Local 991, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which have remained unopened pending the outcome of that matter,,
the Regional Director shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate.
NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that, in the event the aforementioned ballots
when opened and counted do not determine the results of the election,
the Board will entertain briefs from the parties, to be filed within 10
days from the date of the revised tally of ballots, as to their respective
positions concerning the Petitioner's motion requesting the Board
to direct the Regional Director to open and then set aside the ballots
of the three challenged voters currently the subject of an unfair labor
practice case, and to certify the Petitioner if one or more of those
ballots was cast for the Petitioner.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it hereby
is, referred to the Regional Director for the Second Region for further
proceedings consistent with this Decision.
Local 991, International Longshoremen's Association , AFL-CIO;
Local 1406, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-
CIO; South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, International
Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO and Union Carbide
Chemical Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation.
Case No. 33-CD-46. June 22, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4(d) of sec-
tion 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen . . . ."
On May 16, 1961., Union Carbide Chemical Company, Division of
Union Carbide Corporation, herein called Carbide or the Employer,
filed with the Regional Director of the Twenty-third Region a charge
alleging in substance that on May 15, 1961, Local 991, Local 1406, and
the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, International Longshore-
men's Association, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 991, Local 1406,
and the District, or collectively the ILA, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (D) of the Act, as amended, by inducing and encouraging
individuals employed by Carbide and by other employers to engage
in a strike or refusal to work, and threatened, coerced, and restrained
Carbide and other employers where an object in both cases was to
force and require Carbide to assign particular work to employees rep-
137 NLRB No. 85.
LOCAL 991, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 751
resented by the above-named labor organizations rather than to em-
ployees represented by Texas City, Texas, Metal Trades Council,
herein called the Trades Council.'
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for a hear-
ing upon due notice. The hearing was held August 9, 10, and 11, 1961,,
at Houston, Texas, before George Norman, hearing officer. The
Trades Council was granted leave to intervene and all parties ap-
peared and were represented at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence hearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
affirmed 2 Briefs were filed by Carbide, by Locals 991 and 1406, and
by South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 4 makes the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties stipulated and we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The parties stipulated and we find that Local 991, Local 1406,
and the District, and the Trades Council, the Intervenor herein, are
labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
Carbide manufactures synthetic organic chemicals and plastics, in-
cluding polyethylene and vinyl resin, at a 400-acre plant site in Texas
City, Texas. Between 2 and 3 miles from the principal plant site,
Carbide has leased barge and container dock areas from the Texas
City Terminal Railway Company. However, Carbide owns the dock
structures and installations and maintains them with plant employees.
Adjacent to the leased container dock, Carbide has a loading area,
known as the "No. 1 oil dock," through which it has, for at least 12
years, regularly loaded liquid chemicals for transportation on a
company-owned tank ship the SS Wilson. Loading of liquid chemi-
cals onto the tank ship has always been handled by Carbide employees.
Carbide ships polyethylene and vinyl resin in the dry state. Ship-
ments of these chemicals have been made in 50-pound paper bags, in
railroad hopper car containers, in intermediate box containers, and in
rubber bag shipping and storage containers. All these containers
' An amended charge was filed May 23, 1961
9 At the beginning of the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings
The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board . The motion is hereby denied
,3 Carbide requested oral argument . Since the record and the briefs fully set forth the
issues and the positions of the parties , the request is denied.
' Chairman McCulloch did not participate in this Decision
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been loaded by Carbide employees at the plant for shipment by
common carriers. For shipments of resin in paper bag containers,
Carbide utilized the services of two common carriers by water-
namely, Seatrain , Inc., and Pan Atlantic Company. Carbide con-
tinues to ship some of its dry chemicals in this manner. There is
evidence as to how Seatrain handled these shipments, but there is no
such evidence as to Pan Atlantic.
Seatrain maintains yard and dock facilities at Texas City. The
loaded paper bags were brought to the Seatrain yard in a trailer truck
driven by an employee of an outside trucking firm. Employees of
Seatrain, represented by the ILA, then took over the handling of
the bags until they were loaded aboard ship. Seatrain employees
render similar services for other companies.
About May 15, 1961, Carbide began shipping resins in specially con-
structed aluminum containers transported in a specially rebuilt tank
ship. To handle the containers at dockside, Carbide leased 3 acres of
land adjacent to the "No. 1 oil dock" and installed necessary equip-
ment and facilities.
The containers are filled at the plant by Carbide employees and
hauled on special trailers to the container dock by tractors operated
by an independent company. Employees of Carbide operating cranes
lift the container onto the ship, the SS Carbide Seadrift, and into the
ship's specially prepared hold.
Carbide employees at the container dock are : a crane operator classi-
fied as a heavy equipment operator, who does not, however, work full
time at the dock; a dock operator who assists on the dock and aboard
ship in lining up containers and moving the hatch cover (the same
classification of employees works at the barge and oil docks in loading
liquid chemicals aboard barges and ships and at the tank storage ter-
minal near the container and oil dock areas) ; a chief dock operator
who coordinates the entire work of loading and unloading the ship;
and a foreman.
The SS Carbide Seadrift is equipped to carry both liquid chemicals
and resins in containers. It can be loaded with liquids and containers
at the same time. All such work is done by Carbide employees under
the same overall supervision.
The Trades Council has represented production and maintenance
employees at the Texas City plant since 1944. In 1960, the Board
certified that union as representative of such employees. Collective-
bargaining contracts between the Trades Council and Carbide, in-
cluding the contract effective from May 1 , 1958, to June 15, 1961, have
always been considered by the parties to cover shipping as well as
plant employees. When the prospect of the container dockwork be-
came known in 1960, both parties agreed that the work was covered
by the contract , but no new job classifications were added since the
LOCAL 991, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 753
work was to be performed by employees already covered by the agree-
ment. Carbide has had no contractual relations with the ILA.
Work at the container dock is intermittent. When not needed at
the container dock employees are assigned to the large dock, plant
proper, or some other location.
On February 16, 1961, Ralph A. Massey, president of the District,
ILA, wrote Carbide asking for a meeting to discuss the loading and
unloading of cargo at the container dock under construction "as our
organization is recognized throughout the United States as having
jurisdiction over employees engaged in the loading and unloading of
these vessels." Carbide declined to meet stating that the work in prog-
ress was "an extension of shipping functions currently carried on and
is an integral part of the plant's operations. As in the past we expect
whatever work necessary to be performed by Texas City plant em-
ployees." Massey replied on April 6 reiterating his union's claim to
the work in question. On May 15, 1961, the ILA began picketing the
private road leading to the dock area where SS Carbide Seadrift was
berthed. The picketing continued until May 22 when it ceased pur-
suant to a stipulation and order entered that day in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas. As a result of the picket-
ing, employees of trucking, construction, and electrical contractors
working for Carbide at the dock ceased work and some crew members
of the SS Carbide Seadrift left the ship.
B. Contentions of the parties
Carbide contends that the picketing violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) ;
that in deciding which group of employees is entitled to perform the
work in dispute the Board is not required to apply principles used
by arbitrators, but that if such principles are used then the work
should be assigned to employers represented by the Trades Council.
Respondents contend that there is no violation of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) ; but that if there is such a violation the Board is obliged
to resolve the underlying jurisdictional dispute on its merits and to
make an affirmative award in accordance with the CBS decision.5 It
further claims that the work should be assigned to its members.
The Trades Council supports the position taken by the Carbide and
claims the work in dispute by virtue of its certification, its bargaining
contract, and the assignment by Carbide.
C. Applicability of the statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. We are satis-
5 N.L R B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212 International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364
U.S. 573
649856-63-vol. 137-49
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fled on the basis of the foregoing evidence, that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of that section has been committed.
We therefore find that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
In the CBS case, the Supreme Court said that the Board could not
simply accept an employer's assignment of disputed work as auto-
matically dispositive of a jurisdictional dispute. The Court held that
under the statute the Board must determine jurisdictional disputes
on their merits, which means that the Board must determine affirma-
tively whether one or the other disputing group of employees is en-
titled to do the work in controversy. The Court further said that in
making such disposition the Board should use commonsense and con-
sider standards generally used by arbitrators, unions, employers, joint
boards, and others. It is true that in the CBS case the employer was
neutral; and the language used by the Court is to some extent colored
by that fact. But the underlying rationale of the decision clearly
indicates that the Court was laying down a guide for the disposition
of all jurisdictional disputes and not simply those in which the em-
ployer is truly indifferent as to which group of claimants shall perform
the disputed work. That the Court intended the reach of its decision
to be coextensive with the jurisdictional work problem is conclusively
established by the fact that it cited with approval the decision of the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing e6 Pipe Fit-
ting Industry, Local 420 (J. J. 1Vhite, Inc.) 242 F. 2d 722, and the
decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in N.L.R.B.
v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters f Joiners of America, Local 60,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
(TVendnagel cC Company), 261 F. 2d 166, which has rejected the
Board's interpretation of Section 10 (k). Both of these cases involved
employers which were not neutral. Thus, in CBS, the Court,said
(364 U.S. 573):
We agree with the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits that
10(k) requires the Board to decide jurisdictional disputes on
their merits ... .
Accordingly, we reject Carbide's contention that the Board must
accept the Company's assignment of the disputed work as dispositive
of the jurisdictional dispute.
On the merits, we find that there are convincing reasons to support
Carbide's assignment of the disputed work. ILA members have never
worked directly for Carbide. Indirectly, they had only handled part
of the bagged shipments of resin; there is no evidence that ILA mem-
LOCAL 991, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 755
bers worked for Pan Atlantic as they did for Seatrain. Carbide had
established a special dock to handle specific cargo to be loaded on a
special ship. There is no general cargo handled at the container dock.
The loading and unloading of containers requires little more than the
use of a crane. There is no evidence that the employees now responsi-
ble for loading operations are less skilled than ILA members in the
performance of the particular functions involved.
The Trades Council is the certified bargaining representative of
Carbide's production and maintenance employees. Although the con-
tainers dock was not in operation when the 1960 Board election was
conducted, employees working at that dock would undoubtedly have
been included in the appropriate unit, as were the employees handling
liquid cargo at the oil dock. The job classifications working at the
dock are substantially identical with job classifications included in the
unit and covered by the collective-bargaining contract between Carbide
and the Trades Council. In fact, when the two parties agreed that
such employees were covered by the contract they found it unnecessary
to amend their agreement to include additional job classifications.
Finally, the dock employees neither work intermittently nor work
only at the dock. They work regularly throughout the plant, depend-
ing on where they are needed. If ILA members were to do this work
they would necessarily work on an intermittent basis because of the
nature of shipping operations. We believe that the foregoing con-
siderations justify the assignment of the disputed work to Carbide's
employees represented by the Trades Council. In making this deter-
mination we have considered the ILA's contention that generally it
has jurisdiction over the loading and unloading of ships, and that its
members had specifically handled bagged resin shipments made
through Seatrain. However, the ILA's claim, based for the most part
on general jurisdiction, is outweighed by the special factors referred
to above. We cannot agree with Member Brown that these factors are
overridden either by the fact that the work in dispute is the type of
work historically performed by members of the ILA, at Texas City or
elsewhere, or the fact that ILA members were utilized by a different
employer to load this same type of cargo in connection with a different
method of shipment. An award in favor of the ILA on the basis of
these factors alone would mean that, for all practical purposes, the
ILA's historical representation of longshoremen would be the con-
trolling factor in the resolution of work assignment disputes, and that
the other factors, present here, which the Supreme Court suggested
would be relevant, would in fact be inconsequential.
Accordingly, we find that the ILA was not and is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require Carbide
to assign the work of loading operations at its dock in Texas City,
Texas, to members of the ILA.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Union Carbide Chemical Company, Texas City, Texas, plant,
currently represented by Texas City, Texas, Metal Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to load and unload ships at the Employer's
Texas City docks.
2. Accordingly, Local 991, Local 1406, and South Atlantic and Gulf
Coast District, all affiliated with International Longshoremen's As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to
force or require Union Carbide Chemical Company, Division of Union
Carbide Corporation, to assign the loading and unloading of ships
at the Employer's docks at Texas City, Texas, to members of said
organizations.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Local 991, Local 1406, and the South Atlantic and Gulf
Coast District, all affiliated with the International Longshoremen's
Association, AFL-CIO, shall notify the regional Director for the
Twenty-third Region, in writing, whether or not they will refrain
from forcing or requiring Union Carbide Chemical Company to
assign the work in dispute to their members rather than to employees
of the Employer.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
I concur with Members Leedom and Fanning, but only as to the
result reached.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting :
I agree with the majority holding that the record shows probable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act
has occurred and that there exists a jurisdictional dispute properly
to be determined by this Board under Section 10(k), with an affirma-
tive award of the work to one of the two competing groups of em-
ployees. I also agree with Members Leedom and Fanning that proper
determination of the positive work assignment must take into con-
sideration, not only the present desire of the employer, but also all
other pertinent and material factors appearing in the record. Con-
trary to the majority view, however, I would award the disputed
work to the longshoremen who for many years have performed the
work and who are represented by the Respondent International Long-
shoremen's Association unions.
The basic facts are simple and not in dispute. At its plant 3 or 4
miles distant from the Texas City, Texas, docks, the Company pro-
LOCAL 991, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 757
duces both dry and liquid resin products. From 1947 it has used
common carriers-trucking companies, railroads, ships-to send the
product to its customers in distant locations. The liquid resin leaves
the plant either in railroad tank cars or by pipe to company storage
tanks located near the Texas City docks, where, by pipe, it is pumped
into ships, operated by other companies, which then sail to other ports.
The dry resin is loaded at the plant into a variety of containers which
are carried away by railroads or by trucks, some of it going to the
Texas City docks where it is put on ships which then continue on to
other destinations. All shipping and loading activities at the plant
itself have long been, and are even now being performed by the Com-
pany's own employees, represented in collective bargaining by the
Metal Trades Council of Texas City. As to the handling of resin,
either liquid or dry, after it has left the plant, the only work per-
formed by company employees over the years was the moving of
liquid resin by pipe from the company storage tanks near the docks
into the holds of certain ships.
Continuously from 1953 through 1961, all the dry resin that left
Texas City by ship was transported from the plant to the docks by
contract truckers who employed members of the Teamsters Union. At
the port, the resin was then taken away by Seatrain Lines, Inc., which
moved it from the trucks, lifted it into ships, stored it in the holds or
on deck superstructures, and carried it away. For all of this work
of loading its ships, Seatrain Lines has always used longshoremen,
who have always been represented, under collective-bargaining agree-
ment, by the ILA and its locals.
In 1961, the Company built its own crane at the Texas City docks,
outfitted its own ship for transporting dry resin, and began using
employees from its plant, or newly hired heavy equipment operators,
to move the resin containers from trucks still driven by Teamster
members, and to load them aboard ship. It refused the request of ILA
representatives that the longshoremen who had long done this work
be permitted to continue in their traditional occupation. It is this
function-the loading of dry cargo aboard ship at the Texas City
docks and the concomitant removal of empty containers-that con-
stitutes the work in dispute in this proceeding.
The Supreme Court has directed us, in its CBS decision, to rely on
"experience and commonsense" in making work awards in these pro-
ceedings; and among the factors mentioned by the Court in this con-
nection were "the practice and custom of this and other companies
and of these and other unions." 6 Consistent with this directive, the
Board announced that it would "consider all relevant factors in deter-
e N.L.R.B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212 International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364
U.S. 573.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mining who is entitled to the work in dispute." 7 As I appraise all
'of the pertinent and material factors in the context of this record, I
can only conclude that the longshoremen are entitled to the work in
question.
When all the dry resin was being shipped through Seatrain Lines,
as some of it still is, it was packaged in 50-pound paper bags. Today,
that part which is being moved from dock to aboard the SS Seadrift,
the new ship, is in new aluminum containers designed and constructed
for this special purpose. However, in terms of the work long per-
formed by the longshoremen to load the Seatrain ships, and now by
the plant employees who load the Seadrift, there is virtually no dif-
ference between the work duties of the two groups. The new con-
tainers are about the size and shape of railroad boxcars, arrive at the
dock on trucks, are lifted individually by overhead crane, and finally
deposited in the hold of the ship. The 50-pound bags are loaded at
the plant into vans or boxcars, both described at the hearing as about
the same size and shape as the new aluminum containers. When
these vans and cars reach the docks, they are lifted by Seatrain's
dock crane-also described as comparable in size and operation to
the Company's new one-and in like manner hoisted above the ship
and lowered into its holds. Thus the fact that in one case the overall
containers are filled with bags of resin and in the other with loose
resin, bears no relationship to the work of loading the ship and empty-
ing it of the containers after the return voyage. In sum, a net result
of the change in operations in May 1961 was a switch in assignment
of virtually the same work from one group of employees who have
long performed it to a new group which had never enjoyed it.
As the work in dispute-loading dry cargo aboard ship-has re-
mained essentially unchanged, meaningful determination of an affirm-
ative work award in this case must turn upon those characteristics
which distinguish one of the claiming groups of employees from the
other. The longshoremen have always loaded dry cargo on ships at
the Texas City docks. Indeed this record shows affirmatively that this
class of employees has been the only group ever to do this work there.
As to the Company's dry resin products, the longshoremen's exclusive
past prerogative to load ships is virtually conceded. There are other
shippers which likewise use Seatrain, with its longshoremen, to load
ships at these docks. One witness testified, without contradiction, that
only Seatrain has the necessary equipment at this location for such
work. The ILA business agent, many years in that post, added that
he knew of none but longshoremen who had loaded ships with such
cargo for well over 5 or 10 years at least.
7International Association of Mach,nists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
LOCAL 991, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN., ETC. 759
Moreover,,this Board, with its knowledge of industrial relations
can well consider also the ancient tradition of longshoremen, both
in claiming and performing the work of loading ships at American
ports. In case after case over the years, it has had occasion to deal
with the long-standing constitutional jurisdictional claim of the In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association to "all work done directly or
indirectly in connection with loading and unloading operations of all
floating structures...."
The record in this case shows that, from this same plant, the Com-
pany also sends out dry resin for eventual shipment in the holds of
vessels operated by a concern called Pan Atlantic Lines. Although
at the hearing the Company, as well as the Metal Trades Council
which represents its plant employees, objected to any inquiry into the
custom and practice of loading ships at other ports, in its brief it
relies on the fact that there is no evidence as to what class of em-
ployees load the Pan Atlantic ships. But Pan Atlantic does not
operate at Texas City; dry resin goes by truck from the plant to
Houston, Texas, where Pan Atlantic ships are loaded, and there is no
claim, or evidence, that at that other port, longshoremen are not also
used for placing the cargo aboard. It may be fairly assumed, how-
ever, in view of the widespread practice at American ports generally,
that in all probability longshoremen are also engaged in loading ships
for sea at the Houston port. In any event, this case concerns itself
primarily with the clear and established port practice at the Texas
City docks.
Against the foregoing, there is no countervailing evidence, or claim,
that the employees to whom the Company assigned the work on its
new shiploading facilities have ever worked as shiploading longshore-
men, or that any union or unions representing them have made any
jurisdictional claims to the work. The Metal Trades Council of Texas
City is the bargaining agent of the plant employees and its spokes-
man, who is also business agent of the International Union of Op-
erating Engineers, a constituent local of that Council, objected to any
examination of the constitutions or bylaws of those organizations.
He also admitted he knew of no member of his union-even in the
classification of operator, crane operator, or heavy equipment opera-
tor, the titles assigned by the Company to the jobs in dispute-who
had ever worked at Texas City loading ships, or aboard any vessel
carrying dry cargo. Clearly, then, the very pertinent factors of
traditional jurisdictional claims by competing labor organizations,
widespread custom throughout the industry, and unbroken past prac-
tice by the very employer involved in the dispute before us, point un-
mistakably to an award in favor of the longshoremen.
To offset these relevant considerations, the Metal Trades Council,
on behalf of its members, relies primarily upon its contract, which
covers "all production and maintenance employees of the Company
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in its Texas City plant," and the fact that there have always been
plant employees who did loading work and operated cranes like the
new one at the Texas City docks. However, that contract, as well as
the earlier Board certification upon which it rests, came into being
while the work in dispute was not being performed by employees of
the Company at all, but by longshoremen employed by Seatrain Lines.
Therefore, neither contract nor certification can be said to have been
intended to cover this work.
The fact that the Company employees now doing longshoremen
work are given the same job title used at the plant in no measure blurs
the distinction between plant employees and shiploading activities.
It is the fact that longshoremen load ships-long ago by the strength
of their backs and now with overhead cranes-which distinguishes
them, in the jurisdictional dispute sense, from other employees, and not
the particular appellation used in their job descriptions.
Equally unpersuasive is the oral agreement between the Metal Trades
Council and the Company, reached when the question of changing
work assignment arose, that the plant employees were entitled to it un-
der their already existing agreement, or any idle speculation as to
what the Board might have done, as a matter of unit placement or
question concerning representation, if plant employees instead of
longshoremen had been 'loading the ships at the time the certification
of representatives issued.
The Company's desire to assign this work to employees who have
comparable duties at its regular production plant location, and the
added operational convenience flowing from interchangeability of em-
ployees who would only work part time on its new ship loading equip-
ment, are, of course, matters also to be considered by this Board in pro-
ceedings of this type. These aspects of the work dispute are not
overriding however, and cannot exclude from proper evaluation other,
more weighty factors. The plant operation, with its intimately in-
tegrated loading and shipping work, has always run smoothly while
longshoremen loaded the dry resin on the ships at Texas City. The
regular work of longshoremen has always been intermittent by its very
nature, rushed when ships are in port, and slack when the ships are at
sea. The fact of the work being irregularly scheduled has not pre-
vented a large and distinctive class of employees from coming into be-
ing, or the International Longshoremen's Association from tradition-
ally acting as their collective-bargaining representative. No persuasive
reason appears why the use of longshoremen to load the SS Seadrift
with cargo should present problems which have not arisen throughout
the shipping industry generally.
If the broad principles enunciated by the Board in the Jones deci-
sion, supra, are ever to be accorded meaningful implementation, the
disputed work in this case should be awarded to the longshoremen,
who are represented by the ILA.