Intl. Longshoremen's Assn., Local 953

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 1325 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., LOCAL 953
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO; International Longshoremen's District Coun-
cil, Baltimore, Maryland; International Longshore-
men's Association, Local 953 & International Long-
shoremen's Association, Local 333 and Beck Arabia,
Ltd. Case 5-CC-899
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On June 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Sid-
ney J. Barban issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Intervenor, Shipside
Packing Company, filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommend Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that Respondents, International Longshoremen's
Association, AFL-CIO; International Longshore-
men's District Council, Baltimore, Maryland; Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, Local 953 &
International Longshoremen's Association, Local
333, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, except that the attached notice is substituted
for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT-
(1) Induce or encourage employees of
Chesapeake Operating Company, or any other
person subject to the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, to engage in a strike, or refusal, in
the course of their employment. to do work or
perform services or
(2) Threaten, coerce, or restrain Chesa-
peake Operating Company or any other per-
son subject to the National Labor Relations
Act,
where, in either case, an object thereof is
to force or require any company or person to
stop doing business with Shipside Packing
Company or to stop handling, loading, un-
loading, or dealing with goods packed by
Shipside.
WE HEREBY cancel and withdraw any orders
or instructions given our members or any other
individuals not to load, unload, or handle cargo
packed by Shipside Packing Company.
WE HEREBY notify our members, and any
other employees or individuals, that we have no
objection to our members or any other employ-
ees loading or unloading or handling cargo
packed by Shipside Packing Company.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S Associ-
ATION. AFL-CIO
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S DIS1RICI
COUNCIL., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AssocI-
ATION, LOCAL 953
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN's AssoCI-
ATION, LOCAL 333
DECISION
STAMIMNI ()F THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge: This mat-
ter was heard before me in Baltimore. Maryland, on Sep-
tember 28 and October 4 and 5, 1978 (all dates herein are in
1978, unless otherwise noted). upon a complaint issued on
September 7 based on charges filed by Beck Arabia, Ltd..
on August 24 and 29. The complaint alleges that on or
about August 22, 23, and 24 Respondents' engaged in viola-
tions of Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by its con-
duct inducing and encouraging Respondents' members. em-
ployees of Chesapeake Operating Company (herein called
Chesapeake), to refuse to release, handle, or load aboard
the vessel Maritime Alliance, chartered by Central Gulf
Lines, Inc. (herein called Gulf). certain Beck Arabia con-
tainers "because they were stuffed by non-ILA labor within
a 50 mile radius of the Baltimore port." with an object to
force or require Chesapeake, Beck Arabia, Gulf. and other
persons to stop doing business with Shipside Packing Cor-
I Respondents International Longshoremen's Association. AFL ClO: In-
ternational Longshoremen's District Council. Baltimore. Maryland: Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association. Local 953 & International Longshore-
men's Association. Local 333, separately are sometimes referred to herein as
Respondent ILA. Respondent Council, Respondent Local 953, and Respon-
dent Local 333, respectively.
245 NLRB No. 172
1325
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany (herein called Shipside), which had packed goods be-
longing to Beck Arabia in the containers involved here. Re-
spondents' answer denies the unfair labor practices alleged.
Upon the entire record in this case, from observation of'
the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel. Beck Arabia. Shipside, and Respon-
dents, I make the following:
FINDIN(iS AND CONCILUSIONS
I. i'HE PARTIES INVOI.VED: JURISDICTION
Beck Arabia is a Saudi Arabian corporation engaged in
construction projects in Saudi Arabia which maintains an
office in the United States for the procurement of goods and
materials to be shipped to Saudi Arabia. The value of such
goods and materials purchased in various states of the
United States and shipped in foreign commerce using the
facilities of Shipside in the State of Maryland in 1978 ex-
ceeded $50,000.
Shipside is a Pennsylvania corporation2 engaged at Balti-
more, Maryland, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Newport
News, Virginia, and Wilmington, North Carolina, in the
business of packing goods of its customers for export. Ship-
side has two facilities in Baltimore. neither of which is lo-
cated at the piers in the Port of Baltimore. but both of
which are located within a 50-mile radius of the port. Its
employees are, and have been for about 10 years, repre-
sented by Petroleum, Construction, Tankline Drivers and
Allied Employees Local Union No. 311, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (herein called Local 311). with which
Shipside has a collective-bargaining contract. Shipside is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Lavino Shipping Company
(herein called Lavino), which, by reason of membership in
the Steamship Trade Association (herein called STA), is a
party to a bargaining contract with Respondents in the Port
of Baltimore. See International Longshoremen's Association.
AFL-CIO et al. (Shipside Parking Company, Inc.). supra.
227 NLRB at 660 (1976).
Chesapeake, a stevedoring company and terminal opera-
tor with facilities in Baltimore, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Lavino. It is a member of STA and a party to the bar-
gaining contracts with Respondents negotiated by STA. It
employs members of Respondents in the performance of its
services for customers, including Shipside. In this case
Chesapeake was to have loaded the Beck Arabia goods and
materials packed by Shipside in containers furnished by
Gulf aboard the Maritime Alliance, which was chartered
and operated by Gulf.
2 This finding is based on the findings of the Board in International Long-
shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, et al., (Shipside Packing Company.
Inc.), 227 NLRB 654 (1976) and International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL CIO et al. (Shipside Packing Company, Inc.), 227 NLRB 659 (1976).
As discussed at the hearing, I have taken notice of relevant and material
findings of the Board in prior cases involving the issues litigated here. Al-
though Respondents objected. it is well established that the Board may take
official notice of its own findings in prior cases. See, e.g., International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union el al. (California Cartage Company,
Inc.), 215 NLRB 541 (1974). It is noted that Respondents have submitted, as
part of their brief in this case, a number of briefs filed with the Board and the
courts in prior cases in which the Board has considered the major issues
involved here.
Gulfl as indicated, is a steamship line engaged in the
business of transporting freight. It has no office in Balti-
more. Gulf is not a member of STA or of the Council of
North Atlantic Shipping Associations (herein called
CONASA), which also negotiates bargaining agreements
with Respondents on behalf of its employer-members. Gulf
does not employ members of Respondents and does not
appear to be a party to a bargaining agreement with all
Respondents or any of them.' Gulf does contract for ser-
vices to be performed by stevedoring companies, such as
Chesapeake, which are under contract with Respondents.
Gulf is also represented for the purposes of ship husbandry
and documentation in the Port of Baltimore by Bay Agen-
cies, Inc., which appears to be party to Respondents' agree-
ments. In a recent 12-month period, Gulf has transported
goods and materials among the various States and in for-
eign commerce of a value in excess of $50,000.
At all times material herein, Beck Arabia, Shipside,
Chesapeake. and Gulf, and each of them, have been em-
ployers as defined in Section 2(2) of' the Act engaged in
commerce and operations affecting commerce as defined in
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondents and Local 311, and each of' them, at all
times material herein, have been labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. I , UNFAIR I.ABO()R PRA(CII( S
A. Summar oj' Facts and Issues
Beck Arabia, a customer of Shipside. contracted with
Shipside to receive goods and materials purchased by Beck
Arabia in several States of the United States and to pack
such goods and materials in metal containers which Beck
Arabia instructed Gulf' to provide to Shipside for this pur-
pose. Shipside, at its facility located within a 50-mile radius
of the Port of Baltimore. packed such goods and materials
belonging to Beck Arabia (and no others), using Shipside
employees represented by Local 311, into the metal con-
tainers furnished by Gulf and had four of these containers
transported by a private carrier to a pier in the Port of
Baltimore where they were to be loaded by employees rep-
resented by Respondents and employed by Chesapeake
aboard the Maritime Alliance, which, as has been noted,
was chartered by Gulf. Michael Hart, business agent for
Respondent Local 953, upon being informed that these con-
tainers, packed (or in the terminology used in such in-
stances, "stuffed") by Shipside within a 50-mile radius of
the harbor by non-I LA labor, were on the pier to be loaded
on the Maritime Alliance, issued orders that they were to be
put on "hold" that is, that the containers were not to be
loaded aboard the ship by Respondents' members on the
pier, nor were they to be released or moved from the pier
'Respondents contend vigorously that Gulf is bound by its agreements,
principally on the basis that Gulf in some circumstances has complied with
some of Respondents' rules. The evidence is meager, however. And, of
course, voluntary compliance on occasion does not prove that Gulf has
bound itself to comply with Respondents' agreements. During the heanng I
suggested to Respondents that if Gulf was a party to their bargaining agree-
ments. they were in the best position to produce the document. They did not
do so. The fact that Gulf does not employ members of Respondents is a
further indication that Gulf is not party to bargaining agreements with them.
1326
INFt.. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., LOCAL 953
without further order from Respondents.' As a result of this
action, the containers containing Beck Arabia goods and
materials were not loaded aboard the Maritime Alliance,
and the ship left the port without the containers. In a meet-
ing with Hart and John Kopp, vice president of Respon-
dent ILA and president of Respondent Council, an officer
of Chesapeake was told that the containers could not be
moved "unless something was done." Later Kopp, as a re-
sult of the instant matter, and in order to avoid a restrain-
ing order, issued instructions that the containers should be
released from the pier, and they were thereafter transported
by truck to New York City, where they apparently were
loaded aboard the Maritime Alliance.
General Counsel, Beck, and Shipside contend that by
Hart's action (approved and affirmed by Kopp) causing Re-
spondents' members to refuse to perform services in the
course of their employment-that is, to refuse to handle the
four containers-with an object of forcing or requiring
Chesapeake, Gulf, Beck Arabia, and other to stop doing
business with Shipside, Respondents engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act.
Respondents defend (I) chiefly on the ground that Hart's
actions (and Kopp's) were justified on the basis that Re-
spondents are seeking to preserve work that they allege was
historically done by ILA labor and (2), secondly, that Gulf
(through alleged prior acquiescence) was bound by Respon-
dents' bargaining agreements and the rules on containers
contained therein not to supply containers to Shipside: that
Shipside, by reason that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lavino, is bound by Respondents' bargaining agreement
and rules not to accept goods from customers to be packed
in containers within a 50-mile radius from the port: that
Chesapeake is bound by Respondents' agreements and
rules not to load containers stuffed by Shipside aboard ship
where such containers have been stuffed within a 50-mile
radius of the port; and that the Board's prior decisions on
the issues presented should not be considered as binding in
this case.
B. Development of the ILA Rules on Containers
Respondents note in their brief that the background of
the present proceeding involves "five-and-half [sic] years of
persistent litigation over the Rules on Containers as embod-
ied in ILA collective bargaining agreements from Maine to
Texas.. ." (p. 2). Included in this litigation were two cases
involving the operations of Shipside at its facilities located
in Baltimore, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO et al., 227 NLRB 659 (herein called Shipside ),
and International Longshoremen's Association , A FL -CIO et
al., 227 NLRB 654 (herein called Shipside If), both decided
on December 30, 1976.
The general development of Respondents' container rules
was traced by Administrative Law Judge Schneider in Ship-
side 1. which involved each of Respondents herein. These
4 Though Respondents' counsel objected to the allegation of the complaint
that Respondents' action in placing the containers on hold was due to the
fact that "they were stuffed by non-lILA labor" within 50 miles of the plant.
it is noted that Hart testified that the containers were placed on hold because
they "were stuffed within a 50 mile area by other than ILA people."
findings. adopted bh the Board. essentially are as follows:
Prior to World \War II general or break-hulk cargo shipped
for export was loaded bh longshoremen onto ships piece by
piece. hereafter, shippers and carriers began to use large
containers, generally reusable, for the shipment of goods,
frequently consolidating the goods of several shippers in
one containler. The use of such containers reduced the num-
bher of pieces which the longshoremen had to load aboard
ship. A strike in the Port of New York in 1959 protesting
the use of containers resulted in an agreement giving the
employers in that port the unrestricted right to use contain-
ers. Thereafter, however, because of increased utilization
and size of containers, including the development of ships
specifically designed to carry large containers (container-
ships), the number of units handled by longshoremen in the
port further decreased, and disputes resulted during which
containers were stripped and restuffed by longshoremen in
the Port of New York.
Ultimately, the ILA and ('ONASA entered into a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement containing rules and conditions
covering handling of containers, known as the container
rules, which gave the ILA the right to strip containers
which were less than full. or containers containing consoli-
dated loads (those containing the goods of more than one
shipper), where the consolidator was not the beneficial
owner of the outgoing cargo and it originated at a point
within a 50-mile radius of the port.
In Baltimore, as appears from the Board's findings in
Shipside 1. at 654 655. the experience in the port parralleled
that of New York. Prior to the 1950's loose or break-bulk
cargo was loaded aboard ships in cartons and bundles on
pallets at the piers by longshoremen. In the early 1950's
cargo began to be loaded at the pier by longshoremen into
specific-sized boxes which were then loaded aboard ship. In
recent years a large percentage of such cargo has been
packed in metal containers which are about the size of a
trailer in a tractor-trailer rig, constructed so that the con-
tainer may be attached to a chassis with wheels for trans-
portation as a trailer in a tractor-trailer rig on land and,
when detached from the trailer chassis, may be loaded into
a containership designed for such purpose for transporta-
tion on water. The development of containerized shipping
resulted in Baltimore. as in New York City, in fewer units
to he loaded aboard ship by longshoremen at the piers and
thus in reduced work. This led to a 56-day strike by Re-
spondents in 1968. F ollowing the settlement of that strike,
Respondents herein entered into a bargaining agreement
with STA. representing employers employing longshoremen
in the Port of Baltimore. which included the ILA rules on
containers, continued in all subsequent agreements, which
reserve to longshoremen the right to load and unload all
containers owned, leased, or used by parties to the agree-
ment which are destined fr or coming from any point
within a 50-mile radius of the center of the Port of Balti-
more.
C. The Container Rules
The container rules which appear to be most clearly in-
volved in Respondents' defenses in this proceeding are the
following:
1327
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Definitions
* *
(h) Consolidated Container Load-means a con-
tainer load of cargo where such cargo belongs to more
than one shipper on export cargo ....
Rule I-Containers to be Loaded or Discharged by
Deepsea Labor
(a) Cargo in containers referred to below shall be
loaded into ... containers only at a waterfront facility
by deepsea ILA labor:
(1) Containers owned, leased or used by carriers (in-
cluding containers on wheels and trailers), "hereinafter
containers," which contain consolidated container
loads, which come from . . . any point within a geo-
graphic area of any CONASA port described by a 50-
mile circle with its radius extending out from the cen-
ter of each port (hereinafter "geographic area"), or
(2) Containers which come from a single shipper
which is not the manufacturer ... into which the cargo
has been loaded (consolidated) by other than its own
employees and such containers come from any point
within the "geographic area,"5 or
(c) All export consolidated cargo, described in
l(a)(l) and (2) above, shall be received at the water-
front facility by deepsea ILA labor and such cargo
shall be loaded into a container at the waterfront facil-
ity for loading aboard ship.
*
(e) No carrier or direct employer shall supply its
containers to any consolidator .... No carrier or direct
employer shall operate a facility in violation of the
Rules on Containers which specifically require that all
Rule I containers be loaded or discharged at a water-
front facility.
D. Shipside's Business
Based on the record in this proceeding and the Board's
findings in the prior Shipside cases, I find the following:
Since 1968, when it purchased the facilities of the prede-
cessor company which performed the same type of work,
Shipside has been engaged, off the piers but within a 50-
mile radius of the Port of Baltimore, in the business of re-
ceiving, warehousing, consolidating, and packing general
cargo and machinery to the order of its customers in boxes
and containers for export. Principally, Shipside appears to
have packed its customers' goods in wooden boxes, each
box made specifically to accommodate a single customer's
goods. These boxes were not used again by Shipside. As has
been noted, the Shipside employees performing these func-
tions are and have been during times material represented
I This rule, quoted on p. 9 of Respondents' brief, seems to be principally
relied on.
by Local 311.6 It also appears that prior to the hearing in
Shipside I in February 1976, on occasion customers sent
empty metal containers to Shipside to be packed with that
customer's goods for export. See International Longshore-
mnen's Association, AFL-CIO et al., 227 NLRB at 661
(1976) (the Morrison-Knudsen metal containers). Since the
time of that hearing, at the request of its customers, Ship-
side has been loading containers of the description of those
involved in this proceeding. According to the testimony of
David Ebner, Shipside's administrative manager, up to the
time of the hearing in this matter Shipside has packed thou-
sands of such containers for customers, most of which have
been transported to a pier in Baltimore and shipped away.
This testimony is not disputed and is credited. Testimony of
Respondents' witness Hart is to the effect that he was un-
aware of such shipments.
Analysis and Conclusions
In Shipside I the Board considered conduct of the same
Respondents involved herein by which Respondents had
cause their members to refuse to load aboard ships at the
pier boxes and containers packed by Shipside within a 50-
mile radius of the Port of Baltimore and found such con-
duct to be in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act. In the course of its decision the Board held that Ship-
side was not bound by Respondents' container rules, as Re-
spondents here contend, because Shipside is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lavino, which is a party to Respon-
dents' bargaining agreements. The Board also held that Re-
spondents' actions were not designed to preserve work that
was historically and exclusively Respondents', but was de-
signed to capture work which had been done by others. See
also International Longshoremen's Association, Local 248,
AFL CIO (U.S. Naval Supply Center), 195 NLRB 273
(1972); International Longshoremens Association, AFL-
CIO (Consolidated Express, Inc.), 221 NLRB 956 (1975).
The facts in the present proceeding require no different re-
sult.
Respondents make a vigorous argument, however, that
Shipside I should not be followed, or should be distin-
guished, because containers of the type involved in this
case-i.e., large metal boxes constructed to be part of a
containership on water and part of a tractor-trailer rig on
land-were not involved in that case. The point made is not
altogether clear. The facts show that Shipside regularly
packed consolidated loads in metal as well as wooden boxes
and containers, using non-ILA labor off the piers, in Ship-
side I as well as in this case. Respondents' insistence that
the specific type of container makes a critical difference
appears to be based upon their heavy reliance upon North-
east Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249
(1977).
In Caputo the Court was concerned with the application
of a new amendment of the Longshoremen's and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act, which provided compensation
for, inter alia, employees "engaged in longshoring opera-
tions" who were injured on "any adjoining pier ... custom-
' As the Shipside cases show, the same type of work, under comparable
conditions, was performed in Baltimore by another employer also whose
employees were represented by another Teamsters local in Baltimore.
1328
INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN.. LOCAL 953
arily used by an employer in loading [or] unloading . . . a
vessel." The new legislation was designed to correct an im-
balance in the previous law which had provided compensa-
tion for such persons doing such work aboard ship only.
The Court held that the amended act applied to Longshore-
men Blundo, who was injured in the course of performing
work on the pier in connection with unpacking a container
apparently of the type involved in the present case, the
Court finding such work to be a longshoring operation, stat-
ing, "In effect, the operation of loading and unloading [the
vessel] has been moved shoreward; the container is a mod-
ern substitute for the hold of the vessel."
Ergo, Respondents contend that since the Court held that
the container is the "substitute for the hold of the vessel,"
loading and unloading the container is exclusively the work
of longshoremen. This does not so clearly follow, however.
The Court held, in applying this particular statute "liberally
... in conformance with its purpose" that unloading a con-
tainer at the pier was the equivalent of unloading the ship.
However, when a container of the type with which we are
here concerned leaves the pier, it becomes part of a tractor-
trailer rig-i.e., a truck. It requires no lengthy argument to
establish that it has long been the work of employees repre-
sented by the Teamsters Union-as in the case of Ship-
side-or similar unrepresented employees to load and un-
load trucks away from the piers, as the Shipside employees
did in the instant case. Thus the containers with which we
are dealing have a dual character: at the pier they may be
likened to the hold of the ship-at least for the purposes of
the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act-but away from the pier it is obviously not longshore
work to load or unload the truck. Indeed, Respondents
seem to agree in their various arguments that such work
done away from the piers is not what they seek, but that the
work should rather be brought to the piers. (Brief p. 12.)
Thus we come to a final and critical question, whether
Respondents have such a claim to the loading and unload-
ing of containers that such work must be brought to the
pier. Clearly in both Shipside I and Shipside 11 the Board
held that such work did not belong to the longshore em-
ployees represented by Respondents. Thus, in Shipside I the
work claimed by Respondents was described as "the plac-
ing of those individual items [of cargo] in large boxes or
containers where that work has been performed by a com-
pany such as Shipside on behalf of a customer and within a
50 mile radius of the pier" (227 NLRB at 663 (1976)),
which work, the Board said in Shipside 11, on the same day,
"is of a nature never previously performed by longshore-
men at the Baltimore port." (227 NLRB at 663). Indeed, it
is a necessary consequence of the Board's decision in each
of these cases that the work did not belong to the longshore-
men.7
I have noted that in Shipside I1 (which involved the question of whether
the work at issue was properly assigned to Shipside employees) the Board at
one point stated (227 NLRB at 655): "Traditionally, at the Baltimore port.
longshoremen have loaded general break-bulk into containers and loaded
the containers into ships." However, this finding is nowhere else relied upon.
the Board thereafter finding that the practice in the industry favored the
assignment of such work to the Shipside employees and holding that the
work should be assigned to Shipside employees represented by the Teamsters
rather than to the longshore employees.
Aside from their reliance upon Caputo, discussed here-
inabove, Respondents make no showing that the work in-
volved in loading a modern container by a company like
Shipside should be treated any differently from the work
performed by Shipside's employees in loading boxes and
containers in the Shipside cases, and I see none. In reality,
such modern containers are today's substitutes for the pre-
vious boxes and containers packed by Shipside and others
in the industry. There is further no persuasive evidence that
packing such containers was ever the exclusive work of the
longshoremen or that they even did most of it. Certainly, in
the Port of Baltimore a considerable amount of this work
was done by Shipside. The fact that Respondents in Balti-
more and the ILA in New York had to engaged in lengthy
strikes to have their employers secure the work for them is
an indication that much of the work was being done else-
where.
Lastly, Respondents contend that all they are trying to
do is enforce their agreements: that since the vessel carri-
ers-in this case Gulf-have control over the distribution of
the containers and have agreed not to furnish them to con-
solidators who will pack the containers within 50 miles of
the pier, Respondents have the right to strike Chesapeake
(presumably on the basis that Chesapeake is an agent of
Gulf; the point is not made clear) because Gulf furnished
containers to Shipside in alleged violation of the agree-
ments. But, as I have noted, the evidence does not establish
that Gulf was bound by Respondents' container rules.
Moreover, even if it were, we would have to consider Re-
spondents' argument, in the first place, only if the carrier's
agreement not to do business with the consolidator were
legal under the Act. In this case that is dependent upon a
showing that Respondents are seeking to preserve or fairly
claim work that belongs to them and not to others. The
record, however, as has been discussed, rather reveals that
Respondents' long campaign since 1958 has been an effort
to secure work which has been and continues to be done by
others.
For the reasons stated, and upon the record as a whole, I
find that Respondents. by their actions in causing their
members to refuse to load aboard ship the containers
packed by employees of Shipside an to refuse to release
such containers from the pier for several days, engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act.8
CONCtU.SION OF LAW
1. Beck Arabia, Ltd., Chesapeake Operating Company,
Central Gulf Lines, Inc., and Shipside Packing Company,
Inc., and each of them, are employers engaged in commerce
and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act.
a Respondents do not dens the allegations of the complaint that Kopp was
president of Respondent Council at times material to this proceeding. I find
that his actions were on behalf of Respondent I.A and Respondent Council
and boIund both It is admitted that members of both Respondentl ocal 333
and Respondent l.ocal 953 stopped work at the direction of tart. he busi-
ness agent of l.ocal 953 In the circumstances. I find that Hart was acting in
the interest and for the benefit of both locals and Respondent II A and that
each must share responsibility for is actions and the actions of its members
In this case See Shipside I, fn I
1329
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Respondents, and each of them, and Local 311 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
(3) By inducing, encouraging, and instructing employees
of Chesapeake, members of Respondents, not to handle
goods packed by Shipside and by coercing and restraining
Chesapeake, Gulf, Beck Arabia, and other persons engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an
object of forcing or requiring such persons to cease doing
business with Shipside, Respondents engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Setion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents, and each of them, have
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, it will be recommended that
Respondents, and each of them, shall be ordered to cease
and desist from such unfair labor practices and to take cer-
tain affirmative action necessary to remedy and remove the
effects of the unfair labor practices and effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
Respondents International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's District Council,
Baltimore, Maryland; International Longshoremen's Asso-
ciation, Local 953 & International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, Local 333, their officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
Chesapeake Operating Company, or by other persons en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the NLRB, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and
Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and Order, an all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities or to perform any services; or
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Chesapeake Op-
erating Company, Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Beck Arabia,
Ltd., or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to
require the above-named persons, or any 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 Shipside
Packing Company, Inc., or any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify members of International Longshoremen's
Association, Locals 333 and 953, that Respondents have no
objections to loading or unloading cargo that has been
packed by Shipside Packing Company, Inc.
(b) Notify members of International Longshoremen's
Association, Locals 333 and 953, that any previous instruc-
tions, requests, or appeals which Respondents have made
against loading or unloading cargo for or from Shipside
Packing Company. Inc., have been withdrawn.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondents' busi-
ness offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."' ° Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after
being duly signed by Respondents' representatives, be
posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 5 sufficient
signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by
Chesapeake and Shipside, those companies willing, at all
places where notices to their respective employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
1330