Longshoremen Ilwu (California Cartage)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union; Local 13 , International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union; and Local 63,
International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union and Robert A. Curry
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union; Local 13, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union; and Local 63,
International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse-
men's Union and Pacific Maritime Association
and California Cartage Company, Inc. and Pa-
cific Motor Trucking Company
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union; Local 10, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen Union ; and Local 34 , Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union and Pacific Maritime Association and
International Cargo Services, Inc. and Rich-
mond Export Services , Inc. Cases 21-CC-1326,
21-CE-103, 21-CE-112, 21-CE-109, 21-CE-
111, and 21-CE-116
24 January 1986
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
ed by the International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion (ILA) and various employer associations re-
presentating east coast shipping lines in response to
the technological innovation of containerized ship-
ping. In remanding the east coast cases the Su-
preme Court held that the Board's definition of the
work in controversy was erroneous as a matter of
law.
On 26 August 1980 PMA moved the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia to recall its
mandate in Pacific Maritime Assn. v. NLRB, and to
remand the case to the Board in light of the Su-
preme Court's decision in NLRB v. Longshoremen
ILA. On 6 March 1981 the court remanded this
proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in
light of NLRB v. Longshoremen ILA. The parties
subsequently filed statements of position and briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The issue in this case is whether the Container
Freight Station Supplements negotiated by the
ILWU with PMA are lawful work preservation
agreements.
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 11 February 1974 the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in this
proceeding. The Board found that Respondent Pa-
cific Maritime Association (PMA) and Respondent
Unions violated Section 8(e) of the Act by entering
into the 1970 and 1972 Container Freight Station
Supplements, and that Respondent International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
(ILWU) and its Locals 13 and 63 violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by attempting to
implement the 1970 Supplement. On 26 June 1975
the Board's Order was enforced by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, without opin-
ion, sub nom. Pacific Maritime Assn. v. NLRB, 515
F.2d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1975). On 1 March 1976 the
Supreme Court denied certiorari, 424 U.S. 942
(1976).
On 20 June 1980 the Supreme Court, in NLRB Y.
Longshoremen ILA, 447 U.S. 490 (1980), remanded
Dolphin Forwarding2 and Associated Transport3 to
the Board for reconsideration of its earlier deci-
sions finding that the Rules on Containers and their
enforcement violated Sections 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(B)
of the Act. The Rules on Containers were negotiat-
1 208 NLRB 994 (1974)
2 Longshoremen ILA (Dolphin Forwarding), 263 NLRB 525 (1978), enf.
denied 613 F.2d 890 (D.C Or. 1979).
3 Longshoremen ILA (Associated Transport), 231 NLRB 351 (1977), enf.
denied 613 F.2d 890 (D.C Cir 1979).
1.
PMA is an association of employers who operate
marine shipping lines and marine terminals and per-
form stevedoring work in California, Oregon, and
Washington. The ILWU represents the longshore
employees and marine clerks employed by PMA's
members in a single coastwide bargaining unit. The
ILWU and PMA are parties to the Pacific Coast
Longshore and Clerks' Agreement which covers
the terms and conditions of employment of the bar-
gaining unit employees.
The advent of containerized shipping produced
sweeping changes in the cargo-handling practices
of the Pacific coast shipping industry. Before the
introduction of container technology, trucks deliv-
ered loose boxes or bundles ("break bulk cargo")
to the dock area. The truckdriver or his assistant
would remove the items of cargo and place them
on the "skin of the dock." The longshoremen
would then load the cargo aboard the ship. The
process was reversed for unloading the ship.
The "break bulk" form of cargo eventually was
replaced by the "unitized" load, whereby freight
would be stacked and bonded together on wooden
pallets. Under the practice that developed on the
Pacific coast, trucks would transport the palletized
loads to the dock area where the driver would
remove the freight from the pallet and place it on
the skin of the dock. The longshoremen would
then place the cargo on their own pallets and move
it to a dockside warehouse or directly to a landing
278 NLRB No. 20
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU (CALIFORNIA -CARTAGE)
area where it would be loaded onto the ship by
longshore personnel. Again, for inbound cargo the
process was reversed.
The practice of rehandling unitized loads contin-
ued until 1960 when the parties adopted the Mech-
anization and Modernization Agreement. This 5-
year agreement attempted to accommodate the le-
gitimate interests and needs of the ILWU and
PMA. Specifically, the agreement authorized PMA
members to use new equipment that would result
in more efficient cargo handling. The ILWU
agreed to cease rehandling palletized freight and
consented to loading trucks' "unitized or packaged
loads" directly onto the ship. In return for the
ILWU's relinquishment of make-work practices,
the parties agreed that all new equipment on the
docks would be operated by longshoremen. PMA
members also agreed to establish a mechanization
fund of $29 million to provide pension, retirement,
and unemployment benefits to longshoremen.4-
At the time the Mechanization and Moderniza-
tion Agreement was negotiated, containerization
was in its early stages of development. The modern
container -is a large, reusable metal receptacle rang-
ing in length from 20 to 40 feet and capable of
holding upwards of 20,000 pounds of freight. Con-
tailners can be moved on and off ships unopened,
and container ships have been designed to handle
large numbers of containers. In addition, containers
are designed to permit easy loading on specifically
designed truck chassis and railroad cars.
As the number of containers crossing the docks
intact increased in the 1960s, the longshoremen ex-
perienced a steady decline in the amount of on-pier
cargo handling. Another development led to the
further reduction of longshore work: the establish-
ment of container freight stations away from the
pier. Steamship lines, who own or lease the con-
tainers, contracted with trucking companies to stuff
and strip some of the containers. These trucking
firms, such as' California Cartage and Pacific Motor
Trucking, began operating off-pier container
freight stations with Teamsters-represented drivers
and warehousemen. Customers of the shipping
companies were referred to the off-pier container
freight stations where the containers are stuffed
and unstuffed.
The Board described the aftermath of these de-
velopments as follows:
As the decade of the 1960's neared its end,
the ILWU was concerned at the loss of long-
shore work to an extent not contemplated in
the 1960 Agreement, and therefore sought and
i The Mechanization and Modernization Agreement was extended for
another 5-year term on 1 July 1966. PMA agreed to contribute an addi-
tional $34.5 million to the mechanization fund.
221
obtained from PMA the so-called Container
Freight Station Supplements to their collec-
tive-bargaining contract. These Supplements
were executed on January 5, 1970, and Febru-
ary 10, 1972, and provided, in effect, that all
stuffing and unstuffmg of containers to be
loaded or unloaded from ships docking in Pa-
cific coast ports, except for shippers' loads and
door-to-door deliveries, was work to be per-
formed by ILWU members. The intent of the
1970 Supplement ' was to bring container work
"to the dock or to areas adjacent to the dock
on or before June 30, 1971." This would re-
quire shipping companies to cease subcontract-
ing container stuffing work to employers who
did not employ ILWU members and to estab-
lish, if necessary, their own container freight
stations on or adjacent to the docks within the
work jurisdiction of the ILWU.5
The Board found that the execution of the Con-
tainer- Freight Station Supplements violated Section
8(e), and that the application of the Supplements to
PMA employees violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B).
In fmding a violation of Section 8(e), the Board
first noted that the Supplements were not limited
to container work generated by members of PMA,
but extended broadly "to all containers entering or
leaving Pacific coast docks, whether or not the
owners of the containers are members of PMA and
statutory employers of employees within the long-
shore unit represented by ILWU."s Thus, the
Board found that the Supplements ran afoul of Sec-
tion 8(e) with regard to their coverage of non-
PMA shipping companies using containers on the
Pacific coast docks.
The Board next rejected Respondents' reliance
on National Woodwork Mfrs Assn. v. NLRB .7 The
Board disagreed with Respondents' contention that
they were attempting to ,preserve or reclaim work
that fell into the category of unit work traditionally
performed by members of the ILWU within the
multiemployer unit . The Board found that the
stuffing and unstuffmg of containers is work that
5 208 NLRB at 995. A shipper's load or door-to-door load is a contain-
er that has been stuffed by a single manufacturer or owner-consignor,
generally at a considerable distance from the harbor or port, and is to be
loaded directly aboard the ship and moved directly to the purchaser or
consignee The disputed work primarily concerns the less-than-full con-
tainer load, a container whose contents have more than one consignee
and generally more than one owner-consignor Shippers' loads, not cov-
ered by the Container Freight Station Supplements, represent 85 percent
of all containerized cargo work. The 1972 supplement focused on "con-
tainers originating in or destined for delivery within a Port Area CFS
Zone." A Port Area CFS Zone was designated as the area within 50
miles of a port.
6 208 NLRB at 995.
7 386 U.S. 612 (1967)
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has been performed both by longshoremen and by
other employees, including teamsters employed by
the Charging Parties. The -traditional work of the
ILWU was found to be the loading and unloading
of ships. Furthermore, the Board found that by
executing the Mechanization and Modernization
Agreement in 1960 the ILWU effectively bar-
gained away to a large extent the, make-work rights
claimed by longshoremen with respect to cargo
placed on the dock. The Board therefore conclud-
ed that PMA and Respondent Unions violated Sec-
tion 8(e) by entering into the Container Freight
Station Supplements . By inducing and encouraging
employees of PMA not to handle containers stuffed
by non-ILWU'labor, the ILWU and its Locals 13
and 63 were found to have violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
II.
As noted earlier, this case was remanded to the
Board for reconsideration in light of NLRB v.
Longshoremen ILA. There, the Supreme Court held
that the Board 's definition of the work in contro-
versy in Dolphin Forwarding and Associated Trans-
port was incorrect as a matter of law beacuse it
concentrated on the work performed off the piers
after containerization by the employees of consoli-
dators and truckers. The Supreme Court stated:
By focusing on the work as performed, after
the innovation took place, by the employees
who allegedly have displaced the longshore-
men's work, the Board foreclosed-by defini-
tion-any possibility that the longshoremen
could negotiate an agreement to permit them
to continue to play any part in the loading or
unloading of containerized cargo.8
Rather, the Supreme Court directed the Board to
"focus on the work, of the bargaining unit employ-
ees, not on the work of other employees who may
be doing the same or similar work, and examine
the relationship between the work as it existed
before the innovation and as the agreement pro-
poses to preserve it."9
The Supreme Court stated further:
Viewing the work allegedly to be preserved
by the Rules from the proper perspective, the
Board will be free to determine whether the
Rules represent a lawful attempt to preserve
traditional longshore work, or whether, in-
stead, they are "tactically calculated to satisfy
union objectives elsewhere," National Wood-
work, 386 U.S., at 644. This determination will,
447 U.S at 508.
9 447 U.S at 507.
of course, be informed by an awareness of the
congressional preference for collective bar-
gaining as the method for resolving disputes
over dislocations caused by the introduction of
technological innovations in the workplace
. . .. Thus, in judging the legality of a thor-
oughly bargained and apparently reasonable
accommodation to technological change, the
question is not whether the Rules represent the
most rational or efficient response to innova-
tion, but whether they are a legally permissible
effort to preserve jobs.' °
For a work preservation agreement to be lawful
it must (1) have as its objective the preservation of
work traditionally performed by employees repre-
sented by the-union 11 and (2) be directed at work
which the contracting employer has the power to
give to the employees.12
Under NLRB v. Longshoremen ILA, the first
question to be addressed here is the definition of
the work that the agreement allegedly seeks to pre-
serve. In the prior decision in this proceeding the
Board and the judge set forth varying descriptions
of the work at issue. We find that the work in'dis-
pute is the initial loading and unloading of cargo
within 50 miles of a port into and out of containers.
We turn next to the relationship between the
work in dispute as it existed before the introduction
of containerized shipping and as the Container
Freight Station Supplements propose to preserve it.
The record shows that the traditional and historical
work of longshoremen on the Pacific coast has
been the loading and unloading of cargo on ships,
including the unitizing of cargo to be shipped and
the breaking down of cargo units for delivery to
surface carriers. We find that when steamship com-
panies receive export cargo in break bulk form, the
work of stuffing that cargo into containers before
the containers are loaded onto the ship is function-
ally equivalent to the cargo-handling work former-
ly performed at the pier by longshoremen. Similar-
ly, when container ships arrive in port,' the work of
stripping import cargo from containers removed
from the ship, on behalf of steamship companies, is
functionally equivalent to the longshoremen's
former work of breaking down cargo units at the
dock pursuant to the unloading of conventional
10 447 U.S. at 511. In NLRB v Longshoremen ILA, 105 5 Ct. 3045
(1985), the Supreme Court held that the Board 's partial invalidation of
the Rules on Containers as applied to "shortstopping"-truckers and "tra-
ditional" warehousers was inconsistent with NLRB Y. Longshoremen ILA,
supra . The Court reiterated its direction that the extra-unit effects of a
work preservation agreement are irrelevant to the analysis
u National Woodwork Mfrs Assn. v NLRB, supra
12 NLRB v. Pipefitters, 429 U S 507 (1977).
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU (CALIFORNIA CARTAGE)
vessels. The tasks and skills associated with modern
container work are closely related to those associ-
ated with the on-pier cargo-handling work custom-
arily performed by ILWU-represented longshore-
men.13 We therefore find that the initial loading
and unloading of cargo into and out of containers
is the functional equivalent of the traditional and
historical work performed by longshoremen at the
pier. In view of the historical and functional rela-
tionship between the work covered by the Contain-
er Freight Station Supplements and the work tradi-
tionally performed by the longshoremen, we find
that the Supplements have a legitimate work pres-
ervation objective.14
NLRB v. Pipefitters established the second.crite-
ria to be applied to a work preservation agree-
ment-the right-of-control test. This test requires
that the contracting employer must have the power
to award the employees the work in dispute. As
the Supreme Court explained: "The rationale of the
Is In fact, the record shows and the Board previously found that in
addition to handling cargo in the conventional manner, longshoremen
have stuffed and stripped containers on the docks for years
14 The General Counsel, California Cartage, and Pacific Motor Truck-
mg contend that the terms of the Container Freight Station Supplements
do not reflect a bona fide effort to restore lost work opportunities to bar-
gaining unit employees , and instead are indicative of an unlawful second-
ary objective of increasing membership in the ILWU and enhancing
work opportunities of ILWU-represented employees generally . The par-
ties rely on the fact that the Supplements, as was the case with separate
agreements negotiated by the ILWU in the 1960s covering three contain-
er freight stations, establish new job classifications-"CFS Utilitymen"
and "CFS Clerks"-for employees assigned to the container freight sta-
tions, and provide for wages, hours, and working conditions different
from those contained in the Pacific Coast' Longshore and Clerks' Agree-
ment. It is further argued that despite the claimed loss of unit work re-
sulting from the growth of container freight stations,,and the 1970 Sup-
plement requirement that registered longshore employees be given first
preference in referrals to the container freight stations established pursu-
ant to the 1970 Supplement, the record demonstrates that the predomi-
nant source of manpower sent to the newly created stations was nonre-
gistered warehousemen , casuals, and members of other unions The par-
ties also contend that provisions in the 1970 Supplement stating that
"containers utilized by a steamship company for its own convenience will
be unstuffed by men working under this Contract Supplement" and "a
nor-PMA company operating a CFS facility may join PMA and become
covered by this Contract Supplement" constitute a "union signatory"
clause We do not find merit in the argument that the terms of the Sup-
plements exceed the'legitimate interests of unit employees vis-a-vis their
own employers Although the Supplements provide for different terms
and conditions of employment for,work performed at a container freight
station, the, record shows that that work is identical to that performed by
longshoremen on the dock. Some members of PMA have applied the
terms of the Supplements to container freight station work while other
PMA members have applied the Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks'
Agreement to,the work Thus, 'a longshoreman may perform container
work under the terms of the master agreement one day, and perform the
same work pursuant' to the Supplements!, the following day Employees
are referred to container work from a central dispatch hall. The different
terms and conditions of employment set forth in the Supplements were
not intended to create a new group of employees performing work differ-
ent from that traditionally performed by longshoremen, but were' offered
to provide some flexibility in the preservation of container work..Nor do
we find that the different sources of the,labor dispatched to the freight
stations establish that the Supplements have a work acquisition objective.
This fact is explained by a decline in the registered longshore work force
and resulting shortages that occurred at the dispatch hall As for the
union-signatory contention, we find that the clauses in question constitute
refusal-to-handle provisions which are discussed infra.
223
second test is that if the contracting employer has
no power to assign the work, it is reasonable to
infer that the agreement has a secondary objective,
that is, to influence whoever does have such power
over the work." 15
The containers are owned or leased by the
steamship companies. Those companies control the
use of the containers. The steamship companies
typically provide for the initial loading and unload-
ing of the containers by contracting with container
freight stations for the performance of this work.
The 'steamship companies refer their customers to
the container freight stations and charge the ship-
pers a tariff rate that includes the cost of container-
ization.
As noted earlier, the Container Freight Station
Supplements effectively require that all stuffing and
unstuffing of containers to be loaded or unloaded
from ships docking in Pacific coast ports, except
for shippers' loads and door-to-door deliveries, is
work to be performed by ILWU-represented em-
ployees. The Supplements apply to all containers,
whether or not owned by' or leased from PMA
members. Section 1.54 of the 1972 Supplement spe-
cifically provides that "[c]ontainers originating in
or destined for delivery within a Port Area CFS
Zone, which are to be loaded on or have been dis-
charged from a non-PMA member steamship com-
pany vessel, shall be stuffed or unstuffed by ILWU
labor employed by an employer signatory to the
PCL & CA or this CFS Supplement." The effect
of the provision is to compel PMA member steve-
doring companies to cease handling nonexempt
containers used by nonmember steamship compa-
nies which are not owned by or leased from PMA
members, unless such containers were stuffed or
are to be unstuffed by ILWU-represented employ-
ees. However, PMA does not have the power to
assign to bargaining unit employees the work of
stuffing and unstuffing containers owned by non-
PMA members. These nonmember companies are
not 'parties to the Pacific Coast Longshore and
Clerks' Agreement and their employees are not
within the unit represented by the ILWU. A non-
member shipping company may perform its con-
tainer work using its own containers with its own
employees or those of a nonmember subcontractor.
In this situation, 'unlike the situation in NLRB v.
Longshoremen ILA where signatory members sup-
plied the containers covered by,the container rules,
there would be no release of PMA containers to
nonmember companies. Such a distinction is criti-
cal in assessing whether the immediate employer,
here the PMA member, would have the power to
15 447 U S. at 504-505.
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
control the assignment of the work sought. In
NLRB v. Longshoremen ILA, the Board found that
the signatory employers could control the assign-
ment of this work by prescribing the conditions for,
the release of their containers to nonmembers.
Here, there is no showing that the PMA members
would have such initial control over any containers
nonmembers own. Thus, we agree with the Board's
previous decision that to the extent the Supple-
ments extend to containers which are owned by
non-PMA members or which have been leased to
such nonmembers from sources other than PMA
employers, they are an unlawful attempt to pres-
sure employers to cease doing business with com-
panies that do not employ employees represented
by the ILWU.
The General Counsel, California Cartage, Pacific
Motor Trucking, and Intervenor Teamsters Local
692 contend that the ILWU bargained away the
work in dispute for monetary compensation, and
the Container Freight Station Supplements there-
fore unlawfully seek to reacquire the work. This
contention is essentially based on the 1960 execu-
tion and 1966 renegotiation of the Mechanization
and Modernization Agreement and the work prac-
tices that developed with respect to containers in
the 1960s. The General Counsel argues that the
ILWU and PMA could have continued to deal
with the economic consequences of containeriza-
tion by contracting for additional compensation,
but instead executed the Supplements which un-
lawfully attempt to acquire work that the long-
shoremen had lost.
We do not agree that the ILWU bargained away
or abandoned the right to perform the work at
issue. The Mechanization and Modernization
Agreement of 1960, which ran for a fixed term,
eliminated certain work methods and practices as-
sociated with conventional cargo handling. At the
time of that agreement, containerization was in the
early stages of development. Longshoremen contin-
ued to perform container work on the pier during
the course of the 1960 agreement. The parties re-
negotiated the Mechanization and, Modernization
Agreement in 1966, once again for a fixed term.
During the course of that agreement the conver-
sion to containerized shipping accelerated. at a dra-
matic rate. This development included the growth
of off-pier container freight stations, where non-
longshoremen loaded and unloaded containers. The
ILWU responded to the expansion of the new
technology by securing the Container Freight Sta-
tion Supplements from PMA. The Supplements, as
previously found, sought to bring back to their
piers work functionally related to that traditionally
performed by the longshoremen.
In view of these circumstances, particularly the
limited duration of the parties' earlier agreements
and the timing of the rapid application of the new
technology, we are unable to find that the ILWU
permanently bargained away the right to perform
container work. We find that the ILWU ap-
proached the technological- innovation in a manner
similar to the nature of collective bargaining
itself-as an ongoing process. Thus, the 1960 and
1966 agreements represented an effort by the
ILWU to accommodate the improvements in
cargo-handling equipment. These agreements were
of fixed duration, and the parties' compromise was
modified in 1966 by an increase in the PMA contri-
bution to the mechanization fund. When circum-
stances changed following the 1966 agreement, the
ILWU pursued a different approach to the effects
of containerization. We find that the -ILWU was
not precluded from negotiating the return to the
docks of its traditional and historical work. In fact,
the ILWU's manner of dealing with containeriza-
tion illustrates the fact that the impact of new tech-
nology can often only be assessed over the course
of time. During this time the parties may adopt al-
ternative measures as part of their continuing effort
to reach a satisfactory solution. We find this, to be
the case here.
IV.
In conclusion, we find that to the extent the 1970
and 1972 Container Freight Station Supplements
apply to containers owned by steamship companies
that are not members of PMA, or which they have
leased from a source other than members of PMA,
Respondent PMA and Respondent Unions violated
Section 8(e) of the Act. By inducing and encourag-
ing employees of PMA members not to handle
containers stuffed by non-ILWU labor, regardless
of who owned the containers, Respondents ILWU
and its Locals 13 and 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act. Since the record shows that
Respondent Unions' refusal to handle cargo in an
attempt to enforce the Supplements was directed at
containers owned or leased by PMA-member
steamship companies , we find this conduct not to
be violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).16
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pacific Maritime Association and its member
companies, and the Charging Parties, California
Cartage, Company, Inc., Pacific Motor Trucking
Company, International Cargo Services, Inc., and
,16 Had Respondent Unions refused to handle containers belonging to
nonmember shipping companies, we would find such conduct to be viola-
tive
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU (CALIFORNIA CARTAGE)
Richmond Export Services, Inc., are employers en-
gaged in. commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2., Respondent Unions are labor organizations
within the meaning, of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By entering into, maintaining, giving effect to,
and attempting to implement the 1970 and 1972
Container Freight Station Supplements to the
extent that those agreements provide that members
of Respondent' PMA shall cease doing business
with nonmembers of PMA using the Pacific coast
docks to load or unload containers belonging to
nonmembers of PMA, Respondents engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(e) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. By inducing and encouraging individuals em-
ployed by PMA and its member companies to
engage in work stoppages or refusals to perform
services in the course of their employment with an
object of forcing or requiring nonmember compa-
nies to cease doing business with trucking, cartage,
or other companies not employing employees rep-
resented by the ILWU, Respondent ILWU and its
Locals 13 and 63 have engaged in unfair labor,
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act.
5. Respondents have not otherwise violated the
Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
A. Respondent Unions International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union and Locals 13
and 63 of the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's -Union, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Entering into, maintaining , giving effect to,
or attempting to ,implement in any way the 1970
and 1972 Container Freight Station Supplements to
the extent and in the manner those agreements
have been found to be unlawful.
(b) Inducing and encouraging any individual em-
ployed by PMA or its member companies to
engage in work stoppages or a refusal to perform
services in the course of his employment, where an
object thereof is to force or require nonmembers of
PMA to -cease doing business with trucking, cart-
age, or other companies not employing ILWU per-
sonnel.
2. Take the following affirmative action necesary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify all members of the ILWU that Re-
spondent Unions have no objections to handling
containers belonging to nonmembers of PMA that
225
have been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by an em-
ployer using non-ILWU labor in the performance
of these duties.
(b) Notify all members of the ILWU that any
previous instructions; requests, or appeals that Re-
spondent Unions may have made -against handling
containers belonging to nonmembers of PMA that
have been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by non-
ILWU labor have been withdrawn and are to have
no'force or effect.
(c) Notify all members of the ILWU that any
and all paragraphs - contained in the Container
Freight Station Supplements which limit, restrain,
tax, or prohibit handling, in the customary manner,
containers belonging to nonmembers of PMA have
been found to be void and unenforceable and are to
be stricken from the Supplements.
(d) Post at their business offices, meetings halls,
and all dispatch halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A."17 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by Respondent
Union's authorized representatives, shall be posted
by Respondent Unions immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Unions to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in - writing
within 20 days from' the date of this Order what
steps Respondent Unions have taken to comply.
B. Respondent Unions ILWU and Locals 10 and
34 of the ILWU, their officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall '
1. Cease and desist from entering into, maintain-
ing, giving effect to, or attempting to implement in
any way the 1970 and 1972 Container Freight Sta-
tion Supplements to the extent and in the, manner
those agreements have been found to be unlawful.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at their business offices, meetings halls,
and all dispatch halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."18 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by Respondent
Unions' authorized representatives, shall be posted
by Respondent Unions immediately upon receipt
11 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 Nation-
al 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 "
18 See fn. 17
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including -all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Unions to ensure that
the notices are not, altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director with signed
copies of the notices for posting by California Cart-
age Company, Inc., Pacific Motor Trucking Com-
pany, International Cargo Services, Inc., and Rich-
mond Export Services, Inc., or such of those em-
ployers as may be willing, at all places where no-
tices to their respective employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent Unions have taken'to comply.
C. Respondent Pacific Maritime Association, San
Francisco, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from entering into, maintain-
ing, enforcing, or giving effect to the 1970 and
1972 Container Freight Station Supplements to the
extent and in the manner those agreements have
been found to be unlawful.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify all company members of PMA that
any previous instructions, requests, or appeals that
Respondent PMA may have made against handling
containers belonging to nonmembers of PMA- that
have been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by non-
ILWU personnel are to be withdrawn and to have
no force or effect.
(b) Notify all company members of PMA that
any and all provisions of the 1970 and 1972 Con-
tainer Freight Station Supplements which have
been negotiated between PMA and the ILWU that
restrain, restrict, limit, tax, or prohibit handling, in
the customary manner, containers belonging to
nonmembers of PMA that have been stuffed, or are
to be unstuffed, by non-ILWU personnel have been
found to be void and unenforceable and are to be
stricken from those agreements.
(c) Post at its main office in San Francisco and at
each area office copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix C."19 Copies of the notice, on
19 See fn 17
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by Respondent
PMA's authorized representative, shall .be posted
by Respondent PMA immediately upon, receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent PMA 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 Respondent PMA has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not specifically found.
APPENDIX A
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered-us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or attempt to implement in any way the 1970
and 1972 Container Freight Station Supplements to,
the extent that those agreements provide that
member companies of the Pacific Maritime Asso-
ciation shall cease doing business with nonmember
companies using the Pacific coast docks to load or
unload containers belonging to nonmembers of Pa-
cific Maritime Association.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of
the Pacific Maritime Association and/or any of its
member companies to engage in work stoppages or
refusals to perform services in the course of their
employment where an object thereof is to force or
require nonmember companies to cease doing busi-
ness with trucking, cartage, or other companies not
employing ILWU personnel.
WE WILL and do hereby notify our members,
and other indivudals employed by the Pacific Mari-
time Association or any of its member companies,
that we have no objection to their handling con-
tainers belonging to nonmember companies that
have been stuffed, or are to be unstuffed, by an em-
ployer using non-ILWU members in the perform-
ance of these duties.
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU (CALIFORNIA CARTAGE)
WE- WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw
any orders and instructions given to our members
and other individuals , not to handle containers -be-
longing,^ to nonmember companies that , have been
stuffed, or are to be unstuffed , by non-ILWU mem-
bers.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION
LOCAL 63, INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION
APPENDIX B
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide -by this notice.
WE WILL NOT enter into , maintain, give effect
to, or attempt to implement in any way the 1970
and 1972 Container Freight- Station Supplements to
the extent that those agreements provided that
member companies of Pacific Maritime Association
shall cease doing business with nonmember compa-
nies using the Pacific coast' docks to load and
unload containers belonging to nonmembers of Pa-
cific Maritime Association.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION
LOCAL 10,_ INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION
LOCAL 34, INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREMEN 'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION
227
To EMPLOYEES - AND ALL MEMBER COMPANIES OF
THE PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT enter into , maintain, enforce, or
give effect ,to the 1970 and 1972 Container Freight
Station Supplements to the extent that those agree-
ments provide that member companies of Pacific
Maritime Association , shall cease doing business
with nonmember companies using the Pacific coast
docks to - load or unload containers belonging to
nonmembers of PMA. -
WE WILL and do hereby cancel and withdraw
any orders, or instructions given to any of our
member companies , PMA employees, or any other
individual not to handle containers belonging to
nonmember companies that have been stuffed, or
are to be unstuffed, by an employer using non-
ILWU personnel in ' the performance of these
duties. - -
-WE WILL and do hereby notify all our employ-
ees and all member companies that we have no ob-
jection to their handling containers belonging to
nonmember companies that have been - stuffed, or
are to be unstuffed, by non-ILWU members.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION