Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heavy-equipment operators, they comprise the Employer's entire op-
erating complement. Having concluded that, the heavy-equipment
operators are entitled to separate representation, we find that the
laborers and truckdrivers also constitute an appropriate unit. +
The Employer contends that it has 11 foremen who should be ex-
cluded as supervisors from'any unit found to be appropriate. Operat-
ing Engineers does not claim any of these individuals but Laborers
refused to take a position with respect to the supervisory status of
these individuals, who are in charge of the "crews which function 'at
the various jobsites. It is clear from the record that these foremen
possess authority to hire, discharge, transfer, and assign work to the
employees in the crews assigned to them. We find that they are super-
visors under the Act.
Accordingly, we find that the following units are appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
(a) All operators of power-driven equipment, including crane, back'
hoe, shovel, bulldozer, compressor and pump operators, and mechanics,
but excluding all other employees, clerical 'employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All laborers and truckdrivers, but excluding operators ' of
power-driven equipment, mechanics, clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
9 Sto2{m Valley Empire Electrio Association, 122 NLRB 92.
International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen 's Union; and
Locals 6, 10, 34, 54, and 91, International Longshoremen's "&
Warehousemen 's Union and United States Steel Corporation.
Case No. 2O-CD-136. Debember 15, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges by United
States Steel Corporation (herein called the Employer) under, Section
8(b) (4) (D). The charges as amended allege, in, effect, that, Inter-
national Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union and, its Locals 6,
10, 34, 54, and 91 (herein called the Respondents) induced employees
of. the Employer and others to refuse to perform services for. "the
Employer, and threatened and coerced it in order, to force the
150 NLRB No. 17. +
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 89
Employer to assign the work of unloading the vessel, SS Columbia,
to members of the Respondents rather than to members of United
Steelworkers'of America, AFL-CIO.' A hearing was held on August
4, 5, and 6, 1964, before Hearing Officer James S. Jenson. All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs filed by
the Respondents, the Steelworkers, and the Employer have been duly
considered?
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber.panel [Members-Leedom, Fanning, and Jenkins].
`. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the
following findings :
I. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
United States Steel Corporation is a New Jersey corporation
engaged in the manufacture of steel and steel products at plants
located throughout the various States of the United States, including
the Pittsburg Works at Pittsburg, California. The Pittsburg Works
is engaged in the manufacture of steel products from semifinished
steel which it sells and distributes to its customers, including defense
contractors. During the past year, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, the Pittsburg Works received goods, supplies,
and materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 which were shipped
directly from sources outside the State of California, and shipped
manufactured products valued in excess 'of $1,000,000 directly to
points outside the State of California.
We find that United States Steel Corporation is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, and
Locals 6, 10, ,34, 54, and 91, International Longshoremen's & Ware-
housemen's Union, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
and United Steelworkers of America, Local 1440, AFL-CIO, are
,labor organizations, within the meaning of the Act.
1 United Steelworkers of America and Its Local No. 1440 ( herein called the Steelworkers)
were permitted to intervene and participate in the hearing
2 The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record, including the briefs , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE DISPUTE
This dispute relates to the operation of unloading steel billets
from the Employer's ship at the Employer's Pittsburg Works dock.
The particular dispute before the Board in this proceeding involves
alleged efforts by the Respondents to halt the Employer's operation
and prevent members of the Steelworkers from performing this work
which is claimed by the Respondents.
From the early 1930's until the end of 1951, Columbia Steel Com-
pany, a wholly owned subsidiary of United States Steel Corporation,
operated the Pittsburg Works, as well as iron works at Ironton,
Utah, and Torrance, California. In 1951, Columbia was merged into
United States Steel Company, another wholly owned subsidiary of
the Employer, and at the end of 1952, United States Steel Company
was in turn merged into the Employer, United States Steel Corpo-
ration, which now operates these three iron works, including the
Pittsburg Works.
In 1942 the Steelworkers was certified by the Board as exclusive
representative of all the employees at Pittsburg Works, Pittsburg,
California, Torrance Works, Torrance, California, and Ironton
Works, Ironton, Utah .3 Since that time the Steelworkers has repre-
sented these employees under successive collective-bargaining con-
tracts. The current contract, which covers a unit of all production
and maintenance employees at these locations, expires May 1, 1965.4
The Respondents have no contract with the Employer nor have they
ever been certified for these employees.
The Pittsburg Works is a large steel mill located in a 400-acre
tract. It produces a full line of steel products except for plate and
heavy products. The finished products are manufactured out of steel
billets which, prior to February 15, 1964, were produced in Pitts-
burg Works' own open-hearth furnaces. Prior to 1964 scrap metal
was transported by the plant's railroad service to the open-hearth
furnaces where it was melted down and molded into ingots ; the
ingots were transported to the soaking operation, then rolled into
billets. The billets were stored until transported to the finishing
mills on the premises where they were heated again and made into
finished products-sheet products, tinplate, coated and uncoated wire,
and wire products. The steel in its various forms was transported
from one process to another by overhead cranes, railroad cars, trucks,
and tractors. For this purpose, the Employer had 95 cranes-80
3 Columbia Steel Company, 42 NLRB 1125.
4 The unit is described in the current contract as "all individuals occupying production,
maintenance , and hourly rated nonconfidential clerical jobs employed in and about the
Company's steel-manufacturing and by-product coke plants . . . [ excluding ] individuals
occupying salaried, watchmen , guard or confidential clerical positions, or supervisory posi-
tions of foreman level and above."
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 91
inside overhead cranes with a capacity of from 25 to 90 tons, 5 out-
side overhead cranes on runways ranging in capacity from 5 to 15
tons, and 10 mobile cranes which rotate 360° on an axis, the tonnage
capacity of which is not revealed in the record.
On February 15, 1964, the open-hearth furnaces of the Pittsburg
Works were shut down in compliance with a regulation of the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. As a result, the
primary rolling mill which produced the billets ceased operations. In
order to continue production the Employer began to bring in all steel
billets from its other plants throughout the country by rail and ship.
Steel billets weighing 15 tons are now brought to the Pittsburg Works
on the SS Columbia, a vessel currently owned and operated by the
Employer. The Columbia makes a round trip between the east coast
and the Pittsburg dock every 38 days, is used for the sole purpose
of carrying such billets to the Pittsburg Works, and carries nothing
on the return trip.-'
The Employer installed two new rotating "whirley" cranes at the
Pittsburg Works dock for the purpose of unloading the vessels trans-
porting the steel billets. Railroad tracks have also been installed on
the pier, and' when the vessel is not in port the same cranes are used
to unload material from railroad cars which are run onto the pier.
The vessel, as well as the railroad cars, are unloaded at the dock by
a crew of crane operators and hookers, regularly employed in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit represented by the Steelworkers. These
employees perform the same work and utilize the same skills in these
operations as they do in their regular assignments throughout the
plant loading and unloading railroad cars, trucks, and tractors.
Until 1956 ships owned by Isthmian Steamship Company, a com-
mon carrier subsidiary of the Employer, occasionally called at the
Employer's pier at the Pittsburg Works and were unloaded with
shipside cranes by the Respondents and Pacific Maritime Association,
of which Isthmian was a member. The dock was not used between
1956 and 1964.
On January 30, 1964, shortly before the first scheduled landing of
the SS Columbia at the Pittsburg Works dock, the Respondent
International Union sent the Steelworkers a letter stating that the
Respondent had learned that the work of unloading the vessel had
been assigned to the Steelworkers' members but that the Respondent
was the proper organization to represent the workmen on this job.
Representatives of the Steelworkers and Respondent International
met thereafter and discussed the disputed work assignment. When
5 It was anticipated at the time of the hearing that a second vessel owned and operated
by the Employer would commence operations in September 1964 in the same manner as
the SS Columbia , solely to transport steel billets from other plants of the Employer to
the Pittsburg Works.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Steelworkers reiterated their determination to perform the work
assigned to them, the Respondent's representative threatened to
picket. During this same period the Respondent International also
communicated with the Employer by wire and telephone declaring its
desire to be assigned the work of unloading the ship.
When the SS Columbia docked on February. 19, 1964; the Respond-
ent Locals placed pickets at the gates of the Pittsburg Works, carry=
ing signs with legends protesting the assignment -of the unloading
work to the Steelworkers, and passing out leaflets to the employees
presenting the Respondents' views on the disputed work assignment.
The pickets remained at the gates for the duration of the unloading
of the vessel. Thereafter, the SS Columbia was unloaded in April,
May, and July by employees represented by the Steelworkers, and
each time the Respondents picketed. The May landing of the SS
Columbia was delayed 5 days because it was met by a picket boat
of the Respondent as it entered San Francisco Bay. When the ves-
sel did land, on May 13, 1964, the Employer's gates were. the scene of
mass picketing which prevented some of the Employer's employees,
as well as employees of its contractors performing work -on the
premises, 'from going to work at the Pittsburg Works. The mass
picketing was discontinued as a result of a 'State court proceeding.
IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The Employer contends that the work of unloading the ' SS
Columbia should be awarded to its employees to whom it has been
assigned, because the work is a phase of the manufacturing process,
and the employees engaged in such work should be included in the
production and maintenance unit for which the Steelworkers is the
certified, contract representative. The Employer further contends
that steelworkers are better qualified to perform the work than mem-
bers of the Respondents, that the work is safely and more efficiently
performed by its own employees, and that it is the area practice that
such work be performed by an employer's own employees.
2. The Respondents contend that the unloading of ships with
"whirley" cranes is typically and traditionally longshoremen's work
and has been so recognized by the Board in cases such as International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 19 (American
Mail Line Ltd., et al.), 144 NLRB 1432; International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, et al. (Albin Stevedore Company,
et al.), 144 NLRB 1443; and International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, et al. (Howard Terminal), 147 NLRB 359.
Respondents contend they have jurisdiction over this work on the
basis of their constitution covering all unloading of ships, and that
the work can be more safely performed by longshoremen.' They
point out that all unloading at the Pittsburg Works dock prior to
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 93
1964 was done by. longshoremen, and contend that the work is not
covered by the Steelworkers' certification or contract.
3. The Intervenor made 'substantially the same contentions as the
Employer, and asserted, in addition, that award of the disputed
work to members of the Respondents would result in a loss of jobs
by members of Steelworkers but an award to Steelworkers would not
result in any job. loss for longshoremen as they have never done
this work.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
Before the Board may proceed to a determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, 'it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) • has been
violated.
As described more fully above, representatives of the Respondent
International Union notified both the Employer and the Steelworkers
of its claim to unload the SS Columbia at the Employer's Pittsburg
Works dock and informed the Steelworkers of its intent to picket if
the work were assigned to members of the Steelworkers. The
Respondent Locals' pickets were stationed at the plant gates during
each of the ship's four calls with signs, and leaflets were distributed
protesting unloading of the cargo by Steelworkers. In May the
Respondent Locals met the SS Columbia in San Francisco Bay with
a picket boat thereby delaying its landing, and the Respondent
Locals' use of mass picketing prevented employees of the Employer
and of its contractors from working. The picketing took place only
during the times 'the ship was in port being unloaded by the mem-
bers of the Steelworkers. In these circumstances, we find reasonable
cause to believe that Respondents caused or were responsible for the
work stoppages which occurred in May.
We further find that an object of the stoppages was to force or
require the Employer to assign the disputed work to longshoremen
represented by Respondents, rather than to 'employees represented
by Steelworkers. We conclude, therefore, on the basis of the entire
record, that there. is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.6
VI. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
As stated in the J. A. Jones case,? we shall, pursuant to the Supreme
Court's Columbia Broadcasting System decision," determine in each
oLocal 991 , International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, et at (Union Carbide
Chemical Company, Dav18ion of Union Carbide Corporation ), 137 NLRB 750.
4 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
8N.L R.B. v. Radio & Televtozon .Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1219, etc. ( Columbia
Broadcasting System ), 364 U S 573.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act the
appropriate assignment of the disputed work only after taking into
account and balancing all relevant factors.
In the instant matter, the parties have urged, and we have con-
sidered, many factors as relevant to the Board's determination of
this dispute. Some of these factors weigh in favor of an award to
longshoremen, some favor an award to steelworkers.
The Respondents in their constitution assert jurisdiction over "all
workers employed in the loading and unloading of vessels, and opera-
tions incidental to such loading and unloading." Moreover, the
unloading of ships on the Pacific coast is traditionally performed
by longshoremen. However, this practice does not appear to be
clearly established with regard to the unloading of cargo from a
ship, where both the ship and cargo are owned by an employer, at a
dock also owned by that employer and located on its premises, as in
the instant case .9
The work in dispute is a new operation. Steel billets had never
been unloaded from a ship at the Pittsburg Works dock prior to
1964, all such billets having been manufactured on the premises or
received in, and "unloaded from, railroad cars and trucks. While
members of the Respondents had at one time been employed by a
common carrier subsidiary of the Employer in unloading a different
type of cargo from ships owned by the subsidiary, they have received
no such employment at this dock for the past 8 years, and the carrier
is no longer a subsidiary of the Employer. Employees represented
by Steelworkers, on the other hand, have been unloading the
Employer's ship at the Pittsburg Works dock ever since that opera-
tion began, and have done it safely and to the Employer's satisfac-
tion. Award of the work to Respondents' members would therefore
result in a further loss of jobs to Steelworkers' members, who lost
124 jobs when the billet-manufacturing operation was closed; whereas
an award to Steelworkers' members would not entail a job loss to
longshoremen because they have never performed this work.
The Respondents have no contract with the Employer. Although
the Steelworkers is the certified, contract representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, neither its cer-
tification nor its contract specifically cover the work of unloading
6 The cases relied on by the Respondents in support of its contention that the Board
has recognized its claim to this type of work, cited in paragraph IV, above, are dis-
tinguishable because, enter alga, those cases involved unloading ships at commercial docks
for shipping and stevedoring companies which were members of the Pacific Maritime Asso-
ciation. The Employer herein is not a member of PMA, and the latter's collective-
bargaining agreement with the Respondents recognizes an exception for the type of work
involved in the instant case See the Pacific Coast Longshore Agreement, 1961-66, sec.
1.46, page 5, which provides as follows "Where a nonmember of the Association has con-
trol over the cargo at its premises or on its vessel, such nonmember' s regular employees
may perform work assigned to longshoremen herein while such cargo is out of the control
of any member."
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN 'S & WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION 95
ships with "whirley" cranes , jobs which came into existence after
the certification was issued and after the current contract was exe-
cuted. However, the job descriptions of the disputed work are
substantially identical with those of other jobs included in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit covered by the Steelworkers ' contract.
Moreover , although longshoremen on the Pacific coast are experi-
enced in the unloading of ships with "whirley" cranes , the Employ-
er's employees are experienced in the similar operation of unloading
trucks and railroad cars with large rotating cranes, and in lifting
the extremely heavy steel billets involved , whereas the longshoremen
members of these Respondents are not.
With respect to efficiency and economy of operation longshoremen
would have to be transported a considerable distance for intermittent
employment performing only work directly related to the unloading
of the ship during its infrequent visits. On the other hand, the
unloading of the ship merely complements the work of the steel-
workers, as they are permanently and regularly employed on the
premises in loading and unloading railroad cars on the same dock
with the same cranes, and loading, unloading , and moving steel at
other locations on the Employer's premises.
In these circumstances ,'the Respondents ' claim, based for the most
part on its general jurisdiction , is outweighed by the factors pre-
sented above which favor the Steelworkers ' claim. On the merits,
therefore , we find that there are overriding factors in support of
United States Steel Corporation 's assignment of the disputed work
to employees in its existing production and maintenance unit repre-
sented by the Steelworkers . Accordingly , we shall award the work
in the instant case to the production and maintenance employees
represented by the Steelworkers rather than to longshoremen repre-
sented by the Respondents . In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the Steel-
workers' but not to that labor organization or its members 10
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
the,case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute,
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
1. Employees employed in the production and maintenance unit at
the United States Steel Corporation's Pittsburg Works, Pittsburg,
California , plant, currently represented by Local No . 1440, United
to In reaching this determination , Member Leedom does not deem the loss-of -job question
a material consideration. See his dissent in Philadelphia Typographical Union, Local
No 2 (Philadelph4a Inquirer etc.), 142 NLRB 36, 44-47.
775-692-65-vol. 150 8
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to unload the
Employer's cargo from the Employer's ships at the Employer's Pitts-
burg Works' dock.
2. Accordingly, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's
Union, and Locals 6, 10, 34, 54, and 91, affiliated with International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, are not and have not
been lawfully entitled to force or require United States Steel Corpo-
ration to assign the unloading of the Employer's cargo from the
Employer's ships at the Employer's dock at Pittsburg, California, to
members of said organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, and
Locals 6, 10, 34, 54, and 91, all affiliated with International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not they will refrain
from forcing or requiring United States Steel Corporation to assign
the work in dispute to their members rather than to employees of
the Employer.
Cosmodyne Manufacturing Company and International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 40. Case No. 9-CA-
3101. December 15, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 18, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fan-
ning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
150 NLRB No. 1.