Longshoremen ILA Local 1242 (Pattison Avenue)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1991

304 N.L.R.B. 1136 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1136
304 NLRB No. 138
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Lorraine Robins owns both 777 Pattison Ave., Inc. and PAWC. Thomas
Holt provides consulting services to both corporations.
2 ILA Local 1332 is chartered as a carloaders union and is distinct from ILA
Local 1332A, which was chartered as a warehouse workers union. Members
of ILA Local 1332 perform the work of loading and unloading trucks, dis-
charging and loading containers, and transferring freight in and out of storage
places.
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local
1242, AFL–CIO and Pattison Avenue Ware-
housing Corp.
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local
1566, AFL–CIO and Pattison Avenue Ware-
housing Corp. Cases 4–CD–786–1 and 4–CD–
786–2
September 30, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The charges in this Section 10(k) proceeding were
filed on April 4, 1990, by the Employer, Pattison Ave-
nue Warehousing Corp. (PAWC), alleging that the Re-
spondents, International Longshoremen’s Association,
Local 1242 and International Longshoremen’s Associa-
tion, Local 1566 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed
activity with an object of forcing the Employer to as-
sign certain work to employees they represent rather
than to the Employer’s employees who are represented
by International Longshoremen’s Association, Local
1332A. The hearing was held November 20 and De-
cember 18, 19, and 20, 1990, before Hearing Officer
David Berger. The Employer filed a brief, and ILA
Locals 1242 and 1566 filed a joint brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire
record, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, operates
refrigerated warehouses, including a facility at the Holt
Terminal in Gloucester, New Jersey. During the cal-
endar year preceding the hearing, the Employer de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for goods
received directly from outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that ILA Local
1242, ILA Local 1566, and ILA Local 1332A are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Up until February 1990, building 8, the scene of this
alleged jurisdictional dispute (also referred to in these
proceedings as building 14 or the refrigerated ware-
house) and the adjoining building, 8A, were operated
as one big barn-like transit shed. The two buildings
were separated by a wall, with three cargo doors to
allow passage between the two buildings. The facility
is located on pier 8 in the Gloucester, New Jersey Ma-
rine Terminal. All work in the combined building was
performed for Holt Cargo Systems, Inc. (HCS), a ste-
vedore and terminal operator, and was performed pur-
suant to collective-bargaining agreements with two
deep sea locals of the International Longshoremen’s
Association, AFL–CIO. ILA Local 1242 represented
clerks and checkers who received, checked, sorted
cargo, and prepared the incidental paperwork. ILA
Local 1566 represented ‘‘coopers,’’ who repaired dam-
age to the cargo and to the crates and pallets contain-
ing the cargo. This work was performed pursuant to
the collective-bargaining agreements between those
unions and the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association
(PMTA), of which HCS is a member. HCS is owned
by Thomas Holt.
In December 1988, Holt Hauling and Warehousing
Systems, Inc. (also owned by Thomas Holt) sold build-
ing 8 to a corporation named 777 Pattison Ave., Inc.
After the purchase by 777 Pattison Ave., its sister cor-
poration, PAWC1 invested approximately $6.2 million
to refurbish and convert the facility from a heated tran-
sit shed to a refrigerated warehouse to permit refrig-
erated cargo to be stored in the building. In his role
as a consultant, Holt negotiated the ILA Local 1332A
collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of PAWC.
That contract covered all coopering, clerking, and
checking work in its refrigerated warehouse. HCS does
not have a collective-bargaining agreement with ILA
Local 1332A and that Union is not a member of the
group of unions which have collective-bargaining
agreements with PMTA.
Conversion of the transit shed to a refrigerated ware-
house was completed by the third week of February
1990. After the conversion, employees represented by
Locals 1332,2 1242, and 1566 were permitted to move
the cargo up to, but not beyond, the original divider
wall. All further movement was to be carried out by
employees represented by ILA Local 1332A pursuant
to its ‘‘Refrigerated Warehouse Agreement’’ with
PAWC, which was not a member of the PMTA. On
February 26, trucks delivering equipment to that facil-
ity were denied access by HCS employees represented
by ILA Locals 1332, 1242, and 1566. That problem
was resolved, but the next day, these same employees
refused to move or check cargo intended for PAWC
1137LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 1242 (PATTISON AVENUE)
3 This same scenario was repeated on March 6, 1990, according to Thomas
Holt.
4 Cf. Iron Workers Local 395 (Delta Star), 271 NLRB 808 (1984) (without
evidence of union involvement in the events, there was no reasonable cause
to believe that the Iron Workers Union violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
when workers it represented twice appeared at a jobsite where there was a dis-
pute over the assignment of certain work, thus causing the employer to shut
down the job).
from the HCS transit shed into the refrigerated ware-
house, or from the transit shed onto trucks to be deliv-
ered over the road.3 There were no pickets at the site
nor were threats to picket made. According to the testi-
mony of Thomas Holt, ILA Local 1242 Business
Agent Jack McCann came onto the pier and the HCS
employees stopped working. Holt’s testimony indicates
that he inferred that McCann instigated the work stop-
page. Holt, however, offered no direct evidence that
these work stoppages were authorized or ratified by ei-
ther of the Respondents. Holt did not see or hear
McCann give any direction to the people to block
work nor did Holt discuss with McCann the fact that
some employees represented by ILA Local 1242 were
blocking work. Neither Holt nor any representative of
PAWC discussed the work stoppage with any official
from ILA Locals 1242 or 1566. James Paylor, the
president of ILA Local 1566, testified that when his
members telephoned him in late February about people
represented by ILA Local 1332A working in the build-
ing, he told them to resume work, that the problem
would be handled through the arbitration procedure,
and that no other action should be taken. McCann tes-
tified that when he learned that there was a problem
at the pier he went to the area and gave his members
the same advice.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the clerking, checking,
and coopering work for the Pattison Avenue
Warehousing Corp. refrigerated warehouse located at
the Holt Marine Terminal in Gloucester City, New Jer-
sey.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Respondents contend that there is no evidence
that either of them authorized, instigated, or sanctioned
the work stoppages. Therefore, according to the Re-
spondents, there is no evidence before the Board to
support a conclusion that reasonable cause exists to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated by ei-
ther Union. The Respondents also contend that the
Board should defer to the voluntary settlement proce-
dures agreed upon by the parties in the PMTA collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with ILA Locals 1242 and
1566 that specifically provide that they bind ‘‘related
and affiliated companies’’ of the employer-members of
the PMTA. Thus, the Board should defer to those arbi-
tration proceedings as the means of resolving the dis-
pute. For these reasons, the Respondents contend that
the present dispute is not properly before the Board.
Should the Board decide the case on the merits, how-
ever, the Respondents assert that this is not a jurisdic-
tional dispute over the performance of work in a ware-
house because building 8 is not being operated as a
bona fide warehouse. It is being used as a subterfuge
by which Holt Cargo Systems is violating its collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with ILA Locals 1242 and
1566. Finally, the Respondents contend that under the
relevant, established criteria for resolving jurisdictional
disputes the work of clerking and checking in building
8 should be assigned to ILA Local 1242 and the work
of coopering in building 8 should be assigned to Local
1566.
The Employer contends that because there was a
work stoppage by employees represented by the Re-
spondents, the Respondents are to be held accountable.
Thus, according to the Employer, there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has
been violated. The Employer further contends that all
relevant factors present in this case support an award
of the work to employees represented by ILA Local
1332A.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated. The Employer contends that the Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) through the work stop-
pages.
We find no reasonable cause to believe that either
Respondent has committed any action, directly or indi-
rectly, which would violate Section 8(b)(4)(D). The
record is absolutely devoid of any communication be-
tween the parties on which to base a threat of illegal
conduct. Nor is there any showing that the alleged ille-
gal conduct is attributable to either Respondent. After
hearing no communication from ILA Local 1566 con-
cerning the work stoppage, the Employer failed to con-
tact any official of ILA Local 1566 to obtain its posi-
tion on the matter. When ILA Local 1242 Business
Agent Jack McCann came to the pier, the Employer
failed to communicate with him to ascertain his posi-
tion on the matter. Thus, the evidence before us is in-
sufficient to warrant an inference that ILA Locals 1242
or 1566 either authorized or ratified the work stop-
pages. Under these circumstances, we hold that the
record evidence does not support the necessary finding
that there is reasonable cause to believe that either Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.4
1138 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finding no reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, we shall quash the notice
of hearing.
ORDER
The notice of hearing is quashed.