Longshoremen ILA Local 846 (Virginia International Terminals)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

809
314 NLRB No. 130
LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 846 (VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS)
1 In addition to the reasons given by the judge for concluding that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A), with which we agree, we
find further support in the uncontradicted testimony of Charging
Party James Jones that he was told by the Respondent’s president
William Tucker that the membership selection process ‘‘was hard
because the people that were selected above you was family.’’
In sec. III,B of his decision, the judge mistakenly stated that the
dispatchers located at the union hall are employed by the Associa-
tion. The dispatchers are employed by the Hampton Roads Shipping
Association/ILA Guaranteed Annual Income Fund.
The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
2 We leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding the Re-
spondent’s contention that it is without authority to carry out the rec-
ommended Order which requires it to reassign, if necessary, the six
port numbers.
1 All dates are in 1993 unless otherwise stated.
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local
846 (Virginia International Terminals) and
James Jones. Case 11–CB–2310
August 18, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND DEVANEY
On March 4, 1994, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
orders that the Respondent, International Longshore-
men’s Association, Local 846, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
Jasper C. Brown Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles S. Montagna, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge. This pro-
ceeding was litigated before me at Portsmouth, Virginia, on
November 15 and 16, 1993, pursuant to charges and amend-
ed charges filed by James Jones, and complaint issued on
August 3, 1993, alleging International Longshoremen’s Asso-
ciation, Local 846 (Respondent Union or ILA) has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). Respondent denies it has committed the unfair
labor practices alleged.
On consideration of the entire record, the testimonial de-
meanor of the witnesses, and the posttrial briefs of the par-
ties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Virginia International Terminals (Employer) is a Virginia
corporation engaged in oceanic shipping at its facility in
Norfolk, Virginia. In the operation of this business the Em-
ployer annually purchased and received at its Norfolk facility
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and sold and shipped products from its Norfolk facility val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside
the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Employer is, and has
been at all times material to this proceeding, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Allegations
The complaint alleges that at all times material to this pro-
ceeding the Employer has been a member of the Hampton
Roads Shipping Association (Association) which has been
authorized by the Employer and other employer-members to
bargain collectively on their behalf with Respondent Union
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment in an appropriate unit, and that the Association
and Respondent Union maintain a practice permitting Re-
spondent Union to be the sole and exclusive source of refer-
rals to employment for the Association’s employer-members.
It is further alleged that since on or about March 29, 1993,1
Respondent Union has failed and refused to grant member-
ship in the Respondent Union and thus permanent assign-
ment to work gangs to employee-applicants for reasons
which are unfair, arbitrary, invidious, and a breach of the fi-
duciary duty owed the employees whom it represents; that
Respondent Union has continually failed and refused to es-
tablish objective standards for the selection of employee-ap-
plicants for inclusion in classifications for permanent assign-
ment to work gangs, and for membership in Respondent
Union, at the Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia; that Re-
spondent Union, by these acts, caused and attempted to cause
employer-members of the Association, including the Em-
ployer, to discriminate against certain employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by: (1) failing to grant member-
ship in the Respondent Union and thus permanent assign-
ments to work gangs to employee-applicants for unfair, arbi-
trary, and invidious reasons, and (2) failing and refusing to
establish and maintain an objective standard for the selection
of employee-applicants for selection in work gangs and for
membership in the Respondent Union, and thereby did en-
810 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Employee-applicants selected for membership in Respondent
Union effectively become union members, and by virtue of being
union members are automatically assigned port numbers. Having
port numbers assures union members priority in work assignment
and other contractually guaranteed work-related benefits.
gage in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
B. Facts Found
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Association is an
organization composed of employer-members, and exists for
the purpose of representing its employer-members in negoti-
ating and administering collective-bargaining agreements
with various labor organizations, including Respondent
Union. The Employer is a member of the Association and,
as such, is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Association, on behalf of its members, and Re-
spondent Union who is a signatory to that collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Respondent Union agrees it is the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all employees of
the Employer in the following unit:
All employees engaged in the loading or unloading of
ships at the Employer’s location at the Port of Hampton
Roads, Virginia, excluding all other employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The collective-bargaining agreement contains a provision
establishing a contract board manned by an equal number of
members from the ILA and the Association. Although the
collective-bargaining agreement refers to seven members for
each side, Johnnie Johnson, the Association’s chairman of
the board, testified he believed there were five members for
each side (as to which one is correct is of no consequence
to this proceeding). He explained that when a local union
covered by the collective-bargaining agreement wants to in-
crease its membership, that local union makes a request to
the contract board for the issuance of ‘‘port numbers’’ for
the number of new members the local union wishes to in-
duct. As Johnson explained, a ‘‘port number’’ is an identi-
fication number assigned an employee which serves to iden-
tify that employee during the life of his or her employment
in the port served by the Association, for purposes of deter-
mining qualification for welfare, pension, vacation, and other
benefits based on work history, and also gives the port num-
ber holder priority in work assignment over persons who
have no port numbers.
Respondent Union, who had enrolled no new members
since the 1970s, decided in early 1993 to increase its mem-
bership. To that end, it publicized the fact new members
would be accepted. Because the contract board had only
issued 6 new port numbers to Respondent Union, less than
the 12 or 15 it had requested, Respondent Union decided to
accept only 6 new members, though it had received 63 appli-
cations. The assignment of port numbers is delegated to local
unions by the contract board, but the number of members the
local union inducts is at the local union’s sole discretion. As
credibly testified to by Johnnie Johnson, local unions request
port numbers in an amount equal to the number of members
the unions want to induct, the contract board’s productivity
committee then investigates the amount of work available in
the port and decides whether the requesting union ‘‘is justi-
fied to take these members in.’’ In short, the port numbers
are issued in a number equal to the number of new union
members the local union is permitted to induct. Respondent
Union clearly only sought port numbers in order to benefit
its own new members. There is no showing port numbers are
available to anyone but requesting unions, and the composi-
tion of the control board effectively guarantees that will be
the case even though the Association takes no part in the se-
lection of union members or those to whom the port numbers
are assigned. I am persuaded, and there is no evidence to the
contrary, that employees who are nonunion members, regard-
less of their qualifications, cannot obtain port numbers and
do not enjoy the benefits union members receive.2
Although the collective-bargaining agreement provides at
section 18 therein that the Employer is under no obligation
to hire employees through Respondent Union’s office, it also
provides at section 25 that if the ILA, and therefore obvi-
ously its local unions who are signatory to the agreement,
cannot furnish sufficient employees to fill the employer’s re-
quirements, the employer is free to employ other available
employees. It would seem from this proviso in section 25
that the first source of supply for employee hires is in fact
through ILA locals. That the employer-members of the Asso-
ciation do indeed treat the ILA locals as their first and exclu-
sive source for employees, absent the total unavailability of
union-supplied employees, is indicated by Johnnie Johnson’s
description of the hiring procedure as one in which persons
without port numbers are only hired after ‘‘all of the mem-
bers that have port numbers’’ and his advice that none of the
local unions in the Hampton Roads Shipping Association has
members who do not possess port numbers.
Most, if not all, of Respondent Union’s members belong
to work gangs composed of several employees and headed
up by a hatch boss. The hatch boss is both a union member
whose wages are controlled by the collective-bargaining
agreement and an agent for the Employer to the extent he
is responsible for assuring a work gang is complete and re-
ports to work. When employees are needed, the Employer
calls the local union and requests a specific work gang which
is then dispatched from the union hall by a dispatcher located
there, who is a union member but is employed by the Asso-
ciation. If the work gang is missing a member or additional
employees are needed, it is the responsibility of the hatch
boss to secure the necessary employees from the dispatcher
in the union hall. The hatch boss has independent discretion
in selecting the members of his work gang, but I conclude
that discretion does not permit ignoring the priority status of
port number holders. Employees without port numbers, and
thus nonunion members, are not dispatched until all union
members with port numbers have been offered jobs.
The six employees selected for membership in the spring
of 1993 were Terrence Hinton, Kerry Wooden, Randall
Pugh, James Penn, Andrew Jones, and Michelle Hardy. The
fathers of Hinton, Wooden, Pugh, and Jones are employee-
members of Respondent Union. The father of Hinton, Robert
Hinton, was a member of the 3-man selection committee ap-
pointed by Respondent Union’s president, William A. Tuck-
er, to select 6 members from the 63 applicants. Penn’s broth-
er is an employee-member of Respondent Union. Hardy has
no relative who is a member of Respondent Union, but was
811LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 846 (VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS)
3 Leonard refers to the selection committee as the hiring com-
mittee.
4 Secs. 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) read, in relevant part as follows:
Sec. 8.[§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall
be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
. . . .
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization.
. . . .
(b) [Unfair labor practices by labor organization] It shall be
an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
. . . .
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) or to dis-
criminate against an employee with respect to whom member-
ship in such organization has been denied or terminated on
some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues
and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of ac-
quiring or retaining membership.
5 Employees with port numbers are assured of a contractually guar-
anteed annual income at times they are unemployed.
6 Sec. 2(3) of the Act specifically provides the word ‘‘employee’’
is not limited to employees of a particular employer, and the Board
has long held ‘‘employee’’ includes members of the working class
generally and specifically includes applicants. See, e.g., Dave
Continued
recommended for membership in Respondent Union by the
president of another ILA local.
Tucker testified that he had no set criteria for the selection
of members, but he was concerned about assuring Respond-
ent Union, which has a predominantly African American
membership, was not discriminating against white people and
he so told the members of the selection committee. He also
told them he wanted no riffraff or persons with a felony
record but wanted members who had families and cared for
them. There were no written guidelines for the committee to
follow. According to Tucker, it was the committee’s respon-
sibility to examine all the applications and select the persons
it thought best qualified for the work. He does, however,
state that the contract requires an employee to be able to
drive a forklift and other machinery and to have a driver’s
license to so do. Tucker took no part in the selection until
the selection committee presented to Respondent’s executive
board a list of 6 applicants it had selected from the list of
63 applicants. Ascertaining that all six applicants were black,
Tucker rejected the list and directed the selection committee
to go back and review other applications and to then present
a racially mixed list to Respondent’s executive board. The
selection committee then came up with a list of applicants
including a white male and a white female. The white male
withdrew his application and the white female, Hardy, was
taken into membership and assigned a port number.
The Respondent Union’s vice president, Roy Leonard,
chaired the selection committee.3 Leonard agrees with Tuck-
er that the committee was required to consider hiring a white
male and a white female, and that work experience and po-
lice record were also criteria to be considered. Leonard testi-
fied that ‘‘probably quite a few’’ of the applicants were re-
lated to members of Respondent Union due to the area in
which they all lived, that ‘‘probably some sons’’ of members
were rejected, and that the committee did not consider family
relationships in its selection. He further recalls that when the
applications had been reduced to 15, there was 1 white male
and 4 white females on the list, and he was aware that 4 of
the 15 listed were related to members. The four so related
were Terrence Hinton, Kerry Wooden, Randall Pugh, and
Andrew Jones, all of whom were in the final six selected and
who became members. James Jones, the Charging Party in
this proceeding, was included on the list of 15 applicants
and, according to Leonard, is the next person, after the 6 se-
lected, who would be received in membership. Nicholas
Banks, another applicant who is named in the complaint and
testified before me, was not included on the list. Leonard
took this list to several hatch bosses and asked who they pre-
ferred to have in their work gangs. Leonard concedes that
perhaps all 63 applicants are qualified to do the work, there
were no written criteria regarding qualifications, and none of
the 6 selected had driver’s licenses when they became mem-
bers, but were then sent to driver’s school to obtain driver’s
licenses. None of the applicants received personal interviews
before acceptance into membership.
C. Conclusions
Respondent Union and employer-members of the Associa-
tion are maintaining a practice that establishes Respondent
Union as a sole and exclusive source of employees for hire,
gives preference to port number holders, i.e., union members,
and therefore encourages union membership. Employer dis-
crimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment in order to encourage union
membership violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. There is no
charge or complaint before me that either the Association or
its employer-members have violated the Act. I therefore
make no finding the Association or its employer-members
have so done. Nevertheless, the Act also provides a union
violates Section 8(b)(2) of the Act if it causes or attempts
to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4 By taking part in a
practice that limits the grant of port numbers to its members,
Respondent Union has caused employer-members of the As-
sociation to grant preferential hiring rights exclusively to Re-
spondent Union’s members, effectively guaranteeing them
lifetime employment5 and fringe benefits, and thereby dis-
criminating against nonmembers, which obviously reasonably
tends to encourage membership in Respondent Union and is
forbidden by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. By so doing, Re-
spondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
What we have here is akin to a closed shop which makes
union membership a precondition of preferential employ-
ment, and ought not be countenanced. Another violation of
Section 8(b)(2) flows from the complete integration of the
assignment of port numbers with membership so that one
may not be gained without the other. Thus the grant of mem-
bership by its close tie to the issuance of port numbers be-
comes directly related to employment and the terms and con-
ditions thereof, and is a direct and obligatory requirement for
the assignment of a port number, which requirement causes
an employer to discriminate against employees with respect
to whom membership has been denied on grounds other than
failure to pay periodic dues or initiation fees uniformly re-
quired as a condition of acquiring membership.
The General Counsel alleges and argues that Respondent
Union should also be found in violation of the Act for failing
to grant membership to some employees6 for unfair, arbi-
812 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Castellino & Sons, 277 NLRB 453, 459 (1985); Consolidation Coal
Co., 266 NLRB 670, 673 (1983).
7 The Act states under Sec. 8:
(b) [Unfair labor practices by labor organization] It shall be
an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 [section 157 of this title]: Pro-
vided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor
organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the ac-
quisition or retention of membership therein.
8 Douglas Aircraft Co., 307 NLRB 536, 558 (1992).
9 Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB 181 (1962); Vaca v. Sipes, 386
U.S. 171 (1967).
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
11 Under New Horizons, interest on and after January 1, 1987, is
computed at the ‘‘short-term Federal rate’’ for the underpayment of
taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621.
trary, and invidious reasons and for failing and refusing to
maintain an objective standard to apply to applicants for
membership in Respondent Union. There are no written
guidelines to follow in evaluating membership applications,
nor do there appear to be any firm objective criteria for that
evaluation. Apart from Respondent Union’s president, Tuck-
er’s injunction to avoid racial discrimination and the admis-
sion of felons or riffraff, a descriptive term with no apparent
objective standard, there was no objective checklist of rea-
sons or anything similar to be followed. The selection com-
mittee, in the person of Respondent Union’s chairman, Roy
Leonard, conferred with hatch bosses concerning which ap-
plicants they would prefer in their work gangs, hardly an ob-
jective standard. No applicants were interviewed, none of
those selected then had the driver’s license Tucker asserts is
necessary for the work involved, and Leonard’s concession
that all of the applicants might have been qualified to do the
work reveals an absence of any significant inquiry into the
applicants’ comparative qualifications. That there was also at
least a hint of nepotism in the selection is suggested by
Leonard’s comment he was aware that 4 of the final 15 ap-
plicants were related to Respondent Union’s members, to-
gether with the fact that the 4 he referred to were all selected
for membership, as was a fifth who was also related to 1 of
Respondent Union’s members. Respondent Union has not
shown by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it in
fact has established objective standards it applies to member-
ship applications. The evidence in fact indicates it has not
done so. I am persuaded that the selection, apart from the ef-
fort to create a racially diverse group of six employee-appli-
cants, was purely discretionary based in major part on sub-
jective opinions of hatch bosses and family relationships be-
tween the applicants and current employee-members. Accord-
ingly, I must agree with the General Counsel the selection
was arbitrary and unfair to those who were not selected.
Even so, Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act gives Respondent
Union the right to make its own rules with respect to the ac-
quisition of membership.7 That right is not, however, an un-
fettered right because its exercise must be for a legitimate
union reason and cannot be utilized to ‘‘injure any policy
Congress has imbedded in the labor laws.’’8
Although the Respondent Union is free to propound its
own rules with respect to the acquisition of membership, it
runs afoul of Section 8(b)(1)(A), as it did here, by utilizing
an arbitrary, capricious, and invidious method of selection of
recipients of port numbers, a method which also appears to
be tainted with nepotism, thereby breaching its duty of fair
representation and violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union, by attempting to cause and causing
an employer to discriminate against employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, has violated Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act.
4. Respondent Union, by causing an employer to discrimi-
nate against employees with respect to whom membership
has been denied for reasons other than failure to pay the
periodic dues or initiation fees uniformly required as a condi-
tion of acquiring membership, has violated Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act.
5. Respondent Union, by choosing individuals to be issued
port numbers in March 1993 based on unfair, arbitrary, and
invidious considerations, breached its duty of fair representa-
tion in the assignment of port numbers and thereby violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The above violations of the Act are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondent Union, International Longshoremen’s As-
sociation, Local 846, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Conditioning the grant of port numbers on the acquisi-
tion of membership in Respondent Union.
(b) Choosing individuals to receive port numbers on the
basis of unfair, arbitrary, and invidious considerations, there-
by denying other qualified employee-applicants employment
opportunities and various work-related benefits such as pen-
sion, health, vacation, and other benefits provided by the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the
Hampton Roads Shipping Association and its employer-
members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Select applicants for port numbers on the basis of fair
and objective criteria without reference to their union mem-
bership or lack of it.
(b) Grant port numbers to and make whole, with interest
as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987),11 any of the 63 employee-applicants denied
port numbers, and therefore the employment opportunities
813LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 846 (VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS)
12 The selection of those employees who would have been selected
to receive the available port numbers had appropriate selection cri-
teria been applied, is a matter to be resolved in subsequent compli-
ance proceedings. Longshoremen ILA Local 1426 (Wilmington Ship-
ping), 294 NLRB 1152 (1989). All 63 applications, including those
of the 6 employees who received the port numbers, must be consid-
ered in this process and, if someone other than those 6 selected in
March 1993 is now selected on the application of fair and objective
standards, an appropriate assignment or reassignment of port num-
bers must be made to those newly selected as a result of this Order.
13 If 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
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
and benefits flowing therefrom, by the application of unfair,
arbitrary, and invidious considerations in the selection of
Terrence Hinton, Kerry Wooden, Randall Pugh, James Penn,
Andrew Jones, and Michelle Hardy in March 1993 for any
loss of earnings and benefits they may have suffered as a re-
sult of the Respondent Union’s unlawful conduct.12
(c) Post at its main hall or office in Newport News, Vir-
ginia, and its meeting place for members and users of its ex-
clusive hiring hall system copies of the attached notice
marked ‘‘Appendix.’’13 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being
signed by Respondent Union’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately on re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent Union
has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT condition the grant of port numbers on the
acquisition of membership in International Longshoremen’s
Association, Local 846.
WE WILL NOT breach our duty of fair representation or
discriminate against individuals by choosing individuals to
whom port numbers are to be granted based on arbitrary, un-
fair, or invidious considerations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed you by Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL select employee-applicants for port numbers on
the basis of fair and objective criteria without reference to
their union membership or lack of it.
WE WILL review the 63 applications for membership we
received in March 1993 and select the 6 employee-applicants
who would have received port numbers in March 1993 had
fair and objective criteria been applied, and WE WILL make
whole, with interest, any of these applicants who were denied
port numbers and therefore the employment opportunities
and benefits flowing therefrom by our use of unfair, arbi-
trary, and invidious considerations in the selection of Ter-
rence Hinton, Kerry Wooden, Randall Pugh, James Penn,
Andrew Jones, and Michelle Hardy to receive port numbers
in March 1993, for any loss of earnings and benefits the ap-
plicants may have suffered as a result of our unlawful con-
duct, and, if a person or persons other than these 6 named
individuals is selected on the application of fair and objective
standards, WE WILL assign or reassign port numbers to those
so selected.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIA-
TION, LOCAL 846