no attempt to interfere. Elsewhere in his testimony, Scannavino indicated obliquely that he
was present "at the time they took the strike vote at Pier 4." Scannavino, whose overall
testimony was evasive and unconvincing, impressed me as an unreliable witness I reject
his denial, accept the testimony of Malone who impressed me as truthful, and find accordingly.
19Scannavmo's denial of Hanley's testimony was evasive and is not credited
20 The findings of fact in this paragraph are based upon the testimony, in all essential
respects mutually corroborative, of John Gulbin, the chief clerk, and John Gallagher, a
delivery clerk, who were present at the time. James Downing, who alone of the 3 local
officials was called by the Respondents to testify concerning this incident, denied that the
men were ordered off the pier and told to respect the picket line He would have it believed
that the 3 officials merely called to ascertain whether the picket line had been up when
the men had come in and to inquire if the men desired to continue working Downing ad-
mitted that there was a conversation concerning the mail delivery and that he approved the
receipt of this delivery, but was unable to explain satisfactorily why it was necessary for
him to give such approval if the men had not been ordered off. His testimony generally was
evasive and contradictory and, to the extent it conflicts with the testimony of Gulbin and
Gallagher, it is not credited.
7 06 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was riot impaired on cross-examination, and his overall testimony and demeanor generally
were such as to invite credence. While Hickey's testimony on that particular point was also
not directly shaken, his testimony in other respects seemed to me contrived and implausible.
I think Brown the more reliable of the two, and credit his testimony over that of Hickey.
5. William Hendricks, president of States Terminal Corp., testified that the Local 333
picket did not appear at the entrance to pier 51 until 8:05 a m , 5 minutes after the beginning
of the workday. At about 9: 15 he observed Thomas Gleason, the business agent for Checkers
Local 1346, walk into the office, but he had no personal knowledge of what occurred there
Later in the morning the pickets at the pier entrance were increased in number to about 10.
After lunch, all pier employees failed to report for work and did not return until after the
picketing ended the following day. Gleason admitted calling at the pier office that morning
and speaking to some of the men there, but denied he instructed them to leave their work or
to honor the picket line. According to Gleason, he merely asked the men why they were
working with pickets outside, and received the response that they had not seen the pickets
when they entered but that if the pickets were still there at 1 p. m. they would not return.
Accepting Gleason's testimony, I am nevertheless persuaded, and I find, that his visit to the
office, not otherwise explained, and his questioning of the men had the purpose and effect of
impressing upon the employees that the picketing had the approval, sanction, and support of
the ILA, and that the men were expected to honor the picket line.
To avoid confusion, it is best to indicate the purposes for which the specific incidents
found above are being considered Two of the incidents involve Scannavmo whose conduct is,
of course, imputable to the ILA, of which he is an agent. The first of these incidents is not,
however, regarded as establishing direct inducement and encouragement of employees to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work; for, so far as appears, Scannavino's state-
ments were confined to supervisory personnel. That incident, nevertheless, is deemed to have
a material bearing pn the issue of whether the ILA actively sanctioned, approved, and sup-
ported the Local 333 picketing and in effect acted in concert with that Local in attempting
to achieve the objectives of such picketing. The second incident involving Scannavino is not
only relevant to that issue but, besides, supplies direct evidence of ILA inducement and en-
couragement to strike action, by virtue of Scannavino's admission to Hanley that he had
issued instructions to employees to quit the pier at noon. The other specific incidents re-
ported' above involve conduct by officials of ILA locals not named parties respondent in this
proceeding Contrary to the assertion of the General Counsel, I do not think that the conduct
of these local officials is imputable under agency principles to either the Respondent ILA
or the Respondent District Council for the purpose of showing by such conduct alone that
either of these Respondents engaged in direct acts of the alleged illegal inducement and en-
couragement, and it is not here considered for that purpose. Such conduct, however, does
have a material bearing on the question of whether the District Council and the ILA took
official action, by which locals and their officials considered themselves bound, to support
not only the strike of Local 333 but its picketing activities as well. Stated differently, proof
that local officials advised or instructed their members to honor the Local 333 picket line
is a circumstantial factor tending to refute the Respondents' contention that the support
voted Local 333 at the council meeting of February 3 was intended merely as moral support
by the Council-affiliated locals, and tending to sustain the General Counsel's position that
the support voted was designed as active sympathetic support by such locals of Local 333's
picketing activities
E. Analysis and conclusions
1 The illegality of Local 333's picketing activities
Stripped to bare essentials , the facts governing decision as to the liability of Local 333
under Section 8 (b) (4) (A)21 are there . Local 333 had a primary labor dispute with members
21 That section makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents:
to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage
in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma-
terials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A)
forcing or requiring ... any employer or other 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.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 707
of the Towing Association and other tugboat operators The members of the Shipping Associ-
ation listed in Schedule A were not involved in that dispute. Nevertheless, in aid of its dis-
pute with the primary employers, Local 333 picketed piers, and in one instance an office
and shop, operated by the aforesaid neutral Shipping Association members--and this, though
none of the primary employer disputants had an office or place of business at the places
picketed, or had any of their harbor craft present at or in the immediate vicinity of the
places picketed, or were otherwise there engaged in the functioning of their business oper-
ations at the time of the picketing.
In these circumstances, I find, contrary to the position of the Respondents, that Local 333's
picketing constituted conduct secondary in character, that is, conduct calling for action of
employees of secondary or neutral employers away from the primary dispute's actual site.
The Respondents' argument that the picketing was primary activity, and as such immune from
the reach of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), is predicated upon the fact that many Local 333 members,
when engaged in the operations of their harbor craft, normally perform a substantial part
of their duties at or near or in the waters immediately adjacent to the deep-water piers of
the Port of New York generally The Respondents would therefore equate the piers generally
with the situs of the labor dispute in which Local 333 was involved, and thus claim advantage
of the principle that where picketing occurs at the sites of a labor dispute it is normally
viewed as primary activity. The Respondents' situs argument, however, flies in the teeth of
established Board precedent. True, the Board does not rigidly adhere to a rule that the sites
of a labor dispute can be fixed only at the physical premises of the primary employer. It
recognizes that in circumstances where employees have no fixed work location, the sites may
follow the place of work, so that, for example, a vessel or a truck may be the sites of a labor
dispute between its owner and those who may work on it Schultz Refrigerated Service, Inc.,
87 NLRB 502, Moore Drydock Company. 92 NLRB 547 But even in such cases, the Board
has rejected the view that the sites, if removed from the premises of the primary employer,
may ever be separated in time or place from the actual functioning of the primary employer's
business Sterling Beverages, Inc , 90NLRB401 zz IntheMoore Drydock case, the Board, with
subsequent court approval (N. L. R. B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs, 191 F. 2d 65 (C. A. 2)),
laid down certain standards for determing what constitutes legitimate picketing where, as here,
the business of a primary employer has a roving sites and the picketing occurs at the pre-
mises of secondary employers There the Board said that
picketing of the premises of a secondary employer is primary if it meets the following
conditions: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the sites of dispute is
located on the secondary employer's premises, (b) at the time of the picketing the pri-
mary employer is, engaged in its normal business at the sites, (c) the picketing is lim-
ited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs, and (d) the picketing dis-
closes clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer
With regard to at least the first two criteria set out above, Local 333's picketing fell short
of the accepted standard for primary action.
Nor was Local 333's picketing of the premises of secondary employers freed of its illegal
taint because, as the Respondents claim, substitute services may have been performed at or
about the piers during the course of the strike to compensate for the strikebound services
normally performed by Towing Association employers These claimed substitute services,
a In the cited case, a union claiming work jurisdiction over Sterling's operation that could
only be performed at the premises of another employer, Ruppert, picketed Ruppert's prem-
ises while Sterling's trucks were there present engaged in the disputed operation. The
picketing extended, however, for brief intervals when no trucks of Sterling were present,
although during a period normally scheduled for their arrival and for the performance of
the disputed operation. The Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint which alleged a viola-
tion of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), principally upon the ground that the picketing occurred at the
only place where the disputed work operation could be performed and hence, as he found,
at the sites `6f the labor dispute. The Board, however, rejected the Trial Examiner's equa-
tion of scene of employment and situs of dispute, found that the picketing, to the extent it
occurred during the absence of Sterling's trucks, was not strictly identified in time and
area with the actual functioning of Sterling's business at the scene of the dispute, and ac-
cordingly ruled that the picketing constituted illegal inducement and encouragement of
Ruppert's employees, violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to recapitulate, were the docking of vessels without the use of tugs and with "scab pilots,"
the handling of lines which but for the strike might have been handled by a tugboat crew, the
handshifting of lighters at the pier3 that might otherwise have been moved by shifting tugs,
and the cartage of freight and oil by truck that otherwise might have been transported by
self-propelled lighter or oil tanker As has been found above, there is no clear proof that
any of this was done, but it is nevertheless not unreasonable to believe that at least some of
it was done But even that assumption does not aid the Respondents' position There is no
claim here, and certainly no proof, that the substitute services, characterized by the Re-
spondents as "struck work," were performed by any of the employers involved in Local 333's
strike or enured to their benefit in any way it cannot therefore be said that business of the
primary employers was being engaged in at the piers so as to allow permissible picketing
of that business at the premises of others. Nor can it be said that the pier employers by
seeking to accomodate their operations to the strike situation made themselves allies in
interest with struck employers in their dispute with Local 333 A secondary employer faced
with a strike against his supplier of services is not obliged to sit idly by lest he forfeit his
status as a neutral, he may, without risking the protection Section 8 (b) (4) (A) accords him
against the extension to his business of economic conflicts in which he is not involved, seek
other suppliers, devise other methods, and employ other means to enable him to continue
his business on as nearly normal a level as possible. If--to illustratebyan example that may
be applicable to this case--a steamship company, cutoff from its oil supply by a strike against
oil tankers, devises a substitute method of having the oil carted to it by oil truck, it does not
lose its status as a neutral because "struck work" is being performed, and if the striking
union then pickets it in part with an object of forcing it to cease doing business with the
trucking company, the union commits a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). The same is true
if the steamship company, unable because of a strike against tugboats to shift craft in the
pier slip, employs a contracting stevedore to have his men perform the shifting work by
hand methods
The answer to the Respondents' argument, thatLocal333 had a right to appeal to employees
of employers not involved in the primary dispute to refrain from performing work which but
for the strike would have been performed by the struck employers and their employees, is to
be found in Congress enactment of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). The answer to the Respondents' sup-
plementary argument that Local 333's right, was a constitutionally protected one is to be
found in Electrical Workers v N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694
The contention is advanced, and argued at considerable length, that because of the em-
ployment practices in the industry, a finding cannot be made in this case that "employees"
were induced and encouraged to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work "in the
course of their employment " This contention proceeds from the asserted factual premise
that as longshoremen shapeup for separate hiring each morning, and if assigned to work are
put on under a contract of hire extending at most for 1 day, a new employer-employee re-
relationship is established each day they are hired that terminates at the end of that workday
without continuing on from day to day Based upon that premise, and relying principally upon
the Board's decision in Joliet Contractors Association, 99 NLRB 1391, and the affirmance of
that decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 202 F. 2d 606, the Respondents argue
that a refusal by longshoremen to perform services on any given day before they are actually
hired for that day cannot constitute a "strike or a concerted refusal" by "employees," be-
cause no employer-employee relationship then exists that can be interrupted Consequently,
they say, any picketing designed to induce such a refusal may not be viewed as illegal in the
statutory sense 23
It should be observed, to begin with, that even if the Respondents' argument were sound.
it could have but limited application to the factual-situation in this case,and could not affect
the ultimate result here reached. For that argument at best could apply only to the impact
23 Apart from the Joliet decisions, the Respondents support their argument by the citation
of matter of Burger, 277 App Div. (N. Y.), afd. 303 N. Y 654, That case, involving an inter-
pretation of the employment status of longshoremen under the New York Unemployment In-
surance law, gives seeming support to the Respondents' argument However, as that case
was concerned with the interpretation of another statute, and is in any event not binding on
the Board, it is not viewed as controlling. ' or another State court decision reaching a con-
clusion different from that in the Burger ase, but involving West Coast longshoremen hired
under a hiring hall arrangement, see Matson Terminals, Inc. v. California Employment
Commission, 24 Cal. 2d 695.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 709
of inducement and encouragement upon longshoremen , and not upon other pier workers who,
as found above, are not subject to a daily shapeup--such as checkers, clerks, andothermis-
cellaneous pier employees Nor would it have application to other employees affected by
the picketing, such as teamsters who come upon the piers in the course of their employment.
Moreover , even as to longshoremen , the argument cannot apply in those situations where,
as found above , picketing (supplemented in some instances by oral inducement and encourage-
ment by ILA officials--to wit, Scannavino) was conducted while longshoremen were actually
at work upon the piers, causing them in some instances to leave their work after shapeup
time and before the end of the workday
But even with these considerations aside, I am persuaded that the Respondents ' argument
is unsound and their reliance on the Joliet case misplaced The Joliet case involved a union's
refusal to furnish to an employer workers who had hot yet established with that employer
an employment relationship of any kind Nor had they established vis a vis that employer,
alone or with others related to him, a course of employment possessing characteristics of
certainty and continuity That is not so as to the longshoremen in this case , certainly not as
to those who function as part of steady gangs at piers where the steady gang system is
followed nor, I think , as to those at other piers who are regular workers at such piers and
who under the governing collective -bargaining agreement must be given " precedence in
hiring" at the shapeups Here we have an already established arrangement and course of
employment under which longshoremen are expected to make themselves available on a
regular basis for work assignments each morning work is to be done, and the employing
stevedoring contractor or steamship company is expected , and indeed required , to give such
longshoremen first call on such work as is available That the relationship is regarded
by both the employees and the employers, not merely as an intermittant one, broken at the
end of each day's work, but one having an established and continuing character, at least as
between employees and those employers collectively who are related together in membership
in the Shipping Association, is, I believe, amply evidenced by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment with its provisions for vacation pay, welfare benefits , and the like For the reasons
indicated, I am persuaded, and I find, that though longshoremen--at least those in steady
gangs or regular workers at given piers -- may not have been under a technical contract of
hire at the very moment pickets appeared , and though all of them would not have been selected
for work each day that picketing occurred, they were nevertheless "employees" not only
within the definition of Section 2 (3) of the Act ,24 but also within the meaning of that term as
used in Section 8 (b) (4) (A) I further find that, as Local 333's picketing was calculated to
induce and encourage such employees temporarily to withhold their labor that otherwise
would have been available under their already established relationship with employers at
whose piers they regularly worked, the picketing constituted in the statutory sense an in-
ducement and encouragement to "engage in a strike or a concerted refusal [ to work] in the
course of their employment "
We come, then, to the final question on this phases of the case Was Local 333's picketing
conducted for illegal objectives within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)? In one important
respect this case differs from illegal boycott cases that have previously come before the
Board Earlier cases have involved situations where an object of the secondary boycott,
directly or indirectly, has been to require the cessation of business dealings with, or the
handling or use of the product or service of , an employer against whom a union had a primary
labor dispute or who was otherwise considered unfair In the instaiit case, however, that
could not have been an object For as found above , the tugboat , lighterage, derrick , and oil
barge companies, against whom Local 333's strike was conducted, had suspended their normal
business operations for the period of the strike, and at the time of the picketing, none of the
picketed employers was engaged, directly ,or indirectly, in using their services or otherwise
doing business with them, nor were they threatening to do so Indeed, the General Counsel
does not claim , nor does his complaint allege, that an object of the picketing was to bring
about a cessation or interruption of business dealings with any of the tugboat operators or
other employers involved in the primary strike The claim of the General Counsel, in sub-
stance, is that the picketing had as its objective forcing or requiring employers whose prem-
ises were picketed, as well as other employers whose business brought them on the picketed
premises, to cease their normal operations at the places picketed, such as the handling,
transporting , or working with any cargo or freight at the piers, or , stated differently, to
24See, Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N. L R. B , 313 U S 177; Briggs Manufacturing
Company, 75 NLRB 569.
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cease their business dealings among each other and with other employers and persons with
whom they normally do business at the places picketed That objective is not claimed to have
been an end in itself , but rather a -ieans of arousing the secondary employers to assist Lo-
cal 333 in its labor dispute with me Towing Association. The Respondents argue that since
it has not, and cannot, be shown that the object of the picketing was to bring about, directly
or indirectly , some cessation or curtailment of other employers ' business dealings with the
employers involved in the primary strike, the illegal objective requirements of Section 8
(b) (4) (A) have not been met
Before considering the legal issue, it is well to pause to make factual findings with regard
to the objectives of the picketing On that the record contains but little earmarked eviden-
tiary data From the General Counsel ' s point of view there was undoubtedly little reason to
dwell on that point, for under his theory of the case it was necessary only to show two
things: That the picketing was aimed at bringing about a stoppage of all work at the piers
and that it was secondary in character The Respondents , for their part , refrained from
adducing direct evidence concerning the objectives of the picketing , and such testimony as
does appear on that point came into the record tangentally , mainly during the cross - exami-
nation of Captain Bradley as an adverse witness As found above, Bradley testified that the
only reason leading to Local 333's decision to picket the piers was the receipt by its strike
committee on the eve of picketing of reports that substitute methods were being used by
pier operators to accomplish what normally would have been done by Local 333 men Even
if in fact Local 333's only object was to induce employees not to perform sub-
stitute services 25 that alone would have been illegal under Section 8 (b) (4) (A), for reasons
that have already been indicated 26 However , I do not credit Bradley ' s testimony that this
was the only or even the primary reason for picketing the piers . On the basis of evidence
earlier reported , including the evidence relating to the participation of the ILA and District
Council, and on the record as a whole, I believe, and I find, that the primary design of the
picketing was to bring about a complete paralysis of all pier operations , shipping , stevedoring,
and others To say that the object was to paralyze pier operations, is to say also that the
object was to bring about a cessation of all business dealings normally conducted at the
piers--between steamship companies and stevedoring companies , between trucking companies
and consignors and cosignees of freight , between steamship companies and shippers of cargo,
etc. --for the two must necessarily go hand in hand Nor is it reasonable to suppose that that
object was pursued capriciously and as an end in itself The only reasonable inference to be
drawn is that the Respondents designed that tactic with the aim of inducing the steamship
companies which normally contract with the tugboat operators and other struck employers
to intercede in the labor dispute and apply pressure upon the Towing Association and its mem-
bers to bring the dispute to an end In sum, I find the allegations of the complaint concerning
the objectives of the picketing are supported by the record
What, then, of the legal issue? Are such objectives proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
though it does not appear that the picketing was aimed at forcing a refusal to use a product
or service of, or to bring about a cessation of business dealings with the particular em-
ployers involved in the primary dispute9 I am satisfied they are Certainly, the objectives
found fall within the breadth of the language of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), literally read It is true,
of course, that the Board and the courts have recognized that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) is not to
be applied to every -situation that may appear to fall within the four corners of a broad literal
reading of its terms , for if given full scope it could reach out to ban even strikes and picketing
that are primary in character In view of the apparent conflict between an unlimited literal
25 For example, the cartage by truck of freight or cargo that otherwise would have been
handled by self-propelled lighter or oil barge.
26 There is not merit to the Respondents ' contention that this would not involve an illegal
disruption of business relations because , as they say , the business dealings in that event
would be between trucking company and consignor or consignee, and not between trucking
company and steamship company or contracting stevedore . Section 8 (b) (4) (A) does not re-
quire that the intended cessation of business involve directly the particular secondary em-
ployer whose premises are being picketed Its illegal objective clause refers to "forcing or
requiring . . . any employer or other person . to cease doing business with any other
person." (Emphasis supplied.) That would cover picketing at piers designed to force trucking
companies not to receive or deliver cargo that they had undertaken to handle for consignors
or consignees at the piers.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION, LOCAL 333 711
construction of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and Sections 1, 7, and 13, it was necessary to turn to
the legislative history to determine Congress' intent, and from this it was readily determined
that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was not designed to outlaw traditional primary action. See, The
Pure nil Company, 84 NLRB 315 Douds v Metropolitan Federation of Architects, 75 F.
Supp 672 (S. D. N. Y.). But though it is plain that primary action is to be excepted from the
scope of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), there is nothing in the legislative history to warrant a con-
clusion that where secondary action is involved, Congress intended to draw a distinction
between different kinds, so as to include some but not others There is evidence, on the other
hand, that Congress, with the purpose of confining the area of economic conflict in labor
disputes to direct disputants, intended Section 8 (b) (4) (A) to condemn all action directed
against or which has the effect of injuring the business of third persons not involved in the
basic disagreement giving rise to the conflict 27 As that precisely is the situation here, and as
Local 333's action falls within the scope of the language of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), I find, contrary
to the Respondents' argument, that the illegal objective requirements of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
have been sufficiently established
It is concluded and found that by picketing the employers and piers listed on Schedule A
and the place of business of T. Hogan & Sons, Inc , on February 5 and 6, 1953, Local 333
engaged in illegal inducement and encouragement of employees of said employers as well
as of employees of other employers arriving at the places picketed to receive or deliver
freight or cargo, for objects proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
2. The liability of the District Council and the ILA
I am unable to go along with the contentions of the Respondents District Council and ILA
that there is a failure of proof with regard to the complaint's allegations against these
labor organizations On the contrary, I am convinced that the credible evidence in the record
considered as a whole preponderates to establish that both the District Council and the ILA.
with the purpose and intent of inducing and encouraging sympathetic strike action by mem-
bers of ILA-affiliated locals employed at the places picketed, authorized, approved, sanc-
tioned, and supported Local 333's picketing of the piers ,
The finding with regard to the District Council stems from the resolution of full strike
support for Local 333, voted by that body at its meeting of February 3, 1953, following
Captain Bardley's report on the strike and the proposed picketing of the piers. I am unable
to agree with the Respondents that this resolution contemplated merely moral support to
Local 333 in its primary strike, and I reject as implausible the testimony of certain wit-
nesses to that effect In assessing the character of the Council's action, it must be borne
in mind that a primary function of the Council is to achieve coordination among all locals
in the port and, if necessary, to help resolve disputes not only among different locals but
27 Thus, Senator Taft said of the secton (93 Cong. Rec 4323):
This provision makes it unlawful to resort to a secondary boycott to injure the business
of a third person who is wholly unconcerned in the disagreement between an employer
and his employees. . . . It has been set forth that there are good secondary boycotts
and bad secondary boycotts. Our committee heard evidence for weeks and never suc-
ceeded in having anyone tell us any difference between different kinds of secondary
boycotts. So we have so broadened the provision dealing with secondary boycotts as to
make them an unfair labor practice.
That the opponents of the bill also understood that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was broad enough
to cover activities such as were engaged in this case is reflected in the Senate Minority
Report (80th Cong. 1st Sess. Rept. 105, Pt. 2, on S. 1126, p. 19) where it is said:
Section 8 (b) (4) would add to the National Labor Relations Act a new section which
would provide that various concerted activities of labor unions, such as secondary
boycotts, jurisdictional disputes, and sympathy strikes, defined in broad terms would
be unfair labor practices which could be prohibited by the National Labor Relations
Board.
Along the same lines, see 93 Cong. Rec. 4155, 4892, 4893, 6662.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also between a given local and employers Also to be taken into account is the testimony,
not heretofore reported , of various ILA officials, indicating that they drew a distinction
between authorized strike action and unauthorized action, and that while they might urge
members to cross a picket line in support of a "wildcat " strike they would not do so if the
action had official ILA approval and support Another factor to be considered is the provision
in the ILA constitution requiring that sympathetic strike action , if it is not to be deemed
unauthorized , must have official ILA approval. Still another is that it would have gained
Local 333 nothing at the February meeting to have asked merely for approval of its primary
strike, for it had already received ILA authorization for that , as well as a Council resolution--
passed at the January meeting--to support its just demands should it be obliged to strike.
Bearing these considerations in mind, I am satisfied that all concerned fully understood
that Local 333 was now seeking something more tangible than a bare expression of moral
support, and that it was in fact invoking ILA procedures to enlist from the Council and ILA
their official stamp of approval on its picketing activities so as to assure affirmative co-
operation and sympathetic action from council- affiliated locals and their members-.
That the council delegates understood that in voting to support the strike they were voting
to support Local 333's picketing is reflected , although not expressly admitted, in testimony
of some of the Respondents ' witnesses . Thus, William Coughlin, a local official and council
delegate as well as an ILA organizer, although insisting that the council voted to support
the strike, not the picketing , nevertheless admitted that he understood Bradley's request
for strike support to mean that Bradley wanted other locals to respect Local 333's picket
line Coughlin also testified that a local ' s strike given official support was regarded as a
legitimate one, and when that appeared it was the ILA position that the picket line of that
local should be observed by all other ILA locals Joseph Moriarty, also a local official,
council delegate , and ILA organizer, testified that he would not consider it support of a
local's strike to disregard a picket line established by that local. Thomas Gleason, a local
business agent and council delegate , testified that to him the support of a strike meant "a
refusal to cross a picket line if one is there." Other evidence unmistakably pointing to the
conclusion that the Council in voting to give Local 333 full support in its strike intended
such support to include specifically cooperation by council-affiliated locals in assuring the
effectiveness of the picketing is to be found in (a) the advance assurance demanded and
received before support was voted that army piers be excepted from the picketing, (b)
Ryan's telegrams to ILA officials reported above, and (c) the conduct found above to have
been engaged in by ILA Local officials in support of Local 333' s picketing activities.
As, for the finding made against the ILA, it is necessary only to point for clear and sub-
stantiating evidence to Ryan's two telegrams and to the conduct engaged in by International
Organizer Scannavino , reported above . I am unable to agree with the Respondents ' counsel
that the statement in Ryan's telegram , " members of our organization will respect picket
lines," followed as it was by "any ships directed to other ports are not to be worked," is
to be construed merely as a prediction by him as to what might happen . On the contrary, I
think the telegram can only be reasonably construed as an announcement that Local 333's
picketing activity carried the ILA's official approval, support , and sanction , and that sym-
pathetic action in support of the picketing was to be expected from ILA members generally.
The Respondent' s contention that Scannavino's conduct is not attributable to the ILA is clearly
without substance , not only because of his, agency position but because it appears that he was
carrying out the ILA's official position as reflected by Ryan's telegram That Local 333
picket lines were crossed in some instances does not negate the otherwise substantiated
fact that the ILA engaged in affirmative conduct calculated to induce and encourage their
honor
I conclude and find that the District Council and the ILA, by authorizing , approving, sanc-
tioning, and supporting Local 333' s picketing activities acted in concert with Local 333 in
the conduct, violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), in which Local 333 engaged , and that, conse-
quently, they are in law jointly accountable with Local 333 for such illegal conduct.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents , set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the operations of the Employers , described in section I, above, have a close , intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and Terri-
tories of the United States and between foreign countries and States of the United States,
and tend to lead to and have led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
UNITED MARINE DIVISION , LOCAL 333 713
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be
recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 28
The specific findings of unfair labor practices made in this case are based upon activities
of the Respondents related to employers and piers listed on Schedule A, as well as at the
office and place of business of one contracting stevedore member of the Shipping Association,
T. Hogan & Sons, Inc. As has been noted, the General Counsel offered to prove similar viola-
tions involving numerous other members of the Shipping Association, but such offer of proof
was rejected as cumulative for reasons already set forth There is general testimony in the
record reflecting that it was the original plan of Local 333, supported by the District Council
and, the ILA, to picket all piers in the Port of New York in connection with which Local 333
members performed any part of their functions The execution of that plan would have in-
volved all or substantially all the deep-sea piers of the port, and, correspondingly, all or
substantially all of the steamship companies, contracting stevedores, and other employers
who are members of the Shipping Association. As the evidence shows that the Respondents'
unlawful conduct, herein specifically found, was part of a general campaign to paralyze the
pier operations of members of the Shipping Association generally, the danger is to be antici-
pated that if the order in this proceeding is confined to protect only those employers with
respect to whom specific findings have been made in this case, the Respondents may in the
future engage in like violations against others similarly situated The preventive purposes
of the Act would be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order, there-
fore to prevent a recurrence of similar unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize the
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, it will be recommended that the
order in this case require the Respondents to cease and desist from the commission of
unfair labor practices of the kind here found, not only against the Schedule A employers but
against other Shipping Association members as well For like reasons, and because the Re-
spondents' picketing plan also contemplated that employees of employers engaged in the
transportation of freight and cargo to the piers would likewise be induced and encouraged
not to perform work at such places, it will also be recommended that the order require the
Respondents to cease and desist from the commission of unfair labor practices of the kind
found against transportation employers having business on the piers.
It appears, however, that certain members of the Shipping Association as well as certain
transportation employers, such as lighterage companies, own and operate tugboats or other
harbor craft and in that aspect of their businesses stand in a contractual and bargaining re-
lationship to Local 333. The General Counsel makes no claim that the picketing and other
activities of the Respondents were illegal, insofar as they affected employers who were
primary disputants with Local 333 in the contract controversy Consequently such employers
will be excluded from the operation of the remedial order. Of course, nothing in the remedial
order is to be construed as prohibiting any of the Respondents from engaging in primary
strikes or engaging in other concerted activities of a kind construed by Board and court
decision to fall outside the proscription of Section 8 (b) (4). See, e.g., The Pure Oil Company,
84 NLRB 315, Moore •Drydock Company, 92 NLRB 547, N. L. R. B. v. Service Trade Chauf-
feurs, 191 F. 2d 65 (C. A. 2).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Marine Division, Local 333, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL; and New York District Council of the In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act
28 The Respondents' argument, that no order is appropriate in this case because the primary
strike between Local 333 and employers of its members, which precipitated the conduct here
found illegal, has since been settled and an agreement reached, has been considered and re-
jected. Mere discontinuance of unfair labor practices does not render a case moot It is
found that despite the discontinuance of the primary strike and illegal secondary activity, a
remedial order is nevertheless necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act which require
not only that the effects of the unremedied unfair labor practices be dissipated but also that
the recurrence of similar unlawful conduct in the future be prevented.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By inducing and encouraging employees of the employers listed on Schedule A, em-
ployees of T. Hogan & Sons, Inc., and employees of employers engaged in the transportation
of freight and cargo to and from the piers of employers listed on Schedule A, to engage in a
strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, process , transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials , or commodities at piers of
the employers listed on Schedule A--and, in the case of T Hogan & Sons, Inc ., at the office
and place of business of that company- -or otherwise to perform services for their respective
employers , with an object or objects of forcing or requiring said employers , and other
persons, to cease handling , transporting , or working with cargo or freight at said piers, to
cease doing business with any other person with whom they normally do business , and other-
wise to cease their normal business operations at said piers, although none of the aforesaid
employers were then involved with the Respondents in a primary labor dispute , but the pri-
mary labor dispute was with other employers upon whom the Respondents were seeking to
impose indirect pressure , the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act
3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SCHEDULE A
Name of Company
(West Coast Line, Inc.
(Turner&Blanchard, Inc
Bay Ridge Operating Co., Inc.
Boise - Gritfen Steamship Co. , Inc.
Newtex Steamship Corp.
(Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.
(John W. McGrath Corp
(Seas Shipping Company, Inc
(Turner & Blanchard, Inc
(Black Diamond Steamship Corp.
(Marra Bros , Inc
(Farrell Lines, Inc.
(Universal Terminal & Stevedoring
Co.
(Norwegian America Line Agency,
Inc
(Turner&Blanchard, Inc.
United States Lines Company
(Argentine State Line
(Universal Terminal& Stevedoring
Co
States Terminal Corp
The Associated Operating Co
Ryan Stevedoring Co Inc.
Sealand Dock & Terminal Corp
Location of piers
Pier 4 , Brooklyn
Pier 95, North River
2 piers at foot of Milton and Oak
Streets, Brooklyn
Berth 23 (Bldg . 6) Port Newark
Pier 9 North River
Pier 3, Erie Basin, Brooklyn
2 piers at foot of Smith and Court
Streets, Brooklyn
Foot of 33rd Street, Brooklyn
Pier 42, North River
Piers 59, 60 , 61, 62, 74 and 86 North
River
Pier 25, North River
Pier 51, North River
Piers 1 and 3, Bush Terminal,
Brooklyn
Pier 6, Bush Terminal , Brooklyn
2 piers at foot of Java and Kent
Streets, Brooklyn