Pacific Maritime AssociationDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 17, 1968172 N.L.R.B. 2055 (N.L.R.B. 1968) Copy Citation PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2055 Pacific Maritime Association and Ira D. Henderson International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union , Local No. 13 (Pacific Maritime Associa- tion ) and Ira D . Henderson . Cases 21-CA-7480 and 21-CB-2858 September 17, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On February 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief 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 powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. The complaint alleges in substance that Respon- dent Pacific Maritime Association has engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and Respondent International Longshore- men's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 13, in conduct violative of Section 8(b)( I )(A) and (2) by giving preference in job referrals to "strikers" and "unemployed" over longshoremen using the casual dispatch hall operated by Respondents. Briefly, Respondent Association and Respondent Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agree- ment which provides for a jointly administered hir- ing hall system. Under this system, preference in hiring goes first to registered longshoremen, who are dispatched from a central dispatching hall. After the registered men are dispatched jobs are given to "strikers," the "unemployed," and "casuals," 1 the first two groups through so-called "runners" outside the registered longshoremen's hall, the latter through the casual hall dispatcher. In most instances, "strikers" and the "unemployed" have been dispatched ahead of "casuals"; in a few instances , the dispatch of available jobs has been divided between "casuals" and "strikers." In no in- stance, however, was the casual hall list exhausted before jobs were given to "strikers" or the "unem- ployed." There is no claim of any different treat- ment as between "strikers" and "unemployed." The Trial Examiner found that by giving preference in hiring to "strikers" and "unem- ployed" over "casuals," Respondents were giving preference to union members over nonmembers thereby encouraging union membership in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. We find merit in the exceptions taken by Respondents to these findings. There is no evidence in the record to support the Trial Examiner's finding that the "strikers" and "unemployed" were members of unions or that "casuals" were not union members. The record only indicates that "strikers" were engaged in strikes sponsored by unions and that the "unemployed" were employees locked out or temporarily unem- ployed because of a labor dispute. In fact, except in one instance, the unions sponsoring the strikes were not affiliated with Respondent Union. There is no evidence of the union membership status of indi- vidual "strikers" or "unemployed." The only evidence regarding the union membership of "cas- uals" is that 300 or 400 of approximately 9,000 "casuals" are members of sister locals of Respon- dent Union. Thus, the priority of referral involved herein has "strikers" and "unemployed" being referred before members of sister locals. We conclude that no Section 7 right has been violated. While preferential treatment has been given "strikers" over "casuals," the record also dis- closes that locked-out employees and others tem- porarily unemployed because of a labor dispute were also given such preference. Thus, Respon- dents have not given preferential hiring rights to "strikers" because of their concerted activity, for referral is not dependent upon participation in such activities. Rather, it appears from this record that preferential treatment was given, as Respondents contend, only because "strikers" and "unem- ' The "strikers" are defined as employees engaged in strikes sponsored ployees and others temporarily unemployed because of a labor dispute are by labor organizations against non-Association employers Locked-out em- referred to as "unemployed " 172 NLRB No. 234 2056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployed" are, on the whole, more dependable and better workers than "casuals." For example, the record shows that 60 percent to 70 percent of the "casuals" who sign up for work are not present when their number is called. In addition, even when the "casuals" are present and the dispatched from the casual hall, there frequently remains the problem of their not showing up or arriving late to work. Also, "casuals" sometimes sell the jobs they receive through the casual dispatch hall. In con- trast, these problems experienced with "casuals" are virtually nonexistent in the dispatch of workers temporarily umemployed by reason of labor disputes. Reliability is an important consideration, for, with the fluctuation in available work caused by the timing of the arrival of ships, it is necessary for Respondents to provide reliable longshore wor- kers to supplement the registered longshoremen during the peak manpower demand periods. Further, once employed "casuals" had poorer safety records than the "strikers" or the "unem- ployed." During the first 9 months of 1967, "casuals" had an average of 5.39 injuries per 1,000 man-days of work. In contrast, the "strikers" and "unemployed" had an accident rate of only 3.24 accidents per 1,000 man-days. In this connection, the record shows that there is no preference in the type of work assigned to "strikers," "unemployed," or "casuals." Finally, the record shows that more employer complaints are filed against "casuals" than against the "strikers" or the "unemployed." During the first 9 months of 1967, employers filed an average of 2.46 complaints against "casuals" per 1,000 man-days, whereas, employers filed an average of only 0.75 complaints against "strikers" and "unemployed." In short, Respondents have given preference to employees affected by labor disputes, regardless of the nature of such disputes, over union and non- union "casuals." The reasons for this preference are grounded in legitimate business considerations relating to the hiring of dependable employees. Thus, on this record, we do not find conduct which is either "inherently destructive of employee in- terests" or is motivated bye considerations proscribed by the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. P Compare N L R B v Great Dane Trailers, Inc , 388 U S 26 at 33, 34 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HOWARD MYERS, Trial Examiner: This proceed- ing, with the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel'), Pacific Maritime Association (herein called PMA), and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 13 (herein called Local No. 13), represented by counsel,2 came on to be heard before me on October 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1967, at Los Angeles, California, on the issues raised by the consolidated complaint of the General Counsel, dated June 9, 1967, and the an- swers of the Respondents. The consolidated complaint, based upon two separate charges duly filed by Ira D. Henderson on February 7, 1967, alleged, in substance, that, by giving preference in job referrals to persons en- gaged in strikes sponsored by labor organizations at non-PMA members' places of business over longshoremen using the casual dispatch hall jointly maintained and operated by the Respondents, PMA has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, herein called the Act, and that Local 13 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case4 and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION PMA, a nonprofit California corporation, main- tains offices and places of business at, among other places, San Francisco and Wilmington, California, and acts as the collective-bargaining representative ' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appear- ing at the hearing Y Local No 13 was also represented by Jerry Plante, its president, and by John T Godfrey, its secretary-treasurer 3 On the same day, June 9, 1967, the Regional Director for Region 21, who, for and on behalf of the General Counsel, also issued an order, by vir- tue of Sections 102 17 and 102 33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, consolidating for the purpose of hearing Case 2I-CA-7480 and Case 21-CB-2858 'On December 4, 1967, the General Counsel, PMA, and Local No 13 each filed a brief Said briefs have been carefully considered Appended to PMA's brief were proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions , and recom- mendations hereinafter set forth. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2057 on a multiemployer basis for various concerns, en- gaged in longshore and stevedoring operations in the vicinity of Long Beach and Los Angeles, California, herein called the Harbor Area, as well as at other Pacific coast ports. PMA also functions as the wage paying agent for its employer-members, who are employers of interchangeable employees, among whom are: Argonaut Terminal Consolidated Marine, Inc. Cresent City Marine Ways & Drydock Co., Inc. Crescent Warf & Warehouse Company Crown Terminals Dan Hoge Crane Service Indies Terminals Company J. J. Tennant Jones Stevedoring Company Marine Terminals Corp. of Los Angeles Matson Terminals, Inc. Metropolitan Stevedore Company Ocean Terminals Outer Harbor Dock & Warf, Inc. Overseas Shipping Company Pacific Ports Service Company Seaboard Stevedoring Corp. Sierra Harbor Terminals Company Star Terminal Inc. States Steamship Company Westfal-Larsen Company Inc. Williams, Dimond & Company The employer-members of PMA do a combined annual business amounting in excess of $1 million in transporting goods and passengers between the State of California and other States of the United States and foreign countries. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is found, in line with established Board authority, that PMA is an employer within the meaning of the Act and is engaged in , and during all times material was en- gaged in , a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)and (7) of the Act and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 13 is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the employer-members of PMA doing business in the Harbor Areas. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Pertinent Facts For many years, Local No. 13 has been the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the workers performing longshore labor in the Harbor Area. Likewise for many years, PMA has acted as the collective-bargaining representative for its em- ployer-members located in, among other places, the Harbor Area. For many years past Local 13 (through its Inter- national) and PMA (or its predecessors) have en- tered into a series of collective-bargaining contracts covering the wages, hours, and working conditions for the longshoremen here involved. The contract now under consideration is known as the 1961-66 Pacific Coast Longshore Agreement together with the Memorandum of Agreement, dated June 8, 1965, and the Memorandum of Understanding, dated July 6, 1966 (herein cojointly called the Agreement). Pursuant to said Agreement, PMA and Local No. 13 have established and maintained a Joint Port Labor Relations Committee (herein called the Committee) for the Harbor Area. The aforesaid Committee is comprised of three or more representatives designated by Local No. 13 and three or more representatives designated by PMA. Each side of the Committee has an equal vote and its duties are, among other things, (a) to maintain and operate the dispatching halls; (b) to exercise control of the registered list at the port; and (c) to decide questions regarding rotation of work gangs and extra men.' At all times material, the Committee has main- tained and operated, and still maintains and operates, at Wilmington, California, a central dispatching hall from which full registered (Class "A") and limited registered (Class "B") longshoremen are dispatched (herein these persons are sometimes referred to as fully registered longshoremen and limited registered longshoremen, respectively, and collectively as registered longshoremen). All longshoremen using the central dispatching hall are assigned permanent individual registration numbers. At all times material, the Committee has main- tained and operated, and still maintains and operates, at Wilmington, California, a dispatch hall known as the casual dispatch hall for the dispatching of casual longshoremen (herein referred to as " casuals ").6 In connection with the maintenance and operation of such casual dispatch hall, the Committee has promulgated and published rules governing the dispatch and employment of "casuals." 7 The hiring and dispatching of all longshoremen from the two halls referred to immediately above, at all times material, has been done, and is still being done, in accordance with the provisions of ' In order to facilitate the carrying out of its duties , the Committee main- dispatching hall tains a list of registered Harbor Area longshoremen showing their registra - ' Neither Class " B" longshoremen nor "casual" longshoremen are Local tion status under the Agreement No 13 members 6 No "casual " is permitted to use the dispatching facilities of the central 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 58 2058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Agreement, which also provides: "All personnel of the dispatching hall, [sic] including Dispatchers, shall be governed by [the] rules and regulations of the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee, and shall be removable for cause by" said Committee. The expenses of maintaining and operating said dispatch halls are shared equally by Local No. 13 and PMA. Each applicant for casual work in the Harbor Area is required to prepare and file with the Com- mittee a written application for extra (casual) work as a condition of receiving an identification card entitling such applicant to utilize the facilities and services of the casual dispatch hall ahead of persons who do not have such an identification card. Said applicant must also file with PMA authorizations for payroll deductions as his pro rata share of the expenses incurred for operating the casual dispatch hall. Most longshoremen using the casual dispatch hall are assigned permanent individual identification numbers in series "G." Some others are assigned different identification letter prefixes. At all times material herein, a worker was permitted to prepare and file the application and authorization only after he had been dispatched from said hall, if he desired to obtain a "G" identification number.' The work performed by all harbor area workers doing longshore work as defined in the Agreement and the terms and conditions of their employment are governed by the Agreement and by the rules and regulations of the Committee. Officials of Local No. 13 have represented, and still represent, all such workers in grievance matters. No Harbor Area longshoreman is or may be em- ployed by any member of the Association without first having received a dispatch slip specifying, among other things, the date, time, and place of the job opening, or having otherwise been dispatched by a dispatch hall (as by dispatch of a gang of longshoremen).' The longshore work under the Agreement is distributed in work assignments, herein referred to as jobs. Jobs of registered longshoremen last from a part of a day to several days, and average about 2-1/2 days. "Casuals" or men who are not registered longshoremen are dispatched on a 1-day-or-less basis only. Employees engaged in strikes sponsored by labor organizations against non-Association employers and dispatched in the manner set forth below are referred to herein as "strikers." Locked-out em- ployees and others temporarily unemployed because of a labor dispute at establishments of non- Association employers are referred to herein as "unemployed" and are dispatched in the manner set forth below. Since at least January 9, 1967, waterfront work in the Harbor Area has been assigned in the follow- ing manner: (a) Employer-members of the Association notify the central dispatch hall of their daily requirements of workers. (b) Fully registered longshoremen are dispatched first and then, if any work is available, the limited registered longshoremen are dispatched. (c) After the registered men are dispatched, jobs are then given to "strikers," the "unemployed," and "casuals." "Strikers" refers to employees en- gaged in strikes sponsored by labor organizations, other than Local No. 13, against non-Association employers. "Unemployed" refers to locked-out em- ployees and other employees temporarily unem- ployed because of a labor dispute in which Local No. 13 was not involved. Jobs to be filled by "strikers" are given, at the central dispatching hall, to representatives, in most instances, of labor or- ganizations other than Local No. 13 and in some in- stances to groups of "strikers," for distribution out- side the dispatching hall to "strikers." The representative or individual receiving such dispatch slips for distribution to the "strikers" is referred to as the "runner." In most instances, "strikers" and "unemployed" have been dispatched ahead of "casuals"; in a few instances the dispatch of avail- able jobs has been divided between "strikers" and "casuals." In no instances was a casual hall list ex- hausted before jobs were given to "strikers" or to the "unemployed." (d) Jobs, if any, which have not been filled by dispatch of registered longshoremen or "strikers" are then given to the casual hall dispatcher at the casual dispatch hall. At the casual dispatch hall, dispatch slips are issued, if any jobs are available, to the "casuals" holding identification cards in the "G" series. As noted above, "strikers" are not permitted to go into or use the facilities of the central dispatch hall. Neither are they permitted inside of or use of the facilities of the casual dispatch hall unless they apply for and receive "G" identification cards. Each "striker," upon receiving his initial dispatch slip from the "runner" outside the central dispatch hall, writes his own name and social security number on the reverse side of said slip. He also prepares and files with PMA a written payroll deduction authorization as his pro rata share of the casual dispatch hall expenses. Likewise, the "striker," if he desires further longshore work in the Harbor Area, is required to prepare and file with the Committee an application for such work. Upon receipt of said application the Committee issues to the "striker" an identification number in series "Z" which is thereafter placed on his dispatch slip and used in the payroll procedure. In the written application for casual work in the Harbor Area, the "casual" applying for a job agrees e Before an applicant can obtain a "G" classification number, the appli- cant must have been dispatched from the Harbor Area casual hall on at least one previous occasion The Agreement also covers clerical dock employees PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION that such application is not a request for registra- tion as a permanent or as a probationary employee leading to permanent employment, but only for extra ( casual ) work; that is, such work as may be available after work had been assigned to all availa- ble registered longshoremen. Furthermore, applicants for casual work are ad- vised that they will not obtain welfare, vacation, pension , or any type of mechanization or any other so-called "fringe benefits" of any type under the Agreement. "Casuals" desiring to work on a particular day or night shift must be checked in before 7 a.m. Each "casual " checking in must work under the number assigned to him. If a "casual" refuses a job or "flops" 10 a job, he can not check in again until 3 p.m. During the first 9 months of 1967, 28,090 jobs were filled by "strikers" and "unemployed" while only 18,724 jobs were filled by " casuals ." On many days throughout said 9-month period large numbers of "strikers" and "unemployed" were dispatched while, on the other hand, no "casuals" were dispatched. Likewise, on many occasions when "strikers" and "unemployed" were dispatched at least 200 "casuals" were present in the casual dispatch hall waiting for jobs, but none of said 200 "casuals " were called for dispatch by the casual hall dispatcher prior to dispatching "strikers" or "unemployed" to jobs. Since about January 1, 1967, a substantial number of dispatch slips were issued to "runners" for labor organizations engaged in strikes or labor disputes in various industries in southern California and in Arizona. Among such labor organizations receiving such slips , through their respective "run- ners" or other representatives, together with the names of the employers against whom or the indus- try in which such strikes took place or are taking place, are: United Automobile Workers-Ford Motor Company United Rubber Workers-The B. F. Goodrich Co. United Rubber Workers-The Goodyear Rubber Co. United Steel Workers-American Smelting and Refining Company Sheetmetal Workers Intl. Assn.-Neon sign in- dustry Teamsters-L. B. Foster International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor- kers-Brewing industry Intl. Chemical Workers-Copper industry in Arizona International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 26-Barth & Dreyfuss Other such labor organizations are: 2059 Retail Clerks Union Local 905 General Truck Drivers (Teamsters) Local 692 International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor- kers, Local No. 1 International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor- kers, Local No. 1710 Construction & Shipyard Laborers' Local 802 International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1484 United Furniture Workers Teamsters Local 196 Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific B. Concluding Findings The credited evidence, as epitomized above, clearly establishes that PMA violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and Local No. 13 vio- lated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) thereof by giving employment preference to union members (the "strikers" and those other union members idled by reason of labor disputes at their respective employers' establishments) over "casuals." This conclusion is founded mainly on the fact that the "strikers" and the "unemployed" receiving preference in job assignments were members of labor organizations engaged in labor disputes with the employers of the "strikers" and the "unem- ployed," whereas the "casuals," as far as here per- tinent, were nonunion members. It thus becomes crystal clear that a labor organization's ability to provide jobs for its members who become tem- porarily unemployed because of a labor dispute which is sponsored, or in which it was engaged, over nonunion persons through means, as here, of a hiring hall of another union, encourages member- ship in unions in the eyes of those preferred. In fact, such preferential treatment enables a union to risk a strike if it can demonstrate to its members that there is a good chance that the members would obtain employment before nonunion employees are hired through the hiring hall of another labor or- ganization . Likewise, such action of a labor or- ganization in securing preferential job assignments for its members to the detriment of the unorganized clearly indicates to the latter that union member- ship is prerequisite to preferential consideration for job referrals. While the Agreement is not under attack in this proceeding, PMA and Local No. 13 have adopted and carried into effect a practice and policy of favoring union-sponsored striking employees in as- signing jobs. Such a practice is clearly violative of the Act regardless of the contract language or the various reasons advanced by Respondents for adopting and carrying out such practices. Each Respondent contended at the hearing and in its respective brief argued that the complaint herein should be dismissed not only because it lacks 10 Meaning , losing the job for failure to respond when his assigned number is called by the dispatcher. 2060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD merit but also on the ground that certain named Board agents connected with Region 21 had ad- vised counsel for each Respondent herein in con- nection with settlement discussions in cases previ- ously filed against Respondents that Respondents' conduct would not be deemed unlawful , although an attempt to obtain agreement to refrain from such conduct was made . The record herein does not support such contentions nor arguments. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of PMA and of Local No. 13 set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of employer -members of PMA as described in section I, above , have a close, inti- mate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and , such of them as has been found to constitute unfair labor practices , tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that PMA has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices violative of Sec- tion 8 ( a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act and that Local No. 13 has engaged in, and is engaged in, unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)( I )(A) thereof, it is recommended that each of them be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Having found that each Respondent has dis- criminated in the hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of employment of the "casuals ," it is recommended that PMA be ordered to cease and desist from ( 1) discriminating against casual dispatch applicants for dispatch, or any other individuals using the casual dispatch hall seeking employment , by giving preference of em- ployment to persons engaged in strikes or who are temporarily unemployed due to union-sponsored strikes against the employers of said " strikers" or "unemployed "; ( 2) discriminating against any em- ployee or applicant for employment because of membership or activity in behalf of any labor or- ganization; and (3 ) in any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees including casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act . It is further recommended that PMA be ordered to establish new lawful nondiscriminatory standards by which " casuals" are dispatched to jobs with PMA members. Having found that Local No . 13 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(2) and 8 ( b)( I )(A) of the Act, it is recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist from : ( 1) discriminating against casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch , or against other individuals using the casual dispatch hall seeking employment, by giving preference of employment to employees who are engaged in union -sponsored strikes against their employers or who are temporarily unem- ployed because of union -management disputes; (2) from causing or attempting to cause members of PMA, or any other employer , to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; and (3) in any other manner restraining or coercing em- ployees , including casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch , in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act. It is further recom- mended that Local 13 be ordered tp establish new lawful nondiscriminatory standards by which "casuals" are dispatched to jobs from the casual dispatch hall to PMA members. It is further recommended that PMA and Local No. 13, jointly and severally , be ordered to make each casual dispatch hall applicant for dispatch whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of Respondents ' discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages , less his net earnings during the period of the discrimination. Loss of earnings and interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed and paid in accordance with and in the manner set forth in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole , I make the follow- ing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. PMA is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. 2. Local No . 13 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or the terms and conditions of employment of the " casuals, " PMA has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By giving preference of employment to em- ployees who were engaged in union -sponsored strikes against their employers and/or temporarily unemployed because their unions were engaged in labor disputes with their employers, over casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch, PMA has en- gaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or the terms and conditions of employment of the " casuals ," Local No. 13 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac- PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2061 tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. 6. By giving preference of employment to em- ployees who were engaged in union -sponsored strikes against their employers and/or temporarily unemployed because their unions were engaged in a labor dispute with their employers , over casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch , Local No. 13 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2). 7. By causing , or attempting to cause , members of PMA to discriminate against employees or appli- cants for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3), Local No. 13 has engaged in, and is engag- ing in , unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publica- tion.] Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation