Longshoremen's Local 27

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LONGSHOREMEN 'S LOCAL 27 1141
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union and its Local 27, Port Angeles (Port Angeles
Joint Port Labor Relations Committee) and Morris
R. Bond . Case 19-CB-1691
September 7, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On March 19, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed
limited cross-exceptions and a supporting brief and a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge,' and to
adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondents, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
and its Local 27, Port Angeles, Port Angeles, Wash-
ington, their officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order as modified.2
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Administrative Law Judge: Based upon
a charge filed by Morris R. Bond on May 21, 1971, the
complaint herein was issued on October 13, 1971. The com-
plaint alleges that International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union and its Local 27, Port Angeles,
hereinafter referred to as the Respondents, or the Interna-
tional and the Local, respectively, violated Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act. Respondents by their answers deny
that they committed the unfair labor practices alleged in
said complaint.'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Port Angeles,
Washington, on November 7 and 8, 1972, before the duly
designated Administrative Law Judge. Appearances were
entered on behalf of all of the parties.2 Briefs were received
from the General Counsel on December 12, 1972, and from
the International and Local on January 15, 1973 .'
Upon the entire record 4 in this case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Pacific Maritime Association (hereinafter called PMA) is
an association which exists in part for the purpose of repre-
senting employer-members in collective bargaining with
various labor organizations, including Respondents.
Olympic Peninsula Stevedoring Company and Port An-
geles Stevedoring Company are, and have been at all times
material herein, employer-members of PMA with opera-
tions located at Port Angeles, Washington.
Annually, during the course and conduct of their steve-
doring businesses, Olympic Peninsula Stevedoring Compa-
ny and Port Angeles Stevedoring Company each separately
performs services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers
located outside the State of Washington.
Annually, employer-members of PMA derive aggregate
gross revenues in excess of $1 million and, in the aggregate
perform services for out-of-state and/or foreign customers
valued in excess of $50,000.
PMA, Olympic Peninsula Stevedoring Company, and
Port Angeles Stevedoring Company are employers within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' We find it unnecessary to, and do not , rely on the Administrative Law
Judge's second ground for finding a violation , viz, the principle set forth in
Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181, 185-188, enforcement denied
326 F 2d 172 (C A. 2)
For the reasons set forth in Kansas Meat Packers, Div ofAristo Foods, Inc,
198 NLRB No 2, Members Kennedy and Penello would not defer to arbitra-
tion in this case
2 As urged by the General Counsel , Respondents are ordered to seek
Bond's reinstatement with full restoration of lost benefits at any level avail-
able to them and not merely to press such a claim at the level of the Port
Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Committee
' In addition, Respondents allege as a further defense that the Charging
Party failed to exhaust the remedies provided under the collective-bargaining
agreement involved in this proceeding
2 The Charging Party entered his appearance pro se and the appearance of
a representative of the International was entered for limited purposes which
limitation does not affect the disposition of the case before me
3 There is no issue as to the timely filing of briefs
4 General Counsel filed an unopposed motion, which is hereby granted, to
correct the official transcript In addition, Respondents' motions were grant-
ed to reopen the record and receive as an exhibit the decision of an arbitrator
which has been marked as Resp Exh 12 General Counsel's opposition to
said motions is attached to said exhibit
205 NLRB No. 142
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondents , at all times material here-
in, they, jointly and severally, have been labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The principal issue in this case is whether or not Respon-
dents , by their conduct with respect to the deregistration of
Bond by the Port Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Com-
mittee on February 25, 1971, violated Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Background Information
During the time material herein, the collective-bargaining
relationship between Respondents and the employer-mem-
bers of PMA in Port Angeles was governed by the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement known as the Pacific Coast
Longshore Contract Document (in effect between July 1,
1966, and July 1, 1971). The parties to said contract docu-
ment are the International on behalf of itself and its locals
in California, Oregon, and Washington, and the Pacific
Maritime Association on behalf of its members. The Port
Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Committee, hereinafter
referred to as JPLRC, is organized and operated under
Section 17 of the said contract document. The pertinent
portions of said section are as follows:
17.11 The parties shall establish and maintain, dur-
ing the life of this Agreement, a Joint Port Labor Rela-
tions Committee for each port affected by this Contract
Document, four Joint Area Labor Relations Commit-
tees, and a Joint Coast Labor Relations Committee.
Each of said Labor Relations Committees shall be
comprised of three or more representatives designated
by the Union and three or more representatives desig-
nated by the Employers. Each side of the committee
shall have equal vote.
17.12 The duties of the Joint Port Labor Relations
Committee shall be:
17.121 To maintain and operate the dispatching
hall.
17.122 To exercise control of the registered lists of
the port, as specified in 8.3.
17.123 To decide questions regarding rotation of
gangs and extra men.
17.124 To investigate and adjudicate all grievances
and disputes according to the procedure outlined in
this Section 17.
17.125 To investigate and adjudicate any complaint
against any longshoreman whose conduct on the job,
or in the dispatching hall, causes disruption of normal
harmony in the relationship of the parties hereto or the
frustration and/or violation of the provisions of the
working or dispatching rules or of this Agree-
ment....
During the time material herein, members of Local 27
LeRoy ("Bud") Jagger, Rembert Carter and Harold Bullock
were the union members of the Port Angeles JPLRC. Jagger
was also president of Local 27. The employer-members of
the Port Angeles JPLRC were Perry Stockton, local manag-
er for Port Angeles Stevedoring Company, and William
Uphouse, local manager for Olympic Peninsula Stevedoring
Company.5 Carl Weber, an official in the Seattle office of
the PMA, served as the secretary of the Port Angeles
JPLRC.
There are three categories of longshoremen in the port of
Port Angeles who are dispatched under the contract. Class
A are registered men who are members of the Local and
who are dispatched first, class B who are not members but
who are entitled to be dispatched prior to the third category
who are called "casuals." Bond, who started working on the
Port Angeles waterfront in 1963 after he finished his school-
ing, became a class A or registered longshoreman in June
of 1965 and continued in that status until he was deregis-
tered by the Port Angeles JPLRC on February 25, 1971. It
appears that the effect of his deregistration was to deprive
him of the right to work as a longshoreman on the West
Coast.
Resolution of the Issues
Considerable evidence was introduced into the record on
two points: (1) Jagger's belligerent conduct and his hostility
toward younger men and Bond in particular; and (2) the
history of employer complaints against Bond's performance
as a longshoreman and with regard to his attitude toward
his job. In their briefs, General Counsel emphasizes the first
point and Respondents emphasize the second point. The
record establishes that both points are well founded.
With regard to the first point, it appears from the record
that Jagger can be characterized as an arrogant bully who
frequently challenged other men to fight, called himself the
"king of the waterfront," and referred to young longshore-
men as "punks," "war babies" and "long-hairs," among
other epithets. On the other hand, they responded with vari-
ous epithets, principally that of "pus-gut." It appears that
while often the exchanges of epithets were in jest, they were
also frequently in anger. As set forth later in this Decision,
Jagger not only treated Bond as he did the other young
longshoremen, but also because of certain incidents he was
particularly hostile towards Bond.
With regard to the second point, it appears that on a
number of occasions Bond was cited to appear before the
JPLRC on employer complaints for which he received disci-
plinary action ranging over the gamut of warnings, fines,
and compulsory layoffs. It further appears that in Decem-
ber of 1969, as a result of arbitration proceedings, Bond was
given 20 days off the work list and placed on probation for
6 months. It also appears that the arbitrator denied the
employer's motion for his automatic deregistration for a
similar offense (work stoppages) in the future. At the meeting
of the JPLRC on December 17, 1970, the meeting immedi-
ately preceding that of February 25, 1971, when he was
deregistered, the minutes disclose the following disposition
5It is noted that according to the minutes of the February 25, 1971,
meeting a T. Stewart was one of the employer delegates , but it appears that
he was not among those present at the prior or subsequent meeting . It is also
noted that he did not sign the minutes of the meeting he attended. No
significance is attached thereto or that he was not called as a witness.
LONGSHOREMEN 'S LOCAL 27
of complaints against Bond:
Employers' Complaint-Morris Bond, #67037
The Committee reviewed a letter of complaint
against Morris Bond, #67037, for his apparent indif-
ference, negligence and failure to perform his work
conscientiously, citing several instances when em-
ployed for longshore work, where Mr. Bond was direct-
ly or indirectly involved. In connection with this
general complaint, Mr. Bond appeared before the
Commitee to discuss the problems and the charges.
Mr. Bond stated he did not feel the charges in the
various instances were completely factual and felt that
he was being singled out because of his previous com-
plaints. He stated he has never deliberately disregarded
the Employers' interests or disposed of any equipment
or gear. He admitted that at times his attitude was not
the best. He felt this was brought about by what he
would consider to be harassment on the part of some
people. He admitted he was inclined to have a short
temper and he felt that, at times, personalities entered
into the problem.
The Employers stated they were concerned with his
future in the industry and they were concerned with the
safety of the men and the safety of the equipment uti-
lized by longshoremen. The companies stated to Mr.
Bond that there was no vendetta or harassment on the
job, as far as the Employers' [sic] were concerned, with
incidents that happened in the past. They felt he was
capable of operating the equipment and doing a good
job as a longshoreman. However, they feel if matters
continued the way they were he was building a rather
unenviable record that could have disastrous results for
him in the future as far as his registration was con-
cerned.
Following a lengthy discussion between Mr. Bond
and the Committee, the Committee agreed, and so ad-
vised Mr. Bond, that, as a result of his appearing before
the Committee and the discussion that had taken place,
the air had been cleared. With an improvement in his
attitude they felt the purpose of the complaint filed by
the Employers had been satisfied, and there would be
no further action taken on the complaint.
Bond had apparently been accused of three no-shows
(failures to report to the jobs to which he had been dis-
patched) which had occurred prior to the December 17
meeting but which were not considered until the February
25 meeting along with an accusation of a fourth no-show on
December 29, 1970, which was also considered at the Febru-
ary 25, 1971, meeting. It appears that the hostility between
Bond and Jagger became more intense as an aftermath of
the December 29, 1970, no-show.
A. The December 29, 1970, No-Show
Prior to his dispatch on December 29, 1970, Bond at-
tempted to "check out" by tacking a note to the door of the
dispatch office notifying the dispatcher that he would not
be available for work on December 29. It appears that
checking out is permitted if the notice is timely given. How-
ever, it further appears that Bond's notice was blown down
and was, therefore, not noticed by the dispatcher. On the
1143
morning of December 29, 1970, Bond came to the dispatch
office to pick up his paycheck. Following is Bond's credited
testimony as to what then occurred:
A. I went to the hall to get my check and they said,
"We got you for another $10 no show." I said, "No, you
didn't. I left a note. Didn't you get my note?" They
said, "We got you." I said, "Well, I left the note."
Q. Who said this?
A. The dispatcher.
Q. His name?
A. Wilcox. So, you know, I can't understand what
happened. I said, "I left the note on the door at 11
o'clock to check me out." I was getting nowhere there
so I walked outside the door and I looked and right in
the rose bushes which are there alongside the door was
my note. It had been rained on so I took it up and I
took it to the dispatcher and I said, "Here is my note.
All you would have to do is look and you would have
saw it." He said, "Well, you are really getting smart."
He said, "You write a note and bring it down, throw
it in a mud puddle and bring it in." I says, "When have
you ever saw me write like this?" I says, "Well, I had
a friend, by the way he is a very legible penman, write
the note." He says, "All we want is the $10 fine." So,
I took the note next door to Mr. Perry Stockton and
explained my story to him and he said, "O.K., Morris,
I will take care of it." So, I considered the matter taken
care of.
It appears, however, that the matter was not taken care
of, for approximately a week later Bond was advised that he
had been fined for the December 29 no-show. On February
9, 1971, prior to the union meeting Bond asked Jagger for
a hearing before the union executive board to review the
imposition of the fine. Jagger denied his request, stating that
leaving a note on the door was not an acceptable method
of checking out 6 They engaged in a heated argument in
which the usual epithets were exchanged. Jagger testified
that Bond challenged him to a fight which testimony is
credited. However, Jagger's further testimony to the effect
that he did not permit Bond to appear before the executive
board because his request was made only 3 minutes before
the general meeting was to start is not credited. Rather,
Bond's testimony is credited that he made the request ap-
proximately a half hour before the time for which the meet-
ing was scheduled.
It should be noted at this point that Jagger and Bond
knew each other for a period of over 15 years and that their
relationship during that time vacillated between friendship
and open hostility. It is further noted that at the time of the
February 9 argument their relationship was in a hostile
stage, apparently stemming from Bond's failure to appear
for a boxing match against Jagger (which Jagger had pro-
moted some 4 or 5 months previously) thereby causing Jag-
ger a financial loss. Thus, the February 9 argument further
intensified the hostility which previously existed between
the two men. It is also noted that the appropriateness of the
fine against Bond is of no moment in disposing of the issues
6 It appears that such a method had been frequently employed, but that
in the January 1971 meeting of the Union it was ruled out as an acceptable
method
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein, that the above incidents relating thereto are set forth
to explain the hostility between Jagger and Bond at the time
of later incidents, starting with those on the night of Febru-
ary 13, 1971.
B. The Incidents on the Night of February 13
There are several incidents relevant to the issues herein
which occurred during the night of February 13, 1971. On
that night , Jagger, Bond , and Richard Deane were among
those loading a log ship on the shift beginning at 6 p . m., and
ending about 2:45 the next morning. Jagger was working as
"hatch tender" and Deane as a "slingman ." About I a.m.,
a quarrel arose between Jagger (who was on board the ship)
and Deane (who was on the dock) over Jagger's criticism of
the way the slingmen were adjusting the sling on some logs.
They exchanged the usual epithets , and Deane told Jagger
to come down and do the job himself . Jagger left the ship
and walked over to where Deane was standing on the dock.
Jagger's testimony with respect to what occurred is as fol-
lows:
I went down on the dock to instruct him that those are
to be done and done right . There was a bit of an argu-
ment down there, a discussion , "You fat son of a bitch,
either get up on the ship or go on off the dock."
A. He grabbed me by my coveralls and I possibly hit
him. I do not remember. If I hit him I was backhanding
him to get his hands off of me. At that time he threw
me down on the dock. I got up. We had a couple words.
I went back up on the ship and we finished the night
out which was approximately another hour and a half
hour.'
Deane's version of the incident, which was corroborated
by other witnesses and is credited, is as follow:
A. I can't recall if he said anything at all when he first
came up. He swung and hit me on the righthand cheek,
the right side of my cheek. I stood there and asked him
if he knew that he could get a year on the beach for
fighting on the job. He told me he could stand it. He
hit me on the left check and hit me on the shoulder with
closed fists. At this time I had taken just about all I
could take and turned to Mr. Kalla [the crew foreman]
and told him he better get his boy back aboard the ship
before he gets hurt. I put my hands on his shoulders
and in a way of assisting him towards the ship and for
what reason he knelt down on the dock I don't know
yet. He got back up off the dock, walked back towards
the ship.
Bond did not witness Jagger's assault upon Deane, but
learned about it shortly thereafter from some of the other
longshoremen. Bond credibly testified that he overheard a
conversation between Jagger and another longshoreman,
Frank McCaslin, in which McCaslin told Jagger that "he
could get into a lot of trouble" for striking Deane and that
7 It is noted at this point that Jagger was not an impressive witness and the
above testimony, as well as other aspects of his testimony, was not convinc-
ing
Jagger replied that "somebody had to straighten that punk
out."
After the night shift ceased working Bond joined Deane
on the dock, and while they were together Jagger passed by
them. Jagger, Deane, and Bond testified as to what then
ensued. Based upon the credited portions of their testimony,
it is found that the following occurred: That Bond chal-
lenged Jagger to try to take three punches at him as he had
done to Deane; that Bond said he would "half kill" Jagger;
that Jagger replied, "why don't you go home, sonny," and
proceeded to his car; and that Deane and Bond followed
Jagger in Deane's car to where Jagger's car was parked.
Following is Bond's credited testimony as to what then
occurred:
A. We went over to Mr. Jagger, he rolled down his
window and started talking to us. Richard told him that
he could get a year on the beach. We got into a conver-
sation there. He said I was already in trouble for cuss-
ing him out at the union hall the previous week. I told
him he couldn't do anything to me for cussing him out
in the union hall. He said he was president of the union
and it was illegal for me to cuss out a union official. I
told him to go to hell. I told Richard, I says, "Let's go
down to the police station and turn him in for assault."
He said that is what he did when him and Harold
Bullock got in a fight, he ran right down to the police
station, so let's go do that. I turned around, Mr. Jagger
left, I got in my car and went home.
It further appears that during the course of the verbal quar-
reling Bond threatened to throw a beer bottle through
Jagger's window, but instead threw the bottle in the oppo-
site direction into the bay. Jagger drove away without fur-
ther incident.
C. The February 14 Meeting in Stockton 's Office
Later that morning Jagger talked to Carter (one of the
other union delegates to the JPLRC) and they arranged a
meeting with the local PMA delegates to the committee,
Stockton and Uphouse , which meeting was held about 10
a.m. that day. Following is Uphouse 's credited testimony of
what occurred at that meeting:
A. I believe the opening thing was Mr . Stockton
made it very clear this was not a formal meeting, this
was merely a discussion of what apparently was a bad
situation existing in the port and it was more or less a
Joint meeting to try and pin down problems and agree
to solutions. It stemmed around the description Mr.
Jagger gave of what happened , the incident that hap-
pened aboard a ship the night before concerning Mr.
Bond and Mr. Deane.
Q. Would you describe what you recall Mr . Jagger
saying in describing that incident?
A. He informed us he had been in an argument with
Mr. Deane and somewhere towards the end of the shift
which would have been 2:30, 3 in the morning, some-
thing like this, Mr. Bond sided in with Mr. Deane. The
two parties exchanged words. Mr. Bond threw down,
I believe, his gloves and coat and they walked down the
dock. Mr. Jagger stated he climbed in his car and Mr.
Deane and Mr. Bond in theirs . The latter blocked his
LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 27 1145
car, moved his car into position to block him. Mr. Bond
had threatened to throw a beer bottle through Mr.
Jagger's windshield and after further words they had
driven off, driven away from the point.
It appears that Jagger made no mention of his earlier physi-
cal assault upon Deane, and it further appears that Jagger
stated that he had no intention of initiating any disciplinary
action against Deane or Bond.
Deane testified that he heard about the committee meet-
ing and called Stockton the night of February 14. His cred-
ited testimony as to his conversation with Stockton is as
follows:
A. Well, I called him to find out if Mr. Jagger had
put any charges in against me and if he had had I told
him that I had some charges that I wanted to put
against Mr. Jagger. He assured me there wasn't any
charges put in by Mr. Jagger. So I told him if that is
the way it was going to be that would be all right.
D. The JPLRC Meeting on February 25, 1971
It appears that Jagger was not content to let the incident
on the night of February 13-14 drop. Some time between
February 14 and February 21 union delegates to the com-
mittee requested a meeting which was set for February 25,
1971. It further appears that it was principally for the pur-
pose of lodging Jagger's complaint against Deane and Bond
with respect to the aforesaid incident on February 13-14.
Weber, whose office is in Seattle, credibly testified that he
received a conference call from the union delegates request-
ing the meeting. His credited testimony with respect to said
conference call is as follows:
A. (Continuing) One of the members of the commit-
tee, at least one of them, advised me there had been a
situation involving Mr. Bond and Mr. Jagger, and I
don't remember the date, the specific date, without
looking at the record, on night side where there was
some threats of assault and verbal threats made, and
they wished to have a Joint Port Labor Relations Com-
mittee, and we did establish-agree to have this meet-
ing on February the 25th, 24th, somewhere in there, in
February, and Mr. Bond was cited to appear at that
meeting.
Leslie Bond,Morris Bond's father, credibly testified that
in the evening of February 21 Jagger stated to him that he
had talked to Weber "for an hour on the phone and it didn't
cost the union a goddamn dime"; that Jagger further stated:
"And we are going to take care of all of these punks." Thus,
it is concluded that based upon the union delegates' request,
principally that of Jagger, Deane and Bond were cited to
appear before the meeting of February 25.
It appears from the minutes of the meeting of February
25 that with respect to Bond and Deane the committee first
considered Bond's no-shows on the dates of November 15,
November 18, December 16, and December 29, 1970. It
appears that in each case the "Union advised" a penalty was
assessed against Bond and the employer delegates in each
case stated that it was "an acceptable penalty." 8
Thereafter the complaint against Deane was considered
by the committee. The minutes of the meeting apparently
reflect correctly what action was taken with respect to the
complaint against Deane. The pertinent excerpt from said
minutes is as follows:
Complaint-Richard Deane, #67048
Mr. Deane was cited to appear before the Committee
because of a complaint that had been filed with the
Committee involving his use of abusive and derogatory
language and threatening to assault a fellow worker on
the job. Mr. Deane stated it was his opinion that the
younger longshoremen are being harassed and called
names and this is demeaning to them and he retaliated
by calling names in return. Mr. Deane was advised that
it was the duty and obligation of the Committee to
investigate and adjudicate any complaint against any
longshoreman whose conduct in connection with his
work as a longshoreman causes disruption of normal
harmony in the relationship of the parties to the Agree-
ment.
The Committee advised Mr. Deane that they do not,
and cannot, condone such actions on the part of any
longshoreman; and it is their intention to see that ac-
tions of harassment and threats are stopped before the
situation gets out of hand, which could result in some-
thing more serious.
Mr. Deane was advised that because of his previous
clean work record this would go on his record as a
warning, but that they expect him to conduct himself
in a responsible, mature manner in relation to his work
as a longshoreman, and to improve his attitude on the
job, and his failure to do so could result in more severe
action by this Committee.
There was no mention made in the meeting of Jagger's
physical assault upon Deane shortly before the incident
which was the subject of the complaint against him. It is
obvious why Jagger made no reference thereto, and it ap-
pears from Deane's testimony that he made no reference to
Jagger's conduct which provoked the incident in order to
avoid arousing greater antagonism against him.
Thereafter, the committee considered the complaint
against Bond. The minutes apparently reflect correctly what
occurred at the meeting with respect to the complaint
against Bond. The pertinent excerpt of said minutes is as
follows:
Complaint-Morris R. Bond, #67037
Mr. Bond was advised that he was cited to appear
before the Committee because of a complaint regis-
tered with the Committee, with respect to certain ac-
tions on his part on the job, involving threat of assault,
and use of abusive and derogatory language towards
Mr. L. H. Jagger. The complaint as stated by Mr. Jag-
ger was that Mr. Bond was working in the hold in
Jagger's gang on the night shift, February 13, 1971. At
the end of the shift, as the men came off the vessel, Mr.
Bond approached Mr. Jagger on the dock and threw
his hat and gloves on the dock, challenging Mr. Jagger
to a fight using threatening and abusive language. Mr.
8 In each of the first three cases Bond was assessed a fine of $12 50, and
in the last case a penalty of $20 and 24 hours off the work list The last
no-show involved the "checkout" which was tacked to the dispatch door
(more fully set forth hereinabove)
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jagger said he ignored him and told him to go home.
Mr. Jagger then proceeded to his car, at which time Mr.
Bond got into his car along with another longshoreman
and blocked Mr. Jagger's car. He again challenged Jag-
ger to get out of his car and fight. Mr. Bond threatened
to throw a beer bottle, which he had in his hand,
through Mr. Jagger's windshield.
Mr. Jagger referred to other instances where both on
thejob, and at Union meetings, Mr. Bond h[ad] threat-
ened him with assault and used abusive and harassing
language. Mr. Jagger further stated that there had been
other instances where other hatch tenders had been
threatened and abused by Mr. Bond on the job.
Mr. Bond stated that he has had a personality con-
flict on and off with Mr. Jagger. He admitted he had
threatened Mr. Jagger, but also he was in turn threat-
ened. He denied that any of these actions took place on
the job. He did admit that he had had words with Mr.
Jagger on the dock and in the parking area. He stated
there was less than the truth to some of the statements
made by Mr. Jagger. Mr. Bond stated that he feels that
he has been harassed because of numerous past inci-
dents in which he has been involved, and he did not like
to be referred to as a "punk" or a "kid," and he stated
his only wish when he is on the job is to be left alone.
At this time Mr. Bond was temporarily excused from
the meeting. The Committee then reviewed this most
recent complaint. The Committee, as well, reviewed
Mr. Bond's work record, noting that he has been found
guilty of numerous complaints in the past several years,
and further noting that in the meeting of December 17,
1970, Mr. Bond appeared before the Committee, at
which time he was warned that if he did not improve
both his attitude and his conduct in connection with his
work as a longshoreman, but continued, what the Com-
mittee considered, his irresponsible manner and bad
conduct, his registration status could be affected.
The Committee agreed that in view of Mr. Bond's
past work record, and the warnings which had been
given him, that he would be deregistered effective Feb-
ruary 25, 1971.
At this time, Mr. Bond was re-admitted to the meet-
ing, and he was advised of the Committee's decision to
drop him from the registered list because it is their
opinion he is guilty of deliberate bad conduct in con-
nection with his work as a longshoreman and because
of the deliberate repeated offenses for which he has
been found guilty. He was further advised that under
the terms of the Contract he could appeal the decision
of this Committee by filing in writing a grievance with
the Committee, at which time a meeting of the Com-
mittee would be set to investigate his grievance.
It is found from credited testimony that Bond first request-
ed a postponement to give him an opportunity to prepare
his defense, and also that he complained that he could not
receive fair representation from the committee with Jagger
sitting as one of the union delegates. It appears that one
member of the committee suggested that the committee
might wish to consider a lesser penalty than deregistration
for Bond. According to Carter's testimony, it was he who
made such a suggestion, but it is found, based upon the
credited testimony of Uphouse and Stockton, employer del-
egates, that it was Stockton who made the suggestion.
It is concluded that but for Jagger's complaint against
Bond he would not have been deregistered. The minutes
show that he had been penalized for his no-shows, and it is
inferred that, if there had been nothing more, action against
Bond would have ended there. However, the committee
then proceeded to consider Jagger's charges against Bond
and it appears that Jagger's charges against Bond are what
precipitated Bond's deregistration. It is inferred that it was
the union delegates, rather than the employer delegates,
who sought Bond's deregistration 9 and that the action of
the committee was prompted by a desire to appease Jagger.
As an additional but not an essential factor, it is noted
that the substance of Jagger's charges related to Bond's
conduct in altercations with Jagger on February 9 at the
union hall prior to a membership meeting and on the night
of February 13-14 after the shift had finished working,
matters which would not appear to be within the jurisdic-
tion of the JPLRC as specified in the collective-bargaining
agreement (section 17.11-17.125, set forth hereinabove).
E. Events Subsequent to the Deregistration
At the Local's membership meeting in March, Bond's
brother, Tom Bond, presented a motion which, in effect,
would have disapproved the action of the union delegates
to the committee in agreeing to the deregistration of Bond.
It appears that during a discussion on the motion Carter,
one of the aforesaid delegates, stated to the membership
that the union delegates had strongly opposed Bond's dere-
gistration, but that the employer delegates had been ada-
mant . This statement, in view of the findings hereinabove,
constituted a gross misrepresentation. (A secret vote was
taken on the motion which resulted in a tie vote.) Also, at
said meeting Robert Caso, a union officer who was present
at the February 25 meeting, moved that Bond be issued a
withdrawal card from the Local despite the fact that it had
not been requested by Bond. This motion was abandoned
after it aroused strong opposition from the floor.
On March 24, Bond appeared before the JPLRC and
requested that it reverse its deregistration action. The com-
mittee, again with Jagger among the members present, de-
nied Bond's appeal.
On May 19, 1971, Leslie Bond, Bond's father, circulated
a petition among the local union members appealing "the
illegal de-registration of our fellow worker, Morris Bond,"
and demanding "his re-instatement and re-certification."
The petition alleged reasons for the contention that the
deregistration was "illegal."
Within hours after Bond circulated the aforesaid petition
Caso circulated a petition titled:
WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY REMOVE OUR NAMES FROM
THE PETITION HEADED "SUBJECT-APPEAL FOR MORRIS BOND #67
037" WHICH, "DEMAND HIS RE-INSTATEMENT AND RE-CERTIFICA-
TION"
It appears that the names of the members who had signed
9 This conclusion is supported by subsequent conduct of the Local's offi-
cials with respect to attempts to reverse Bond 's deregistration (which conduct
is set forth herein).
LONGSHOREMEN 'S LOCAL 27
Leslie Bond's petition for Bond were typed on Caso's peti-
tion. It is found from the credited testimony that several
members who were asked to sign Caso's petition were told
by Caso that if they did not sign his petition it could cost
them a lot of money.
Both petitions were forwarded to the JPLRC and the
minutes of the meeting of the committee on May 20, 1971,
noted that they were received and that the committee reaf-
firmed its decision to deregister Bond.
The above-mentioned misrepresentation by Carter at the
March membership meeting and Caso's conduct in prepar-
ing and circulating his aforesaid petition lend support to the
conclusion that it was the union delegates rather than the
employer delegates who instigated the disciplinary proceed-
ings and sought Bond's deregistration. The union delegates
could not have been fairly representing Bond's interests in
the JPLRC proceedings in view of the subsequent strenuous
efforts of union officials to block a reversal of his deregistra-
tion.
F. The Question of Deferring to an Arbitrator's Decision
As stated hereinabove, Respondents allege in their an-
swers the defense that Bond failed to exhaust the remedies
provided under the bargaining agreement. By motions dat-
ed February 26 and 28, 1973, which are hereby granted,
Respondent International and Respondent Local moved to
reopen the record for the purpose of receiving a decision of
the arbitrator on an appeal of the International with respect
to the deregistration of Bond which decision sustained his
deregistration.10 Based upon the aforesaid defense and mo-
tions to reopen the record, it appears that Respondents have
impliedly moved that the Board defer to the arbitrator's
decision.
It does not appear appropriate to defer to said decision
for the following two reasons: (1) In view of Respondents'
potential liability (arising out of Bond's deregistration), it
does not appear that Bond could have been fairly repre-
sented by the International in the arbitration proceeding,
Kansas Meat Packers, 198 NLFB No. 2; 11 and (2) it appears
that the arbitrator reviewed the record of the deregistration
action primarily to determine whether the penalty was "too
severe" under the contract. It is apparent that the arbitrator
did not have the opportunity of reviewing many of the facts
which were elicited in the proceeding before me. Further-
more, the primary issue in this proceeding is not whether the
deregistration was too severe under the contract, but wheth-
er the conduct of the Respondents' agents with respect to
the action of deregistration constituted unfair labor practic-
es within the meaning of the Act, an issue which, of course,
was not before the arbitrator. Thus, this is an additional
basis for concluding that it would be inappropriate to defer
to the aforesaid arbitrator's decision. Ford Motor Company,
131 NLRB 1462, 1463; Fleet Distributing Service, Inc., 200
NLRB No. 35.
10 It appears from the record that Bond's is the only case in which the Port
Angeles JPLRC applied such a drastic penalty as a disciplinary measure.
1 It is, of course, obvious that the PMA would strongly oppose the appeal
for the same reason
1147
G. Concluding Findings
It is concluded that by the conduct of the union delegates
to the Port Angeles JPLRC, particularly that of Jagger,
leading to the deregistration of Bond, Respondents Interna-
tional and Local 27 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act, inasmuch as said delegates were acting as agents of
both Local 27 and the International. 12
There are two legal principles of which either or both
would support the above conclusion.
(1) The Board has held that the discharge of an employee
is discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act when it is motivated by an attempt to "mollify" a
labor organization or one of its officials and, therefore, the
labor organization causing such action has violated Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. Local 1070, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (B. W. Horn Com-
pany), 137 NLRB 439, 442, and Hod Carriers' and
Construction Laborers' Local 300 (Desert Pipeline Construc-
tion Co.), 145 NLRB 1674, 1678. It has been found herein
that the union delegates, particularly Jagger, acted in con-
cert 13 to cause disciplinary proceedings to be brought
against Bond resulting in his deregistration and that the
employer delegates acceded to disciplining him based upon
Jagger's charges in order to appease or mollify the union
delegates, particularly Jagger. Consequently, the above-cit-
ed cases are precedent for the finding that the Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
(2) The finding of said violations is also supported by the
principle set forth in Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140
NLRB 181, 185-188, which holds that a labor organization
when acting in a statutory representative capacity violates
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by taking action against an em-
ployee in derogation of his employee status upon consider-
ations which are "irrelevant, invidious, or unfair." The
instigation by the union delegates, particularly Jagger, of
contractual disciplinary proceedings against Bond because
of Jagger's antagonism toward Bond and their causing his
deregistration by the JPLRC constitute "irrelevant, invidi-
ous, or unfair" conduct within the meaning of the Miranda
doctrine. Consequently, said Miranda case furnishes further
legal support for the conclusion that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
The above conclusions should in no way be construed as
condoning the belligerent conduct of Bond.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondents set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of the Employers, described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
I2 The collective-bargaining agreement under which the JPLRC operated
was between the PMA and the International It appears from section 17 11
of that said agreement that the delegates of said committee are designated
by the "Union," ostensibly the International It appears further that as dele-
gates the union members of the committee act not only on behalf of the
International but on behalf of the Local, as well, in its administration of the
collective-bargaining agreement
13 By their conference call to Weber they arranged the February 25 meet-
ing of the JPLRC to consider disciplining Bond for the charges presented by
Jagger
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fic, and commerce among the several states, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents have engaged
in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Although it has been found hereinabove that Respon-
dents unlawfully caused Morris Bond to lose his employ-
ment on the waterfront as a longshoreman, it would not
appear that all of the elements of the conventional remedy
can be ordered herein because of the unusual circumstanc-
es. It cannot be ordered that he be reregistered and restored
to his former status as a class A longshoreman since it
requires the consent of said employer-members of the
JPLRC and not being parties to this proceeding they cannot
be ordered to accede thereto. The General Counsel has not
cited any case which furnishes a precedent, and research has
failed to reveal any such case. Consequently, it appears that
a remedy need be fashioned to require Respondents to take
all action within their power to accomplish Bond' s reregis-
tration and restoration to his former status.
Therefore, it will be recommended that Respondents be
ordered to attempt to persuade the employer-members of
the JPLRC to agree to Bond's reregistration and restoration
to his former status with the full rights and seniority he
would have enjoyed had he not been deregistered and to
pursue that attempt in good faith and with full vigor includ-
ing the resubmission to arbitration an appeal from Bond's
deregistration (if it can be obtained) in light of the findings
of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein.
It will be further recommended that Respondents, jointly
and severally, be ordered to make Bond whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered as the result of his loss of
employment as a longshoreman in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, togeth-
er with 6-percent interest thereon in accordance with Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, between the date
he was deregistered and the date on which Bond is reregis-
tered and restored to his former status or Respondents have
completely exhausted all reasonable efforts to accomplish
that result.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
ORDER
Respondents International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union and its Local 27, Port Angeles,
their officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instigating disciplinary proceedings before the Port
Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Committee against any
longshoreman because of the personal antagonism against
him of one of their officers, agents, or representatives.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause employer-members of
the Port Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Committee to
agree to discipline a longshoreman because of charges so
instigated.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing longshoremen in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Attempt in good faith and with full vigor to persuade
the employer-members of the Port Angeles Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee to agree to Bond's reregistration and
restoration to his former status with the full rights and sen-
iority he would have enjoyed had he not been deregistered,
as set forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The Reme-
dy. 11
(b) Jointly and severally make Morris Bond whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his
deregistration in the manner set forth in the section herein-
above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all dispatch records
and other records containing information concerning their
obligation under this recommended Order to make Morris
Bond whole.
(d) Post at their business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by authorized rep-
resentatives of Respondents, be posted by them immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to their members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, with 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
By the conduct of their agents in instigating disciplinary
proceedings against Morris Bond before the Port Angeles
Joint Port Labor Relations Committee because of the per-
sonal antagonism of one of said agents against Bond and
causing the employer-members of said committee to agree
to his deregistration, Respondents violated Section 8(b)(2)
and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law,
upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 14
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
15 In the event that the Board's 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 "
LONGSHOREMEN 'S LOCAL 27
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT instigate disciplinary proceedings before
the Port Angeles Joint Port Labor Relations Commit-
tee against any longshoreman because of the personal
antagonism against him of one of our officers, agents,
or representatives.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause employer-
members of the Port Angeles Joint Port Labor Rela-
tions Committee to agree to discipline a longshoreman
because of charges so instigated.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce longshoremen in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL attempt in good faith and with full vigor to
persuade the employer-members of the Port Angeles
Joint Port Labor Relations Committee to agree to Mor-
ris Bond's reregistration and restoration to his former
status with the full rights and seniority he would have
enjoyed had he not been deregistered by said commit-
tee.
WE WILL jointly and severally make Morris Bond
1149
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
result of his said deregistration.
Dated By
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION LOCAL 27, PORT ANGELES
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 1000 Republic Building, 1511
Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 206-
442-7472.