Pacific Maritime Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
Pacific Maritime Association and Checkers, Supercar-
goes & Supervisors Association of the State of
Washington, Local 52, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen 's Union
Checkers , Supercargoes & Supervisors Association of
the State of Washington , Local 52, International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union and
Patricia K. Teare . Cases 19-CA-5667 and
19-CB-1813
March 8, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 22, 1973, Administrative Law Judge James
S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents, Pacific
Maritime Association, herein PMA, and Checkers,
Supercargoes & Supervisors Association of the State
of Washington, Local 52, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, herein Local 52,
filed exceptions and briefs.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents, Pacific Maritime
Association, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, and Checkers, Supercargoes & Supervisors
Association of the State of Washington, Local 52,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in said
recommended Order.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring:
I concur in the result for reasons stated in William
F. Murphy, 204 NLRB No. 112, and my separate
opinion in W. J. Siebenoller Paint Co., 205 NLRB
No. 110. I do not adopt the rationale of the Miranda
' The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181 , enforcement denied 326
F.2d 172 (C.A 2, 1963); Houston Maritime Association, 168 NLRB 615,
enforcement denied on other grounds 426 F.2d 548 (C.A 5, 1970), Galveston
Maritime Association, Inc, 148 NLRB 897, Independent Metal Workers
209 NLRB No. 88
519
decision for reasons stated in my concurring opinion
in General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Union, Local No. 692 (Great Western Unifreight
System), 209 NLRB No. 52.
MEMBER JENKINS , concurring:
I agree with the findings and the conclusions of the
majority of my colleagues that the conduct of the
Respondents in refusing to permit the women in
question to use the facilities of the dispatch hall
because of their sex was based on irrelevant,
invidious, and unfair considerations violative of the
Board's Miranda doctrine.2 However, as discussed
below, I do not rely solely on the rationale of
Miranda.
In my opinion the conduct involved herein clearly
shows a nexus between the discriminatory conduct
and interference with and restraint of employees in
the exercise of rights protected under the Act.3 The
Union by denying the women the use of the dispatch
hall precluded them from receiving work referrals.
By such conduct the Union demonstrated in no
uncertain terms its control over employment and its
power to affect the livelihood of prospective and
other employees. The necessary effect of the Union's
actions was to encourage union membership on the
part of all employees.4 The Union's power was
particularly emphasized here since there was not only
no job-related basis for the discrimination against
women, but under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment the Union was obligated to operate the
dispatch hall without favoritism or discrimination.
Similarly, I find that the Union by its disparate
treatment of women tended to discourage the
membership of the women involved in the Union.. By
not permitting women free and open access to the
dispatch hall the women were precluded not only
from working as untested casuals, but from ever
obtaining the experience of being placed into a
higher priority job category which could eventually
result in their membership in the Union. Business
Agent Palmer admitted in his testimony that motiva-
tion for his expelling the women from the dispatch
hall under threat of police action was to prevent
them from engaging in concerted activity to protest
the Union's closed employment policies.
Accordingly, I find that the Union by thus denying
Union, Local 1 (Hughes Tool Co), 147 NLRB 1573 Cf. Local Union No. 12,
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers [Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co I v N L R B, 368 F 2d 12 (C.A 5, 1966), cert denied 389 U.S. 837
(1967), Vaca v Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 See also Airborne Freight Corporation of
Delaware, 199 NLRB 994, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied
Trades, Local Union 1066, AFL-CIO (W J Siebenoller Paint Company), 205
NLRB No 110
3 Cf. Jubilee Manufacturing Company, 202 NLRB 272
4 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, AFL-CIO
(William P Murphy), 204 NLRB No 112
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the women the use of the dispatch facilities and
employment as checkers, and by causing PMA and
its member companies to discriminate against the
women, further interfered with employees' and
prospective employees' Section 7 rights in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2); and that the PMA, by
participating in such action, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES S. JENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard before me in Seattle, Washington, on January 4
and 5, 1973. The consolidated complaint, which issued on
August 16, 1972, pursuant to separate charges filed on
February 22, 1972, alleges the Company and Union, in the
course of operating a jointly administered hiring hall,
through their joint agent, refused to register and dispatch
for employment six women because of the "irrelevant,
invidious, and unfair consideration" of their sex. By
maintaining such a policy, the Union is alleged to have
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), and the PMA to have
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Union filed
an answer denying that the jointly administered hinng hall
is an "exclusive hiring hall," and further denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices. While admitting
the PMA and Union operated a jointly administered
dispatch hall, the PMA's answer denies that employees are
dispatched by the Union, that Edward Palmer is an agent
of PMA, and the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The employer further contends, without recitation of
authority, that the Board is not the appropriate Govern-
ment agency to entertain a case alleging such discrimina-
tion. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear,
to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs.
Briefs were filed by each Respondent and the General
Counsel and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE PACIFIC MARITIME
ASSOCIATION
Pacific Maritime Association is a membership corpora-
tion whose employer-members include shipowners, ship
operators, ship charterers, and employes engaged in
stevedoring or terminal services. During the past year,
PMA, through its various employer-members, performed
stevedoring services in excess of $500,000 for shipping
companies at ports located outside the State of Washing-
ton. Upon these facts, and the admissions of the Respon-
dents, it is found that at all times material herein PMA has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I find, that Local 52 and the
International with which it is affiliated are, and at all times
material herein have been, labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The PMA, on behalf of its employer-members, and the
International, on behalf of its locals, including Local 52,
have been parties to collective-bargaining agreements for
an undisclosed number of years, the most recent agreement
having been reached on February 10, 1972, which
agreement modified in certain respects not material herein
the 1966-71 agreement between the parties. The 1966-71
agreement, entitled "Pacific Coast Clerks' Contract Docu-
ment," provides for the establishment of a Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee for each port affected by the
agreement, each of said committees consisting of three or
more representatives designated by the Union, and three or
more representatives designated by the PMA, each side
having equal voting power. The agreement provides, in
section 17, that the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee
shall maintain and operate the dispatching hall, exercise
control of the registered list of the ports, decide questions
regarding the dispatching of men, investigate and adjudi-
cate grievances and disputes, investigate and adjudicate
any complaint against any clerk whose conduct on the job,
or in the dispatching hall, causes disruption or frustrates
and/or violates the provisions of the working or dispatch-
ing rules or of the agreement, and carry out such other
functions assigned directly or through the Joint Coast
Labor Relations Committee. Section 8 of the agreement,
entitled "Dispatching, Registration and Preference," pro-
vides that the dispatching of all clerks shall be through
halls maintained and operated by the Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee and that clerks not on the registered
list shall not be dispatched from the hall or employed by
any employer while there is any man on the registered list
who is qualified, ready, and willing to work. The contract
provides that first preference of employment and dispatch
shall be given to fully registered clerks, that second
preference shall be given to the limited registered clerks,
and that if all available registered and limited registered
clerks are dispatched, then casuals may be dispatched. The
agreement further provides that personnel of each hall
shall be determined and appointed by the Joint Labor
Relations Committee of the port, with the exception of the
dispatcher who is selected by the Union through elections.
As required by the contract, Local 52 and the PMA,
through the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee,
maintained a central dispatching hall for the referral of
clerks. In February 1972,1 the dispatching hall and the
Local 52 offices were located at Second Avenue and
Cherry in Seattle, in premises leased to Local 52. Expenses
incident to operating the hiring hall, including the
dispatcher's salary, were shared equally by Local 52 and
PMA. The premises involved herein consisted of an office
I All dates herein are in 1972 unless otherwise noted
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 521
occupied by Edward J. Palmer, the secretary-treasurer and
business agent of Local 52, a dispatcher's office,2 and a
dispatch hall. The door leading from the building hallway
into the Local 52 office bore the seal of the ILWU and
contained the legend "Supercargoes, supervisors and
checkers, State of Washington. Members Only." A door
connected the Local 52 office to the dispatcher's office,
and another door led from the dispatcher's office into the
dispatch hall. A sliding window between the dispatcher's
office and the dispatch hall was used for dispatching
purposes. There was also a door leading from the hallway
into the dispatch hall which was used by those seeking
dispatch. The sign on that door identified it as either the
"Hiring Hall" or "Dispatch Hall."
Kracke's duties as dispatcher were to receive orders or
requests from employers and to dispatch men to jobs. As
business agent, it was Palmer's duty to enforce the
collective-bargaining agreement and to handle grievances
and disputes arising thereunder at the first level. Palmer
testified that he was also responsible for keeping order in
"the hall." As secretary-treasurer, Palmer was responsible
for the Union's funds and was a cosigner with the PMA on
all funds disbursed through the Joint Port Labor Relations
Committee insofar as they related to the operation of the
dispatching hall.
In February, and at least until the agreement which was
reached on February 10 went into effect, dispatching of
checkers or clerks was made in the following descending
order of preference:3 (1) "A " list or "registered book men,"
who are members of Local 52-they need not be in the hall
and were dispatched by telephone; (2) "B" list or "partially
registered men," who were not members of Local 52-they
had to be present in the hall to be dispatched; (3)
Longshore Hall -which had 40 or 50 qualified checkers; 4
(4) Tested casuals -those casuals present in the hall who
had taken and passed a qualifying test; (5) Untested casuals
who had worked out of the hall and whose names had been
added to a list kept by the dispatcher; (6) Untested casuals
who had never worked out of the hall; (7) If the dispatch hall
was cleared of all casuals, the dispatcher next called ILWU
Local 9, and after that the Teamsters or some other labor
organization whose members were on strike.
The parties stipulated that a strike which had affected
West Coast shipping ended in February and employees
returned to work on February 21.
On the morning of February 21,5 Teare, DiCaprio, and
Baughman, all unemployed women, went to the dispatch-
ing hall for the purpose of seeking employments They
arrived at the hall about 7 a.m. and, through talking with
men in the hallway outside the dispatch hall, learned that
2 On February 21 and 22, Dennis Kracke was the dispatcher
3 Based upon the credited testimony of dispatcher Kracke
S Pursuant to the ILWU/PMA Pay Guarantee Plan Rules for Long-
shoremen and Clerks which was signed on March 2, available registered
longshoremen are to be offered work before any casual clerks are employed.
The General Counsel does not contend that agreement is unlawful.
5 Unless otherwise stated, the following findings of fact are based upon a
composite of the mutually corroborative testimony of Patricia K Teare, the
Charging Party, Margaret Bennett , Margaret Baughman, Elisa DiCaprio,
Barbara Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, the six alleged discnminatees,
all of whom impressed me as honest and reliable witnesses who were
making a sincere effort to tell the truth Palmer, to the contrary, when he
testified about the events which took place on February 22, was not an
dispatching for that day had already been accomplished
and that they would have to return the following morning
if they wanted work.
B. February 22 Dispatch Hall Incident and PMA
Conference
At approximately 6:15 on the morning of February 22,
Teare, DiCaprio, Baughman, Bennett, Campbell, and
Naughton arrived at the dispatch hall prior to its opening.
About 6:30, Kracke arrived and unlocked the door to the
dispatch hall. The six women entered and either took seats
or stood around talking to the men who had also entered
seeking dispatch. At one point, DiCaprio went up to the
dispatch window for the purpose of obtaining information.
She testified that she observed Kracke going in and out of
the dispatch office but was unable to talk to him after
waiting approximately 5 minutes. A few minutes later
Palmer entered the dispatching hall and announced in a
loud voice that the women were wasting their time since
they would "never get jobs here." He then directed them to
come into his office. After entering his office, Palmer
reclined in a leather chair while the women remained
standing across the room.7 Teare's testimony regarding
what transpired thereafter, which is corroborated in
material part by the other women, is as follows:
The first thing he says, "Well, you all sure look like
real longshoremen." And then he made a series of other
statements and was speaking in a loud voice, and was
shaking. His face was red, and he repeated himself to a
certain extent. He said, "You girls will never work
here." He said that there are no jobs on the waterfront
on the West Coast for women. He said, "We don't hire
women on the waterfront." He said that federal safety
regulations prevented us from working on the water-
front. And he said there had been no women working
on the waterfront for X number of years, and so far as
this union is concerned there never will be for another
X number of years.8
Q. Well, did you or any of the women there
respond to these statements?
A. Yes, I remember Barbara Campbell said in a
moderate voice, she said, "That sounds like discrirruna-
tion to me." And he said in response to that, "Call it
what you like." And then I said, some of the women
talked amongst themselves, and I said to Mr. Palmer,
"I want you to know we're here not as a form of protest
but because we're seeking jobs." And he said in a more
moderate tone, "I know that, but there are nojobs for
you here."
impressive witness Accordingly, I have rejected his testimony whenever it
conflicts with the testimony of the women.
6 Baughman had observed a notice posted on the bulletin board at the
University YWCA regarding the possibility of women obtaining work on
the waterfront as dock checkers. She had contacted the individual who had
posted the notice , an unnamed dock checker , who had informed her what
the work entailed and that women could do the work and explained the
dispatching procedure
r The six women had arrived at the dispatch hall in work clothing with
bag lunches "ready to go to work "
B Palmer used the expression "X number of men" when testifying to the
number of black men on the "casual" list
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And then I believe it was Margaret Baughman who
asked-let's see , asked about the federal safety regula-
tions and what they were. And he said he couldn't
-well, I remember I was thinking there might be some
but he said he didn't have to give them to us. And if we
wanted them we could go to the Pacific Maritime
Association to get them and he gave us that address.
And then somebody asked him, I don't remember,
but one of the women asked, let's see-well, I don't
remember what the question was that precipitated it
was, but I remember Peggy telling-
Q. Peggy who?
A. Peggy Bennett telling Mr. Palmer that she knew
there were women working or that had jobs recently
with the ship's scalers union. She knew five of them
that had jobs. And he said, "I don't care." And he told
us we had to take a test, that there was a test you had to
take to be a checker, and Peggy asked him when we
could take it. And he said, "Never." And he said this
very abruptly and curtly.
Then later one of the women asked the question
again. He said, "You have no right to take the test."
And he said that also abruptly, like that.
Let's see if I can remember anything else we asked.
I don't remember anything else, any of the rest of the
conversation, but then the way the interview or
discussion ended was then Mr. Palmer jumped up and
said, "Well, you girls are just wasting your time, and
get out." So, at that point I felt that if I didn't go I'd be
thrown out, and I turned to leave and the other women
did too. And we went out of the office with Mr. Palmer
striding behind us and then he went ahead to the door
of the dispatching hall.
And then I remember standing at the corner where
the corridor turns and thinking, well, I'd better go.
Then Peggy said she had to get her coat. So, I was
waiting also to see what was going to happen, and she
went back into the hall to get her coat. Two of the
women started ahead of me to leave. I think it was Lisa
CiCaprio and Margaret Baughman, and the other two
were on the other side of me.
And I overheard Mr. Palmer standing at the door of
the dispatch hall and saying, "Everyone in this hall who
hasn't worked before the strike get out or I'll call the
police."
And at that point I felt I'd better go, and I left and
the others left, and we left the premises.
From the dispatching hall the women went to Bake-
man's , a nearby restaurant, where they went over notes
which Bennett had made during the morning. From there
they went to a law office located in the vicinity where one
of the women typed up the notes. At approximately 10:30,
the women, except for Campbell, went to the PMA offices.
Palmer had already called Carl Weber, PMA's area
manager, and informed him, according to Weber, that
there had been ". . . some ladies in the hall and he had
some discussions with them, and apparently there was
some excited conversation between both sides ...."9
Teare's testimony regarding what transpired at the PMA
offices, and which I credit for reasons set forth earlier, is as
follows: fo
A. Well, Mr. Weber and Mr. Shields did all the
talking and Mr. Weber perhaps spoke a little more. Mr.
McMillan took notes and answered a few questions
that were directed to him.
Q. Then did you and all the others participate in
this conversation, is that my understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you explain, or did you tell-or the
gentlemen there , did you tell them what occurred that
morning?
A. Yes. Cathy Naughton told them what occurred
and asked them for the federal safety regulations.
Q. What did she tell them, if you recall?
A. She told them we had been down that morning
to Local 52 to seek work, and Mr. Palmer had told us
we could not work there, and it was because of the
federal safety regulations which prevented women from
working on the waterfront, and if we wanted to see
those rules we should go and ask for them at the PMA
office.
Q. Did you then ask about these safety regulations?
A. That is right.
Q. And what response did you receive to, that
question?
A. I think it was Mr. Weber, either Mr. Weber or
Mr. Shields told us as far as he knew there weren't any
regulations to that effect saying that women couldn't
work in checker jobs on the waterfront, but he didn't
really know. And that they didn't have any in that
office, and they didn't keep such regulations in their
office.
And in addition told us, I believe he told us we could
write to San Francisco-now, that may have been for
the other booklet that was mentioned this morning, I'm
not sure.
Q. So, there was a discussion, then, of safety
regulations?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in addition to that what else, what further
went on in the discussion there?
A. I think Margaret asked if they knew about the
test , did we have to be tested before we could get the
checker's jobs. And they said, I think it was Mr. Weber,
but one or the other said you had to qualify for the
checker's jobs, and that in order to qualify you had to
take the test, i.e., read, write and do some mathematics.
When we asked about the mathematics , one of us
asked, I don't remember which one, and one of the two
men there said it involved cubing and commented
school teachers had failed the test. And we said by
9 Palmer testified that he had called Weber and informed him that " the conversation between the women and three PMA officials , yet neither
we had some girls up there seeking work and they were coming up to he nor Shields were called as witnesses to either corroborate or clarify
talk to him " Weber's testimony which was, in many respects , vague and indefinite
10 Weber's testimony was neither candid nor persuasive in his account of Accordingly , I have rejected his testimony whenever it conflicts with the
the events which occurred at the PMA offices . McMillan made notes during testimony of the women
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
cubing, well, my understanding of cubing was multiply-
ing the number three times by itself, and he said, "Yes."
Q. Then there was a discussion of the testing
procedures, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What, if any, discussion was there regarding
PMA's position about a woman working on the
waterfront?
A. I asked them how they felt-
Q. You did?
A. Yes, about women getting jobs, and one of the
two men said that PMA didn't have a position on the
question of women working on the waterfront , that in
order to determine a position they would have to meet
and discuss the matter.
And then they said , one of them said we had come at
a bad time, that they were involved with the contract,
they're negotiating a new contract with the union and
they were quite busy and it would be months before
they could meet to discuss the question . And I think it
was Mr . Weber, he said one problem that would exist
would be they didn't have separate facilities for
women . And I remember Cathy Naughton said to her
knowledge that was no longer a just reason for denying
work to women.
Let's see . I think it was Lisa-
Q. Lisa who?
A. DiCaprio, Lisa DiCaprio, excuse me, asked if
they thought Mr. Palmer had been m the right that
morning in denying us further access to the dispatch
hall. They said that you did have to be invited into the
dispatch hall, and they said sometimes people are
referred by unemployment or by other unions. That in
times of extreme duress or hardship, or some such
words as that, that they did take other people who
walked in . Then they said, one of them said, that
people who teed to come off-that tried to come off
First Avenue , I remember that expression-that's all I
remember in response to that question.
Q. Well, what, if any, discussion was there about
the work itself, or was there any?
A. Oh.-
Q. The checker's work.
A. -well, I remember Mr. Weber said, he was
describing that the PMA would have to meet to
determine their position on the question of women
working, and they said not speaking for the PMA, but
speaking personally he wouldn't want his wife or
daughter to work on the docks, that it wasn't a very
uplifting work for a woman . And I said myself I had
done waitressing work and I didn't consider it very
uplifting either, and it paid a third of what I would get
if I were doing checking work.
I think Peggy Bennett also said she had done
secretarial work and she thought similarly it wasn't
very uplifting and the pay wasn' t as good . And Lisa
DiCaprio asked for applications and they gave them to
us. They gave us two copies each and said to send one
to their office and send one to the union hall.
Then they said, one of the two men, Mr. Weber, Mr.
Shields, also said in three months when the new
523
contract was in effect there would no longer be much
casual labor at all, and that the hall , in effect, would be
closed . One of us , I think Lisa because she was talking
at that time, said, "Is it closed now?" And one of them
said, "No." Then they waited until we were through
asking our questions.
Then at that point the conference broke up and we
left the premises then.
Palmer's testimony was to the effect that the six women
had caused a disturbance in the dispatch hall, and that it
was pursuant to his responsibility to maintain order in the
dispatch hall that he requested them to come into his office
where they created a further disturbance leading to his
request that they leave the premises. His testimony,
however, was confusing, contradictory, and unconvincing.
Thus, he testified that his first knowledge that the women
were in the dispatch hall the morning of February 22 was
when someone , whom he could not identify, came to his
office and told him that ". . . there were some girls in the
hall who are bugging them by writing down notes and
asking questions . . ."; that they "seemed to be interfering
with dispatch procedures"; that shortly thereafter he
received two telephone calls, the first from an unidentified
casual or "B" man, and the other from the Longshoremen's
union . The unidentified casual or "B " man purportedly
said that "girls are in the hall raising all kinds of questions
and disturbing the people." He testified further on direct
examination that the unidentified individual "had been
down in the restaurant calling me , or some place else, and
he said the girls were talking about going up and getting
jobs and causing a disturbance in the hall or something
and he wanted to know what the hell I was going to do
about it ." On cross-examination , Palmer testified that the
individual had overheard the women talking in Bakeman's
Restaurant. The evidence established , however, that the
women did not go to Bakeman's Restaurant until after
they left Palmer's office . Accordingly, I conclude and find
that Palmer's testimony regarding this purported conversa-
tion was fabricated.
Regarding the call from the Longshoremen 's union,
again from an unidentified individual, he testified that the
caller had "said they heard the girls were in the hall and I
had better damn well please take care of the longshoremen
first ." However, on cross-examination, he acknowledged
that the call had nothing to do with the women . I believe it
is more likely that he learned of the presence of the women
in the dispatching hall from Kracke who had been in and
out of the dispatcher 's office which connects with Palmer's
office . Kracke testified he had observed the women in the
dispatching hall talking to the men and taking notes, but
that he didn't have to raise his voice or ask that the noise
be "toned down." In fact, Kracke failed to testify to any
disturbance created or caused by the women . Moreover,
Palmer admitted that Kracke had not told him that the
women were interfering with his dispatching duties.
After learning of the six women 's presence, Palmer
testified he went to the doorway to the dispatching hall and
asked "what the hell is going on," and "invited" them into
his office . He testified he told the women their chances of
getting work at that time were "nill," because under the
new contract, the longshoremen would get all of the casual
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, and suggested they contact the PMA office and the
Joint Port Labor Relations Committee which would "tell
them if they are available for tests." He further testified he
told the women ". . . to my knowledge, we had never hired
women clerks . . . I told them they couldn't work on the
waterfront. I didn't say never. I said the question was nill
at this time." He contended they had informed him they
wanted to apply for checkers' work, but that after he
informed them of the nature of the work, "they stated they
wanted dock work only or office work," and he replied that
Local 52 didn't have "office jurisdiction." On cross-
examination, he testified "I told them they couldn't go to
work . . . the way they came on strong, I told them there
was no chance for them to go to work at that time."
Moreover, his attempt to explain the pretrial statement
given a Board agent that "Of course, there are some kinds
of people we never send out like winos, long-haired,
physically handicapped, barefoot, and girls" was also
unconvincing. Contending he was "apparently" thinking
about safety in connection with the girls, he alluded to high
heels and bare feet and a regulation regarding proper
footwear. He admitted, however, that he had not observed
their footwear on February 22, and he had earlier testified
that "they were dressed in rough clothing, and they were
presentable, but they were dressed in rough clothing."
Moreover, no Federal, state , or other regulation was
produced which could be used as a basis for denying
employment to the six women.
It is clear to me from Palmer's testimony that he was
upset with the prospect of having women employed as
checkers on the waterfront, and it was for this reason that
he called them out of the dispatching hall and eventually
ejected them from the premises under the threat of calling
the police.
Weber testified that on February 22, he, along with
Shields, assistant area manager for PMA, and McMillan,
labor relations assistant, met with the five women at the
PMA office. While Weber testified that he couldn't say
whether Palmer had called him before or after the meeting,
I am satisfied that the Palmer call was received prior to the
arrival of the young women and that Weber had advance
knowledge of the reason they were there, which accounts
for the fact that Shields and McMillan also met with them
and that McMillan took notes during the conversation.
Weber testified that the women advised the three of them
that they had talked to Palmer and that Palmer had
alluded to some rules which prohibited women from
working on the waterfront which they asked to see; that he
informed them he was not aware of such rules; that the
women asked how they could become registered; that he
explained the procedures as far as casuals working on the
waterfront, and the fact that the Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee controlled registration; that before
they could be sent out as casuals, they had to pass a test;
that at their request he gave them applications for
employment forms which are used by the Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee in deciding who is qualified to take
the test. At one point he testified that he didn't know if he
told the women they had to be invited into the dispatch
hall, and at another point denied he had told them that no
one could come into the hall unless invited . He admitted
that the women "may have asked him the position of the
PMA regarding women working on the waterfront, and if
they did ... I would have to respond we have no position
against not employing women ," and "I know no policy
that PMA has with respect to employment of women on
the waterfront." He also denied that the women had asked
if Palmer had the right to "kick them out" of the
dispatching hall. He acknowledged , however, that he
expressed his personal view that he didn't feel that ".. .
working on the waterfront was the place where I would
want my daughter to be working because it 's a pretty rough
and tumble place to work . And I wouldn 't want them
subject to those indignities ." He further acknowledged that
Shields stated that one of the problems which was
"expressed" to the women was that " . . . there are state
safety requirements under the longshore and dock workers'
provisions of the state safety code that state . . . there has
to be separate facilities , lavatory facilities, marked male
and female ." While he also testified that "Mr. Palmer has
no right with respect to the dispatch hall. It is under the
control of the joint dispatcher . He exercises no control over
the dispatcher," there was no contention or evidence that
the women were so advised . Moreover , Palmer testified
that one of his duties as business agent was to keep order in
the hall.
C. Post-February 22 Events
None of the women went back to the dispatch hall until
after the following letter, dated October 27, was sent to
each by the Seattle Clerks Joint Port Labor Relations
Committee: ii
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the
position of the Seattle Clerks Joint Port Labor
Relations Committee in regard to the dispatching of
non-registered clerks and it should in no way be
construed as an admission that the dispatching has ever
been conducted in an improper manner.
Dispatching of casual clerks is done after all
registered employees have been given an opportunity
for dispatch. If job vacancies continue to exist, the
dispatcher refers to a list of approximately 40 tested
casuals and dispatches those persons on the list who are
present in the dispatch hall on a rotating basis.
If job vacancies continue to exist after the list of
tested casuals has been exhausted, the dispatcher then
dispatches from among those other persons who are
present in the dispatch hall. If no remaining persons are
in the hall, the dispatcher telephones the Washington
State Casual Labor Office and other sources. In other
words, preference among casuals is based upon
whether an applicant is present in the dispatch hall
when jobs become available.
This is to advise you that you are free to enter the
dispatch hall in order to make yourself available for
clerk's work. If you choose to do so, you should report
only to the dispatcher and give your name to him. The
It The women testified that they didn't return after February 22 because had ejected them from the hall , and PMA officials had informed them they
Palmer had told them that women would never work on the waterfront , he had to be invited into the hall.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
dispatcher is the only person authorized to send
prospective clerks out to the job. If any other person
interferes with your right to be in the dispatch hall or
interferes with you in any way, you should report such
conduct to the undersigned or to Pacific Maritime
Association. Corrective measures will be taken if any
acts of interference occur.
Shortly after Thanksgiving , several of the women went to
the Second Avenue and Cherry location for the purpose of
registering for work and discovered the dispatch hall and
Local 52 office had been moved . A couple of days later
Teare , Baughman , Campbell , Bennett , and another wom-
an, Janet Babcock , went to the new location for the
purpose of registering for work . Teare testified that Palmer
and another individual were seated in the dispatcher's
office ; that she informed them that she had received a
letter and was there to apply for work as a checker; that
Palmer responded that he knew why she was there and that
she should talk to the other man; that the five women left
their names with the dispatcher ; that Palmer told them
there was no work, a fact confirmed by men sitting in the
dispatching hall;12 that they were told to take a seat; and
that they left without waiting because it seemed clear in
view of what had been said that there was no reason to
stay.
D. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that Local 52, through its
agent. Palmer, violated its duty of fair representation by
discriminatorily preventing the six women, solely on the
consideration of their sex, from utilizing the jointly
administered hiring facilities maintained by Local 52 and
PMA in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act;
and that the PMA, by participating in union conduct
which violated the duty of fair representation, also violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In its brief, Local 52
points out that the basis of the violation as alleged in the
complaint is that Palmer refused to register or dispatch the
six women, and contends there can be no violation since
Palmer lacked any authority to register or dispatch
employees; that his remarks do not evidence discrimina-
tion on the basis of sex; that Kracke was the only one
authorized to register and dispatch employees; that the
women never requested that Kracke register or dispatch
them; and that if there had been enough work and the
women had stayed around the hall long enough, Kracke
would in fact have dispatched them. PMA contends the
complaint should be dismissed on three grounds: (1)
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the Board is
not the appropriate government agency to entertain a case
alleging sex discrimination; (2) Palmer is not an agent of
PMA; and (3) PMA did not acquiesce in any alleged
unlawful activity, including the maintenance of a discrimi-
natory dispatch procedure, and did not itself refuse to
register or dispatch the women on the irrelevant, invidious,
and unfair consideration of their sex.
12 Palmer did not deny that he was in the dispatcher's office or that he
told the women there was no work
13 There was no evidence that the job of checker requires any physical or
Analysis
525
Dealing first with the contention that the Board is not
the appropriate Government agency to entertain a case
alleging sex discrimination, I can only assume, in the
absence of any recitation of authority, that the PMA
contends such a proceeding should be processed only
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Board has
held, with court approval, that the Board's powers and
duties are in no way limited by Title VII. See, for example,
Local 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO (The Business League of Gadsden),
150 NLRB 312, enfd. 368 F.2d 12 (C.A. 5, 1966).
Accordingly, that contention is rejected as lacking in merit.
Regarding the merits, upon consideration of the entire
record, I am convinced that Palmer was upset with the
prospect of having women dispatched as checkers, and that
he therefore called the six women out of the dispatch hall
and into his office and eventually ordered them off the
premises under threat of calling the police, solely upon the
consideration of their sex; and that the three PMA
officials, not only knew of, acquiesced in, and condoned
Palmer's conduct, but gave it credence by advising the
women, albeit falsely, that they had to be "invited" into the
dispatch hall and also take a test in order to qualify for a
checker's job, both assertions obviously designed to
discourage them from further pursuing employment
through the joint dispatch hall.13 Local 52 contends,
however, that Kracke, not Palmer, was the dispatcher, and
that Palmer lacked authority to register and dispatch
employees. This contention, however, ignores the fact that
Palmer testified that it was his "duty" to maintain
discipline in the dispatching hall, a fact not refuted by
either Respondent, and it was under the guise of maintain-
ing discipline that the women were denied access to the
dispatching facilities . Thus, having created his authority,
the joint principals must accept the responsibility if it is
wrongly used. As an individual clothed with ostensible
authority to eject individuals from the hall, PMA and
Local 52 were bound by Palmer's acts done within the
apparent scope of his authority. My finding herein is not in
conflict with the cases cited in the PMA's brief, which
stand mainly for the proposition that an employer will not
be responsible for the discriminatory acts of a union except
where he knows, or reasonably should have known, of the
discriminatory acts. As I have found, the PMA was well
aware of the discrimination and acted in a manner
supporting it. But, regardless of the extent of the knowl-
edge, ". . . an employer may not avoid liability for
violations of the Act by the hiring hall when he has turned
over to it the task of supplying of the men to be employed."
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 275 F.2d 914,
917 (C.A. 2, 1960); N. L R. B. v. Houston Maritime Associa-
tion, Inc., 337 F.2d 333 (C.A. 5, 1964); N.LR.B. v. Southern
Stevedoring & Contracting Co., 332 F.2d 1017, 1019 (C.A. 5,
1964). As Palmer was authorized to maintain discipline
within the jointly financed but Union-operated hall, the
result should be no different. Having concluded that the
mechanical skill or other special qualifications for which women are
unsuited.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents denied the six women access to the dispatch-
ing facilities because of their sex, a reason which I find, in
these circumstances , is u-relevant , invidious , and unfair, the
question remains whether such conduct amounts to a
violation of the Act.
In Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 181,
enforcement denied 326 F.2d 172 (C.A. 2, 1963), the Board
addressed itself to the question of whether Section 7 of the
Act gave employees the right to be free from unfair or
irrelevant or invidious treatment by their exclusive bar-
gaining agent in matters affecting their employment. The
Board concluded:
This right of employees is a statutory limitation on
statutory bargaining representatives, and we conclude
that Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act accordingly prohibits
labor organizations, when acting in a statutory capaci-
ty, from taking action against any employee upon
considerations or classifications which are irrelevant,
invidious, or unfair ... To the extent, however, that an
employer participates in such union's arbitrary action
against an employee, the employer himself violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
We further conclude that a statutory bargaining
representative and an employer also respectively
violate Section 8(b)(2) and 8(a)(3) when, for arbitrary
or irrelevant reasons or upon the basis of an unfair
classification, the union attempts to cause or does cause
an employer to derogate the employment status of an
employee.
The Board has consistently followed the doctrine that it
laid down in its Miranda decision, and in Cargo Handlers,
Inc., 159 NLRB 321, applied the doctrine to applicants for
referral through the union hall who were not union
members.14 While most of the Board cases have involved
unfair, irrelevant, and invidious treatment because of race,
I can perceive of no logical reason-nor, apparently, did
Congress when it enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
proscribing discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin-for drawing a distinction
between discrimination based upon race or sex, especially
in the context of this case which arises out of a hiring hall
practice, which, I find, is clearly in derogation of the
Union's obligation of fair representation in the referral of
applicants for employment. Accordingly, I find that the
Union, by denying the women the use of the dispatch
facilities upon the irrelevant, invidious, and unfair consid-
eration of their sex, breached its duty of fair representation
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2); and that the
PMA, by participating in such action, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.15
IV. THE EFFECT OF TI-IL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
14 It has long been established that applicants for employment are
entitled to the protections of the Act Phelps Dodge Corp v. N.L.R B, 313U.S.
177
is Cf. Jubilee Manufacturing Company, 202 NLRB 272
16 1 deem this remedial action necessary in the public 's interest and to
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
PMA described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE RBMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, in view of the fact that the violations found
herein were based upon the illegal practice of discrimina-
tion against women solely because of their sex, I shall
recommend that the Respondents add the names of the
discriminatees to the untested casual list in the order of
seniority, as though their names had been added to said list
on February 22, 1972, and dispatch them under the same
terms and conditions as applies in the case of male unlisted
casuals on said list.16 I further recommend that Respon-
dents jointly and severally make whole Patricia K. Teare,
Margaret Bennett , Margaret Baughman, Elisa DiCaprio,
Barbara Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton for loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination practiced against them . Such earnings shall
be computed in accordance with the method prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and such
earnings shall include interest at 6 percent per annum,
computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, 717-721.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following
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 52 and the International with which it is
affiliated are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 52 has restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. Local 52 has caused, or attempted to cause, Pacific
Maritime Association and its member companies, and
other employers, to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and by this action
has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
5. By acquiescing in, and maintaining an illegal hiring
arrangement, Pacific Maritime Association has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
recreate the conditions and relationships that would have been had there
been no unfair labor practices of the nature of those found herein.
(Consolidated Edison Co of New York, Inc, v N L RB., 305 U.S. 197, 236.)
N L R B v Seven-Up Bottling Co of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344, 348-349.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 17
A. Respondent Pacific Maritime Association, Seattle,
Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining, performing, or enforcing any contract
or arrangement with Checkers, Supercargoes & Supervisors
Association of the State of Washington, Local 52,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Un-
ion, in any manner whereby job referrals or hiring are
conditioned on the unlawful basis of sex or union
membership.
(b) Discriminating against Patricia K. Teare, Margaret
Baughman, Margaret Bennett, Elisa DiCaprio, Barbara
Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, because of their sex or
lack of union membership.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their offices in Seattle, Washington, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of
said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by the respective
Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (a) above, as they are forwarded
by the Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Local
52's notice marked "Appendix B."
(c) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A" to said Regional Director for posting at the
dispatch hall operated by Respondent Union, in places
where notices to members and employees and prospective
employees are customarily posted. Copies of the notice, to
be furnished by said Regional Director, shall be returned
forthwith to the Regional Director after they have been
signed by an official representative of the Respondent
Association for such posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Association has taken to comply
herewith.
17 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 , recommendations , and recommended Order 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
527
B. Respondent Checkers, Supercargoes & Supervisors
Association of the State of Washington, Local 52,
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Un-
ion, its officers , agents , and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Pacific Maritime
Association, and its member companies, or any other
employer, to discriminate against employees or prospective
employees by refusing to hire them on the unlawful basis
of their sex or union membership ; or maintaining,
performing or enforcing any contract or arrangement in a
manner whereby referrals to available jobs are based on
the unlawful basis of sex or union membership.
(b) Discriminating against Patricia K. Teare, Margaret
Bennett, Margaret Baughman , Elisa DiCaprio, Barbara
Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton because of their sex or
nonmembership in said Local.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify, in writing, Patricia K. Teare, Margaret
Bennett, Margaret Baughman, Elisa DiCapno, Barbara
Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, that Local 52 will add
their names to the untested casual list in the order of
seniority as though their names had been added to said list
on February 22, 1972, and dispatch them, without
discrimination against them , under the same terms and
conditions as applies in the case of male untested casuals
on said list.
(b) Post at its office, dispatch hall, and meeting hall,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 19
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent Union, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members and other persons using Respondent Local 52's
dispatch hall are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (b) above, as soon as they are
forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
Respondent Association's notice marked "Appendix A."
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 19, signed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" for
posting by Respondent Pacific Maritime Association at its
place of business in Seattle , Washington, in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director, after
being duly signed by a representative of Respondent
Union, shall be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for such posting.
18 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
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 "
19 See fn. 18, supra
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
C. The Respondents, Pacific Maritime Association, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Checkers,
Supercargoes & Supervisors Association of the State of
Washington, Local 52, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the following action:
1. Notify Patricia K. Teare, Margaret Bennett, Marga-
ret Baughman, Elisa DiCaprio, Barbara Campbell and
Kathleen Naughton, in writing, that the Respondent
Employer and Respondent Union have no objection to
their employment or any other employees or applicants for
employment, because of their sex or membership or
nonmembership in the Respondent Union.
2. Jointly and severally make whole Patricia K. Teare,
Margaret Bennett, Margaret Baughman, Elisa DiCapno,
Barbara Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, for any loss
of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner and to the extent set forth
in the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
3. Respondent Pacific Maritime Association and its
member companies shall preserve and, upon request, make
available to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
4. Respondent Union, Local 52, shall preserve and,
upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, registration for job referral
records and any other documents or records or data
showing job referrals, hiring, and work assignments of
employees, members, and registrants made to the Pacific
Maritime Association members, which are necessary to
compute and analyze the amount of backpay due and the
rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain, perform, or enforce any
contract or arrangement with Checkers, Supercargoes
& Supervisors Association of the State of Washington,
Local 52, International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, in any manner whereby job
referrals or hiring are conditioned on the unlawful basis
of sex or union membership.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against Patricia K. Teare,
Margaret Bennett, Margaret Baughman, Elisa DiCaprio,
Barbara Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, and we
shall jointly and severally with Checkers, Supercargoes
& Supervisors Association of the State of Washington,
Local 52, International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered because of the discrimina-
tion against them.
PACIFIC MARITIME
ASSOCIATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(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 directed to the Board's Office, 10th
Floor, Republic Building, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, Telephone 206-442-7472.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT CAUSE or attempt to cause Pacific
Maritime Association, its member companies, or any
other employer, to discriminate against employees or
prospective employees by refusing to hire them on the
unlawful basis of their sex or union membership; or
maintaining, performing or enforcing any contract or
arrangement in a manner whereby referrals to available
jobs are based or allocated on the unlawful basis of sex
or union membership.
WE WILL NOTIFY, in writing, Patricia K. Teare,
Margaret Bennett,MargaretBaughman, Visa DiCapno,
Barbara Campbell, and Kathleen Naughton, that we
will add their names to the untested casual list in the
order of seniority as though their names had been
added to said list on February 22, 1972, and dispatch
them without discrimination against them, under the
same terms and conditions as applies in the case of
male untested casuals on said list , and we shall jointly
and severally with Pacific Maritime Association make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
because of the discrimination against them.
CHECKERS, SUPERCARGOES
& SUPERVISORS
ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON, LOCAL
52, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(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.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 529
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Floor, Republic Building, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle,
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 10th Washington 98101, Telephone 206-442-7472.
11