International Longshoremen's Association, Ind.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IND. 1279
International Longshoremen 's Association , Independent, William
V. Bradley, its President and Patrick J. Connolly, its Execu-
tive Vice President and Chairman of its Wage Scale Commit-
tee, Atlantic Coast District and New York Shipping Associa-
tion , Inc. and its Employer-Members, Named in Appendix "A"
Attached Hereto . Case No. 2-CB-1841. December 14, 1961
ORDER CLOSING CASE
On September 30, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Order' in
the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had re-
fused to bargain in violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, and order-
ing Respondents to cease and desist from (a) demanding that any
agreement reached with the New York Shipping Association, Inc.,
cover employees in any unit other than a unit of longshore employees
of the Association in the port of Greater New York and vicinity so
long as the certification for this unit remained outstanding and the
Association insisted upon confining the negotiations to this unit; and
(b) resorting to economic pressure, including strike action or threat
of such action to force the Association to agree that any agreement
reached with it cover employees in any unit other than the above-
described unit so long as the certification remained oustanding and
the Association insisted on confining the negotiations to the unit of
employees in the port of Greater New York and vicinity.
Thereafter, on January 28, 1960, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia found the Board's order to be valid but,
upon review of the order, remanded the case to the Board for fur-
ther consideration in the light of a master contract between the Associa-
tion and Respondents covering longshoremen in ports other than the
port of Greater New York, entered into by the parties subsequent to
the Board's Decision and Order.2 By order dated May 17, 1960, the
Board remanded this matter to the Trial Examiner for a further
hearing. A further hearing in accordance with this order having been
held on October 24 and 25,1960, the Trial Examiner on April 14, 1961,
issued a Supplemental Intermediate Report, attached hereto, recom-
mending that the case be closed, subject to further proceedings should
facts warranting further proceedings be brought to the Board's
attention.
The Board having duly considered the entire record, including the
remand by the court, the remand by the Board, the Supplemental
1 118 NLRB 1481.
2 International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, William V. Bradley, its Presi•
dent, and Patrick J. Connolly, its Executive Vice President and Chairman of its Wage
Scale Committee, Atlantic Coast District (N.Y. Shipping Assn .) v. N.L.R.B., 277 P. 2d 681.
134 NLRB No. 125.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report, and the fact that in two contracts executed since
the Board's original Decision and Order the Association has not in-
sisted on a unit limited to the longshoremen in the port of Greater
New York with respect to wages, hours, contributions for welfare and
pension benefits, and the term of the agreement,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the aforesaid case be, and it hereby is,
closed, pursuant to Section 101.13 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations and Statements of Procedure and subject to further proceedings
in accordance with said Rules; should changed circumstances which
the Board deems to warrant such action be brought to its attention.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT
On September 30, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding 1 finding that the Respondents, as a matter of law, refused to
bargain within the meaning and intent of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by pressing
their demand for coastwide bargaining after the Employers insisted on confining the
'negotiations to the certified bargaining unit (a unit covering longshoremen in the
port of Greater New York-see Case No. 2-RC-8388 reported in 116 NLRB 1183).
Thereafter, on January 28, 1960, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia sustained the Board's finding noted above but denied the Board's cross-
petition for enforcement and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration
in the light of a contract covering longshoremen in ports along the North Atlantic
coast from Portland, Maine, to Hampton Roads, Virginia, entered into by the parties
subsequent to the Board's Decision and Order, with directions that the Board bear
in mind that under the law Respondents had a right to urge bargaining in a unit
different from the unit certified and to urge such bargaining "up to a point short of
ultimate insistence" and to seek "repeatedly" a coastwide unit "so long as it did not
posit the matter as an ultimatum." 2
By order dated May 17, 1960, the Board remanded this matter to Trial Examiner
Albert P. Wheatley with directions that a further hearing be held "for further
evidence on the question of whether the Employer-Association voluntarily agreed to
a change in the bargaining unit from one embracing the port of Greater New York
to one which is coastwide in scope" and that upon conclusion of such supplemental
hearing the Trial Examiner prepare and serve "a Supplemental Intermediate Report
containing findings of fact upon the evidence received pursuant to the provisions of
this order, conclusions of law, and recommendations." Further hearing, in accord-
ance with the Board's order of May 17, 1960, was held on October 24 and 25, 1960.
Briefs were duly filed on or about February 23, 1961.
Upon the record made in this matter and observations of witnesses the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
Findings
1. Background information
As a result of an election, the Board made its certification in 1953 that ILA
was the bargaining representative of employees in the port of Greater New York,
and a collective-bargaining contract was entered into between New York Shipping
Association, Inc. (NYSA), and ILA. That contract covered employees in the
Greater New York unit and expired September 30, 1956. Commencing August 1,
1956, conferences looking to a new contract were inauguarted. ILA demanded that
NYSA -bargain 'beyond the limit of the unit confined to the port of Greater New
York, so as to include almost all ports from Portland, Maine, to Brownsville, Texas.
One day before this bargaining began, the International Brotherhood of Long-
shoremen, AFL (a rival of ILA, Independent-the union involved herein) filed a
petition with the Board for a new election to determine whether it or the ILA should
be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the Greater
New York unit. In that proceeding the ILA, Independent, contended that the unit
should be a coastwide unit. The Board. rejected this contention, as it had a similar
1 118 NLRB 1481.
2 The court's decision is reported in 277 F. 2d 681.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IND. 1281
contention in 1953, and ordered an election to determine whether the ILA or its
rival union should be certified as the representative of employees in a unit covering
only employees in the port of Greater New York and vicinity. The election was held
on October 17, 1956, and resulted in a vote in favor of the ILA. On October 25,
1956, the ILA was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in
the port of Greater New York and vicinity.
As noted above, commencing August 1, 1956, conferences looking to a new con-
tract were inaugurated. The parties met frequently and for long sessions until the
negotiations reached an impasse on November 15, 1956, and a strike was called
by the ILA in all Atlantic and gulf coast ports. Throughout the negotiations, the ILA
included, among other demands, demands that negotiations not be limited to the
port of Greater New York and vicinity but be on behalf of employees in a coastwide
unit 3 even though NYSA rejected this demand and insisted upon bargaining as to the
certified unit. ILA's insistence upon coastwide bargaining led to the matter involved
herein.
On October 23, 1956, NYSA filed a charge with the Board alleging that the Union's
insistence on a contract covering an industrywide unit was an unfair labor practice
which violated the Act. On November 21, 1956, the complaint involved herein issued
and a petition for injunctive relief was filed with the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor
Relations Act. A temporary restraining order issued on November 21, 1956, and
the temporary injunction was issued December 12, 1956, enjoining the ILA from
insisting on a change in the bargaining unit found appropriate by the Board. On
November 24, 1956, the district court issued an 80-day injunction pursuant to the
National Emergencies provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, terminating for 80 days
the strike which had been in effect since November 15. The members of ILA returned
to work pursuant to the provisions of the National Emergencies injunction.
After the district court decisions, a hearing was held before the Trial Examiner
on December 17, 1956, at which the record constituting the basis for the Board's
Order of September 30, 1957, was made. On January 14, 1957, the Trial Examiner
issued his Intermediate Report finding that ILA had, as a matter of law, refused to
bargain by pressing its demand for coastwide bargaining after NYSA insisted on
confining the negotiations to the certified bargaining unit. The Board in its Decision
and Order of September 30, 1957, adopted the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations set forth in the Intermediate Report and at the same time denied a motion
to dismiss filed by the ILA contending that the case had become moot because of
events which occured subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report, because
of the execution of a "memorandum of settlement" hereinafter considered.
After the Board had rendered its decision, ILA filed a motion dated October 31,
1957, to reconsider or remand for the taking of additional evidence. The Board
denied this motion by order dated February 26, 1959. Thereafter the case was
taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on ILA's
petition to set aside the Board Order and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement.
2. Events leading to contract covering employees in ports other than New York
As noted above, on November 15, 1956, the ILA resorted to strike action and one
of the chief reasons for this action was enforecment of its demand for coastwide
bargaining. On the following day, Friday, November 16, a conference was held in
the office of the mayor of New York City which was attended by representatives
of NYSA, ILA, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and by city and
State officials. At this meeting .the issues in dispute, especially the ILA's demand for
industrywide bargaining, were discussed. During the course of this discussion ILA
representatives indicated that the ILA was willing to consider a contract covering
ports from Portland, Maine, to Hampton Roads, Virginia, rather than a contract
covering all Atlantic and gulf coast ports, and that this type of contract would prob-
ably "make the pieces fall into place" and settle the strike and the controversy.
Early in January 1957, the hearing on the complaint involved herein had been
held and the issues raised therein were pending before the Trial Examiner. The 80-
day National Emergencies injunction and the injunction which was entered pursuant
to Section 10(j) of the Act were outstanding and the parties were far from agree-
8 ILA sought what is known as "hybrid bargaining" That is a local contract covering
some terms of employment and an overall multiport contract covering others. It sought
an industrywide or coastwide contract on six items. The term "hybrid bargaining" appears
in the Board's decision in Amerxcan Can Company, 110 NLRB 3, 6.
630849-62-vol. 134-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment-the controversy was still current although the ILA did not urge their proposal
for national bargaining after the issuance of the temporary restraining order on
November 21.
On January 3, 1957, Joseph Mayper, counsel for NYSA, contacted Louis Wald-
man, counsel for ILA, and inquired whether he (Waldman) was serious when he
made the statement at the conference in the mayor's office that a master contract
for less than national bargaining might settle the strike and the controversy. Wald-
man replied that he was very serious and that he was still of the same view and these
gentlemen then scheduled a meeting for the next day, January 4.
On January 4, 1957, Louis Waldman and Seymour Waldman, counsel for ILA,
and Joseph Mayper and Alfred Giardino, counsel for NYSA, and Alexander Chopin,
chairman of the NYSA, and W. L. Swain, Mr. Chopin' s assistant on the staff of the
NYSA, met and conferred for about 1V2 hours at the New York County Lawyers
Association. This was an exploratory meeting at which the four top negotiators
for the NYSA sought the reactions of the union attorneys as to whether a coastwide
master contract on wages only would "break up the logjam." The union attorneys
were informed that NYSA was considering recommending that other shipping asso-
ciations in other ports join NYSA in a coastwide agreement covering wages only and
were asked whether a "master contract" covering the "Eastern Seaboard, Atlantic
Coast" would be acceptable to the Union. Louis Waldman replied that he could
not commit the ILA and that he was in no position to bargain on any unit other
than New York by reason of the injunction. He was then told (by a representative
of NYSA), "Well, Louie, you know perfectly well that there is nothing in the injunc-
tion for you to listen, to forbid you from listening. We are perfectly free under
the injunction to make whatever offer we see fit and you are not violating, in our
opinion, any provisions of the injunction if you just listen. We are considering
making an offer to you of a master contract to cover the Atlantic seaboard. But
there are certain terms on which we make that offer." A proposal was then made
to Louis Waldman which in substance was as follows:
The conference committee would recommend to the membership a master
contract for the Atlantic Coast District from Portland, Maine, to Hampton
Roads, Virginia, on wages only (to cover all employers and not merely mem-
bers of the NYSA) if the ILA agrees to the following:
1. A three-year contract.
2. The wage offer of 140, 100 and 80.
3. Withdrawal of the demand for a limited sling load.
4. Management rights clause as proposed by the employers.
5. Grievance and arbitration provision as proposed by the employers.
6. Safety rules and Safety Committee as proposed by the employers.
7. Customs and Practices clause to be eliminated from substantive part
of contract and to be inserted in Grievance procedure.
8. Exceptions VIII and IX to Section 13(a) as proposed by employers
in October of 29 proposals.
9. Annex A, numbers 2 and 3 of the employers' October 29 proposals.
10. Withdrawal of ILA demand for clinics.
11. Withdrawal of demand for eight-hour day or four and four with
no exceptions , clause to remain as in old contract.
12. Agreement to be reached with all other crafts on same basis as
longshore agreement.
All other items contained in the ILA demands and in the demands of the
employers are to remain subject to negotiation.
Upon receipt of the employers' proposal (noted above) Louis Waldman asked
whether the aforementioned proposal was a "take it or leave it" proposal or whether
it was "subject to bargaining generally" and was informed there was "no flexibility
on it. It is on a take it or leave it basis." Louis Waldman then indicated that in
his opinion the employers' proposal would not constitute a type of contract which
would afford the ILA protection against a petition by its rival union which might
be filed later for a unit limited to New York and vicinity since it was limited to a
wages-only agreement and that he did not believe the proposal would be satis-
factory to the ILA. Louis Waldman indicated further that, in his opinion , to afford
protection against a petition by the ILA's rival the agreement would have to include
agreements concerning matters other than wages, such as provisions concerning
hours, pensions , and welfare. Those present then discussed the various items
listed above in the employers' proposal. Near the end of the conference Louis
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IND. 1283
Waldman requested permission to consult with the top level leaders of the ILA
about the matters which had been discussed. The NYSA at first declined to grant,
but later (2 days later) granted, such permission.4
On January 7, 1957, Louis Waldman reported to the ILA officials what had taken
place at the January 4 conference.
Later that same week, on January 10, 1957, the terms of the proposal made at
the meeting on January 4, were communicated to the ILA negotiating committee
and at a joint bargaining session on that date (January 10, 1957) ILA officials sought
a master contract (a contract covering ports in addition to the port of New York).
During the course of this negotiating meeting William V. Bradley, International
president of ILA, referring to the ILA's desire for such a contract, stated to NYSA
negotiator Chopin, "You may have an injunction but you don't have a contract."
Other ILA negotiators made it plain that the ILA was seeking a master contract
which would afford it protection against claims by its rival union but that the ILA
did not intend to insist upon such a contract in view of the outstanding injunction.
Patrick J. Connolly, president of the Atlantic Coast District of the ILA and chair-
man of the wage scale conference committee of the ILA, and Teddy Gleason, a
member of the ILA negotiating committee, remarked to Chopin that the NYSA
knew that the ILA was seeking a master contract to protect itself against a petition
by its rival union but the ILA "could not strive for it because of the fact that the
injunction had issued" and that the ILA was "not going to risk any contempt
proceedings.'
There is an apparent conflict of testimony concerning the course of negotiations
immediately following January 10. Louis Waldman testified that on January 14
Robert Moore, associate director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
reported to the ILA that although the NYSA was not yet offering, he (Moore) had
good reason to believe from what the employers had told him (Moore) that NYSA
was prepared to enlarge its proposal of January 4 so as to cover in a master contract
(a contract covering the North Atlantic Coast for 3 years, from October 1, 1956, to
September 30, 1959), wages, hours, welfare contributions, and pension contribu-
tions 5 and that the matter of a master contract was no longer a subject of contro-
versy. Louis Waldman testified that after January 14, the subject of the master
contract was considered tentatively resolved, subject to agreement on the other out-
standing issues, until February 10, when the employers receded from their former
position in several respects and reinstated many of their original demands. Alex-
ander Chopin, chairman of NYSA, denied that the NYSA ever authorized the medi-
ators to offer a master contract on five items until shortly before the consummation
of agreement on February 17, 1957. It is undisputed that on January 8, 1957,
Louis Waldman and Alexander Chopin had a telephone conversation during the
course of which Chopin stated he had obtained permission to be more flexible
than he had been on January 4, and that the NYSA was now in a position to negoti-
ate with respect to the 12 points mentioned on January 4, and that on the morning
of January 14 at the beginning of the session of the Federal mediators 6 the mediators
were informed that the ILA was prepared to accept a master contract for the
Atlantic Coast District from Portland, Maine, to Hampton Roads, Virginia, if the
contract included terms concerning wages, hours, welfare contributions, pension con-
tributions, and terms concerning its effective date, and that they (the mediators)
.could transmit this information to the employers. In this light it appears likely that
later that day, as testified by Louis Waldman, Mediator Moore made the comments
noted above to the effect that the employers were prepared to go along with this
proposition and the Trial Examiner so finds.
Around the middle of January 1957, NYSA gave to ILA representatives a docu-
ment purporting to summarize the issues resolved and to be resolved. This docu-
ment omits any reference to a master contract, either one containing five items or
one containing wages only. On or about January 22, 1957, NYSA submitted to
the Presidential Board of Inquiry a report setting forth the last offers of settlement
4 In addition on January 8, 1957, Chopin advised Louis Waldman during a telephone
conversation that he (Chopin) had obtained permission to be more flexible than he had
been on January 4 and that NYSA was now in a position to negotiate with respect to the
12 points mentioned on January 4.
5 These items which Waldman suggested on January 4 were likely to prove acceptable
since they would serve to expand the unit and defeat a representation petition limited to
New York.
9 On this date the employer and union representatives were not in the same room. The
mediators conferred with each group outside the presence of the other.
1284 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made by NYSA to the ILA which omits any reference to any offer dealing with
-industrywide or national bargaining or coastwide bargaining or master contract.
NYSA Chairman Chopin testified that there was no reference to this because no
offer had been made. Undoubtedly this is an accurate statement but as noted above
a "feeler" had been made along these lines on January 4 and, apparently, similarly
a "feeler" had been made on January 14.
On January 31, 1957, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service panel
(Mediators Robert H. Moore, John Andrew Burke, and Robert P. Walsh) sub-
mitted to the parties its own recommendations for settlement of the dispute between
NYSA and ILA. A review of that document shows a long series of recommenda-
tions, one of which reads as follows:
2. Scope of Agreement-Master contract to cover Atlantic Coast District
(Portland, Maine, to Hampton Roads, Va.) on wages, hours and amount of
contributions for pensions and welfare, but not the benefits to be provided by
different pension and welfare plans. It is recognized that the NYSA can not
legally bargain beyond the Port of New York; however, acceptance of these
contract recommendations by the Union is conditioned on the ability of the
NYSA, its constituent members and their principals to secure agreement by the
employer associations in the out-ports in the Atlantic Coast District to bargain
on the above basis.
Between January 31 and February 12, 1957, bargaining continued with the
mediators' proposals as the basis for discussion-each side seeking revisions, modi-
fications, and clarifications. At a meeting on or about February 8 or 9, 1957, NYSA
indicated again that NYSA could speak only for the port of New York and the most
that it would be able to do would be to recommend to other port associations a
master contract, and was criticized by Joseph Finnegan, director of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service, for dickering about a master contract for such
a long period of time without being in a position to conclude such a contract-for
not having contacted other port associations and being in a position to know whether
a master contract would be acceptable. Apparently at this meeting ILA repre-
sentatives urged the NYSA to go along with the mediators' proposal quoted above,
without a sentence stating that the master contract was conditioned upon acceptance
by other port associations, and NYSA either refused to succumb to this pressure or
did so most reluctantly and then rescinded its action at its earliest opportunity.
On February 10, 1957, 2 days prior to the expiration of the National Emer-
gencies injunction, NYSA submitted to the ILA a document consisting of three typed
pages stating the NYSA's position concerning many items. Included in the docu-
ment was a clause reading as follows:
2. Scope of Agreement-The Shipping Association agrees to a master con-
tract to be executed by all of the appropriate employer associations on the one
hand and by the ILA on the other hand to cover basic wage rates only for
the Atlantic Coast District (Portland, Maine to Hampton Roads, Virginia).
Since it is recognized that the NYSA cannot legally bargain beyond the Port
of New York, the Association agrees that it will use its best efforts to obtain
the concurrence of the other Employer Associations involved.
The ILA considered NYSA's proposal of February 10, a recession from former
positions taken by NYSA, and rejected these proposals.
At midnight on February 12, the 80-day National Emergencies injunction expired
and the longshore workers went on strike.
On February 14, 1957, James Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, met with repre-
sentatives from the NYSA and the ILA and urged them to settle their differences
without further Government intervention-he told them that no seizure of the docks
was being contemplated by Government officials.
On February 15 and 16, 1957, the parties worked both days and nights. Con-
cessions were made and on February 17 agreement was finally reached. The next
day a "memorandum of settlement" was executed which became the basis for the
contract subsequently signed (on December 17, 1957)?
The memorandum of settlement provides for a master contract for 3 years cover-
ing wages, hours, and the amount of contributions for welfare and pension benefits
and for local contracts covering local conditions and other terms except for wages,
hours, pension contributions, and welfare contributions, and terms of the agreements.
7 The delay in drafting and executing the contract was in accordance with normal
practice.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IND. 1285
The master contract, executed on December 17, 1957, was executed by seven dif-
ferent port associations 8 and by the ILA and its locals in Baltimore, Boston, Hamp-
ton Roads, Philadelphia, Portland, and Providence.
Between the date of the memorandum of settlement and the termination of the
strike several days later, the port associations signatories to the master agreement
were advised of the terms of the memorandum of settlement and accepted such
terms.
3. 1959 negotiations
On July 30, 1959, in contemplation of the expiration of the 1956-59 contract, the
shipping associations in the Atlantic Coast District 9 authorized NYSA to negotiate
on behalf of the various ports for a master contract covering wages, hours, and
contributions for pension and welfare, but not benefits-the items covered in the
1956-59' contract.
In the course of the 1959 negotiations, which took place during the summer, fall,
and winter of 1959, the ILA sought to expand the master contract both in its geo-
graphic scope and in the nature of the issues to be included and these proposals
were the subject of joint discussions and bargaining. The NYSA resisted these
efforts and sought the type of contract it had been authorized to negotiate. During
the course of the negotiations the ILA withdrew its request for a master contract
covering ports other than those covered in the 1956-59 contract and on Decem-
ber 13, 1959, a memorandum of settlement was executed by NYSA and ILA pro-
viding, inter alia, for "a Master Contract for North Atlantic Ports to Hampton
Roads, Virginia" for 3 years (from September 30, 1959, to September 30, 1962)
incorporating terms covering the same items that had been covered in the 1956-59
contract. NYSA does not contend herein that "pressure" was brought to bear by
the ILA to obtain the master contract which emerged from the 1959 negotiations.10
Conclusions and Recommendations
The issue herein, as framed by the pleadings and prior decisions of the courts,
is whether ILA posited its demand for a unit broader than the "Port of Greater
New York and Vicinity" as an ultimatum and thereby refused to bargain within
the meaning and intent of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, and not whether a coastwide
unit is an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes. Moreover, whether
the Board on the basis of the facts adduced in this matter would adhere to, or
alter, its unit determination made in the Decision and Direction of Election of
September 24, 1956 (reported in 116 NLRB 1183), is not an issue to be decided
herein. Simply stated the sole issue herein is: Assuming that a coastwide unit is not
an inappropriate unit and that the ILA represents a majority of the employees in
this unit, did the ILA posit its demand for such a unit as an ultimatum?
As noted in the original Intermediate Report in this matter, which the Board and
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with, the
strike of November 15, 1956, was in effect an ultimatum to enforce ILA demands
for coastwide bargaining and a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act. Whether ILA's efforts after November 15, 1956, to bargain
on a unit basis broader than the "Port of Greater New York and Vicinity," including
the strike of February 12, 1957, was a similar ultimatum is more difficult to determine
in view of the "feelers" by the NYSA.
After the certification on October 25, 1956, NYSA was at liberty to restrict bar-
gaining to a "Port of Greater New York and Vicinity" basis, as it attempted to do
prior to January 4, 1957. However, it was not under obligation to so restrict bar-
gaining but was free to bargain about a contract covering a broader unit, such as a
"hybrid" unit, and to enter into contracts of the types which ultimately emerged
herein. Nevertheless, it was not entitled, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, to
exercise these rights in alternation at its own convenience. To the contrary, it
appears to the Trial Examiner that once NYSA opened the door for bargaining
on a broader unit basis the unit to be covered in the contract itself became a bar-
gainable matter about which each side was then required to bargain in good faith
8 New York Shipping Association, Inc. ; Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc ;
Boston Shipping Association, Inc ; Hampton Roads Maritime Association, Inc ; Philadel-
phia Marine Trade Association ; Portland Shipping Association, Inc ; and Rhode Island
Shipping Association, Inc.
9 The shipping associations listed in footnote 8.
10 In fact no formal master contract has been drafted and executed. By mutual agree-
ment the parties have been conducting their affairs in accordance with the terms of the
memorandum settlement mentioned above.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and each side was then free to use legitimate economic power to obtain the unit
it sought.
The Trial Examiner believes, finds, and concludes that NYSA's "feelers" noted
above opened the door for bargaining about a contract which would cover a unit
broader than the "Port of Greater New York and Vicinity" and released the ILA
from its obligation not to seek a broader unit and that consequently, after NYSA's
"feelers," ILA's efforts to secure a coastwide unit, including its strike of February 12,
1957, were not unlawful. A fortiori the 1959 demand of the ILA for a coastwide
unit was not posited as an ultimatum.
In view of the facts and circumstances prior to January 4, 1957, and the outstand-
ing Board Decision and Order of September 30, 1957, and the court decision of
January 28, 1960, the Trial Examiner believes that the complaint in this matter,
upon which the aforementioned decisions are based, should not now be dismissed.
On the other hand, in view of the language and apparent intent of the court as
expressed in its decision of January 28, 1960, and the facts and circumstances after
January 4, 1957, the Trial Examiner believes it would not effectuate the policies of
the Act to process this matter any further. Whether in any future negotiations
NYSA may, as a matter of law, insist upon a unit limited to the "Port of Greater
New York and Vicinity" need not and, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, should
not, be determined herein although the parties to this litigation seem to be of a
contrary view. As matters now stand, it is likely that such an issue will not arise, as
it did not arise during the 1959 negotiations. Furthermore, any decision concern-
ing such an issue should be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances giving
rise to it and these facts and circumstances must of necessity await future
developments.
In view of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner recommends that this protracted liti-
gation be brought to a conclusion by closing this case in a manner similar to that
followed where there is compliance with the terms of a Board order-namely, by
closing this case subject to such further proceedings as the Board may deem neces-
sary in the light of subsequent facts which may be brought to its attention by motion
in writing stating briefly the relief applied for and the grounds for such motion."
u It is anticipated that the moving party will file any such motion with the Board In
Washington, D.C., and immediately serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
APPENDIX A
LIST OF EMPLOYER-MEMBERS OF NEW
Steamship Lines
Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.
17 Battery Place , New York City 4
American-Israeli Shipping Co., Inc.
19 Rector Street , New York City 6
Anchor Line, Itd.
Charles Hill & Sons, Inc., Agents
1 Broadway , New York City 4
Bengian Line Incorporated
63 Broad Street , New York City 4
Boise-Griffin Steamship Co., Inc.
90 Broad Street , New York City 4
Boyd , Weir & Sewell, Inc.
24 State Street, New York City 4
Bull-Insular Line, Inc.
115 Broad Street, New York City 4
A. L. Burbank & Company, Ltd.
120 Wall Street, New York City 5
Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc.
42 Broadway, New York City 4
Dichmann , Wright & Pugh, Inc.
44 Whitehall Street, New York
City 4
East Coast Overseas Corp.
90 Broad Street , New York City 4
Ellerman 's Wilson Line, New York, Inc.
24 State Street , New York City 4
YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION, INC.
and Agents
American Export Lines, Inc.
39 Broadway, New York City 6
American President Lines, Ltd.
29 Broadway, New York City 6
Argentine State Line
24 State Street, New York City 4
Barber Steamship Lines, Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Black Diamond Steamship Corp.
39 Broadway, New York City 6
Booth American Shipping Corporation
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Bristol City Line of Steamships, Ltd.
Charles Hill & Sons., Inc., Agents
1 Broadway, New York City 4
Chilean Line
Compania Sun-Americana DeVapores
29 Broadway, New York City 4
Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd.
25 Broadway, New York City 4
East Asiatic Company, Inc.
103 Front Street, New York City 5
Thor Eckert & Company, Inc.
19 Rector Street, New York City 6
James W. Elwell & Co., Inc.
17 State Street, New York City 4
•
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IND. 1287
Steamship Lines and Agents-Continued
Farrell Lines, Incorporated
26 Beaver Street, New York City 4
French Line
Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
117 State Street, New York City 4
Furness, Withy & Co.
34 Whitehall Street, New York
City 4
Grace Line, Inc.
3 Hanover Square, New York
City 4
Holland-America Line
29 Broadway, New York City 6
Isbrandtsen Company, Inc.
26 Broadway, New York City 4
Italian Line
"Italia" Society di Navigazione
24 State Street, New York City 4
Lloyd Brasileiro
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
11 Broadway, New York City 4
Moller Steamship Company, Inc.
30 Broad Street, New York City 4
North Atlantic & Gulf Steamship Co.,
Inc.
120 Wall Street, New York City 5
Norwegian America Line Agency, Inc.
24 State Street, New York City 4
O.S.K. Line (Osaka Shosen Kaisha,
Ltd.)
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation
19 Rector Street, New York City 6
Prudential Steamship Corporation
17 State Street, New York City 4
Seas Shipping Company, Inc.
39 Cortlandt Street, New York
City 7
South Atlantic Steamship Line
17 Battery Place, New York City 7
Stevenson Lines
T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc.
80 Broad Street, New York City 4
Torm Lines
North Atlantic and Gulf Steamship
Company, Inc., Agents
120 Wall Street, New York City 5
United States Lines Company
1 Broadway, New York City 4
Ward-Garcia Corporation
Pier 34, North River, New York
City 13
Fern Line
Messrs. Fearnley & Eger, Inc.
39 Broadway, New York City 6
Funch, Edye & Co., Incorporated
25 Broadway, New York City 4
Garcia & Diaz, Incorporated
25 Broadway, New York City 4
Hellenic Lines, Ltd.
39 Broadway, New York City 6
International Freighting Corporation,
Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Isthmian Lines, Inc.
71 Broadway, New York City 6
Java Pacific Line, Inc.
25 Broadway, New York City 4
Kerr Steamship Company, Inc.
32 Pearl Street, New York City 4
Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc.
120 Wall Street, New York City 5
Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
5 Broadway, New York City 4
Newtex Steamship Corporation
52 Wall Street, New York City 5
Norton, Lilly & Company
26 Beaver Street, New York City 4
NYK Line (Nippon Yusen Kaisha)
24 State Street, New York City 4
Panama Canal Company
21 West Street, New York City 6
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
19 Rector Street, New York City 6
Royal Netherlands Steamship Company
25 Broadway, New York City 4
Seatrain Lines, Inc.
711 Third Avenue, New York
City 17
States Marine Corporation
90 Broad Street, New York City 4
Stockard Steamship Corporation
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Transportadora Grancolombiana, Ltda.
52 Wall Street, New York City 5
Transportadora Maritima Venezolana
S.A. (Venezuelan Line)
44 Whitehall Street, New York
City 4
United States Navigation Co., Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
West Coast Line, Inc.
67 Broad Street, New York City 4
Contracting Stevedores
Allports Stevedoring Co., Inc.
390 Plandome Road, Manhassett,
N.Y.
American Stevedores, Inc.
90 Broad Street , New York City 4
Anchor Stevedoring Co., Inc.
518 Hamilton Avenue, Brooklyn
32, N.Y.
Atlantic Stevedoring Co., Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Alpha Marine Industries, Inc.
138 Van Dyke Street, Brooklyn 31,
N.Y.
American Sugar Refining Co. of N.Y.
120 Wall Street, New York City 5
Associated Operating Co.
25 Broadway, New York City 4
Bay Ridge Operating Co., Inc. _
34 Whitehall Street, New York
City 4
•
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. Contracting Stevedores-Continued
John T. Clark and Son
17 State Street, New York City 4
Commercial Stevedoring Co., Inc.
42 Broadway, New York City 4
John Dowd Company
95 Broad Street, New York City 4
T. Hogan & Sons, Inc.
531 West 19th Street, New York
City 11
Imparato Stevedoring Corp.
50 Church Street, New York City 7
International Elevating Company
2 Broadway, New York City,4
Lipsett Steel Products, Inc.
Foot of Doremus Avenue, Port
Newark, N.J.
Marra Bros., Inc.
725 Court Street , Brooklyn 31,
N.Y.
R. Martorella & Co., Inc.
82 Wall Street, New York City 5
John W. McGrath Corporation
39 Broadway, New York City 6
Morace Stevedoring Corporation
17 State Street, New York City 4
Pittston Stevedoring Corp.
17 Battery Place , New York City 4
F. Rinaldi & Company
116 Broad Street, New York City 4
Rosar Service Corp.
Foot of 19th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Seaboard Contracting Company, Inc.
8th Street Pier, Hoboken, N.J.
Jules S. Sottnek Company, Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
States Terminal Corporation
Pier 51, Foot of Jane Street, North
River, New York City 14
Triboro Stevedoring Corp.
171 West Street, Brooklyn 22, N.Y.
United States Stevedoring Corp.
11 Broadway, New York City 4
Weeks Stevedoring Co., Inc.
90 West Street, New York City 6
Columbia Stevedoring Company, Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Daniels & Kennedy, Inc.
290 South Street, New York City 2
Federal Stevedoring Co., Inc.
10 Java Street, Brooklyn 22, N.Y.
M. P. Howlett, Inc.
17 State Street, New York City 4
Independent Warehouses, Inc.
415-427 Greenwich Street, New
York City 13
International Terminal Operating Co.
Inc.
27 Whitehall Street , New York
City 4
Logue Stevedoring Corporation
415 Lexington Avenue, New York
City 17
Maher Stevedoring Corp.
Port Authority Bldg., #79, Port
Newark, N.J.
Maude-James, Inc.
1213 Ist Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Mersey & Hudson Wharfage Corpora-
tion
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Nacirema Operating Co., Inc.
21 State Street, New York City 4
Ramar Stevedores, Inc.
80 Wall Street, New York City 4
D. J. Roach, Inc.
42 Broadway, New York City 4
M. J. Rudolph Co., Inc.
8-12 Sackett Street, Brooklyn 31,
N.Y.
Sealand Dock & Terminal Corp.
10 Java Street, Brooklyn 22, N.Y.
Sottnek Terminal Corp.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Standard Terminals, Inc.
80 Broad Street , New York City 4
Transoceanic Terminal Corporation
63 Broad Street, New York City 4
Turner & Blanchard, Inc.
24 State Street, New York City 4
Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp.
24 State Street, New York City 4
Whitehall Operating Co., Inc.
25 Beaver Street, New York City 4
Contracting Checker and Clerk
Allied Maritime Services, Inc.
75 West Street, New York City 6
Atlantic Piers Co., Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Beard's Erie Basin, Inc.
21 State Street, New York City 4
Hamilton Pier Checkers, Inc.
17 Battery Place, New York City 4
Packett Shipping Corporation
39 Broadway, New York City 6
United Port Service Company
26 Beaver Street , New York City 4
Anchor Terminal Service Co., Inc.
90 Broad Street , New York City 4
Bayway Terminal Division, Penn-Texas
Corporation
666 South Front Street, Elizabeth,
N.J.
Fifth Street Pier Corporation
Foot of Fifth Street , Hoboken, N.J.
Hickey Stevedoring Co., Inc.
518 Hamilton Avenue , Brooklyn
32, N.Y.
Howland & Liesegang, Inc.
Foot of 20th Street, Brooklyn 32,
N.Y.
MICHIGAN ADVERTISING DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1289
Contracting Maintenance
O'Kane Marine Repair Company
1024 Jefferson Street, Hoboken,
N.J.
Kent Equipment Corporation
10 Java Street , Brooklyn 22, N.Y.
Contracting Marine Carpenters
Anbar Marine Company
559 Third Avenue, Brooklyn 15,
N.Y.
Chelsea Ship Repair Corporation
400 West 23rd Street, New York 11
Dayton Contracting Co., Inc.
9315 Ft. Hamilton Parkway, Brook-
lyn, N.Y.
E. G. Griffith Company, Inc.
161 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Frank J. Holleran
616 Court Street, Brooklyn 31, N.Y.
Lee & Palmer, Inc.
4209 Farragut Road, Brooklyn,
N.Y.
Anderson-Linton Lumber Co., Inc.
160 42d Street, Brooklyn 32, N.Y.
Court Carpentry & Marine Contractors
Co., Inc.
12-20 Union Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Daniel J. Devaney, Inc.
708 Court Street, Brooklyn 31,
N.Y.
Hamilton Marine Contracting Co., Inc.
807 Third Avenue, Brooklyn 32,
N.Y.
Hooper Lumber Co., Inc.
Kane and Columbia Streets, Brook-
lyn 2, N.Y.
Marmarine Contracting Co., Inc.
75 DeGraw Street, Brooklyn 2,
N.Y.
Gerald Sklar and Alfred Goldman , Co-Partners d/b/a Michigan
Advertising Distributing Company and Detroit Mailers Union
No. 4, International Mailers Union, Ind.
Gerald Sklar and Alfred Goldman , Co-Partners d/b/a Michigan
Advertising Distributing Company and Detroit Mailers Union
No. 4, International Mailers Union, Ind.
Detroit Mailers Union No. 40, International Typographical
Union , AFL-CIO and Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, Inter-
national Mailers Union , Ind. Cases Nos. 7-CA-2615, 7-CA-2747,
and 7-CB-688. December 15, 1961
CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER
On July 18, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in Case No. 7-CA-2615, finding that Gerald Sklar
and Alfred Goldman, Co-Partners d/b/a Michigan Advertising Dis-
tributing Company, hereinafter called Respondent MAD, had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, Respondent MAD filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and a supporting brief.
On November 22, 1960, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in Cases Nos. 7-CA-2747 and 7-CB-688, finding
that Respondent MAD and Respondent Detroit Mailers Union No.
40, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
134 NLRB No. 123.