Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 668 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of SHIPOWNERS AssoclATloN OF THE- PACIFIC COAST,
WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC- COAST, WATER-
FRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON ET AL. and INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH- THE, A. F. OF L., LOCAL
No. 38-83
In. the Matter of SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC, COAST,
WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST, WATER
FRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.. and INTERNATIONAL LONG-
SHOREi4EN'S ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITHH THE A. F. OF L., LOCAL
No. 38-86.
In the, Matter of SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC, COAST.
WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS, ASSOCIATION OF THE, PACIFIC COAST, WATER-
FRONT, EMPLOYERS' OF F WASHINGTON', ET AL. and INTERNATIONAL L• ONG;
SHOREMEN•'S, ASSOCIATION; AFFILIATED, WITH THE. A., F., OF 1 ., LOCAL
No. 38-97
Cases Nos. and -,.Decided June 16, 1941
Jurisdiction : stevedoring industry.
Investigation and Certification of- Representatives : existence of questions : em-
ployer's association refused, to accord- petitioning union recognition in three
ports on the Pacific. Coast on the, ground that the Board had, certified a rival
unions ins these andj otherf ports ; elections necessary.
Unit; Appropriate for Collective Bargaining :, longshore workers at three "ex-
ception" ports on the Pacific Coast permitted-to. determine whether or not they
shall function as separate bargaining units or as part of the coast-wide unit.
Mr. Thomas P: Graham, Jr. and.Mr. Robert L. Condon, for the Board.
Mr. Edward G. Dobrin, of Seattle, Wash., Mr. Robert W: Graham,
of} Seattle, Wash., Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, by, Mr. Richard' H.
Ernst, Mr. Gregory A. Harrison,-and- Mr. Harley Spitler; Jr., of San
Francisco, Calif:, for, the Companies, the. Coast Association, the Wash-
ington Association, and the Shipowners'49sociation.
Mr. L. B. Sulgrove andiMr. John G.eisness, of Tacoma, Wash., for the
I. L. A.
Gladstein, Grossman, Margolis: &-Sawyer, by Mr,. Ben, Margolis, and
Mr., Norman Leonard, of San Friwciscp, Calif., for the I. L..W: U.
Mr. Edward•Schewnemmamrn, of counsel to,the Board.
32 N. L. R. B., No. 124.
668:
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
669
On September 12, 1940, International Longshoremen's Association, -
herein called the I. L. A., affiliated with the A. F. of L., through three
locals, Local No. 38-83, Local No. 38-86, and Local No. 38-97, filed with
the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washing-
ton) petitions alleging-that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees engaged in longshore work
at the ports of Anacortes, Port Angeles, and Tacoma, Washington,
respectively, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 7, 1940, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Sections 3 and 10 (c)
(2) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
-2, as amended, ordered that the cases be consolidated, ordered an in-
vestigation, and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and
to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On December 16, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the I. L. A., Waterfront
Employers Association of the Pacific Coast, herein called the Coast
Association, Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, herein called
the Shipowners Association, Waterfront Employers of Washington,
herein called the Washington Association, and the companies listed in
Appendix A, herein called the Companies, employers of longshore
labor in the ports, inter alia, of Tacoma, Anacortes, and Port Angeles,
and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
District No. 1, herein called the I. L. W. U., a labor organization
claiming an interest in the proceeding.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from January 9 to February
4, 1941, inclusive at Tacoma, Washington, and from February 10, to
February 17, 1941, inclusive, at San Francisco, California, before
William B. Barton, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board, the foregoing employer associations and
their members, the I. L. A., and the I. L. W. U., were represented by
counsel, participated In the hearing, and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the beginning of the
hearing the 'I. L. W. U. objected to the present proceeding on the
ground that the I. L. A. was pursuing an allegedly concurrent remedy
by an action in the United States District Court for the District of
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Columbia to set aside the Board's previous certification of the
I. L. W. U. as exclusive representative for all employees doing long-
shore work in Pacific Coast ports of the United, States.' The ob-
jection is hereby overruled. The I. L. W. U. also moved to -exclude
all evidence of events which occurred prior to the Board's previous
decision, and the Trial Examiner denied the motion. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings
on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner-and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At
the close of the hearing the I. L. W. U. moved to dismiss the petitions.
The motion is hereby denied.
On March 12, 1941, after the close of the hearing, the I. L. W. U.
filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record to admit certain
evidence relative to wage increases granted since the hearing closed
to the Pacific Coast longshoremen pursuant to a contract between
the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Association. We have considered the
evidence offered and find that it would not affect our determination
of these proceedings. Accordingly, the motion is hereby denied.
On March 13, 1941, the I. L. A. and on March 19, 1941, the'
I. L. W. U., filed briefs which the Board has considered.
On April 8, 1941, pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument.
The I. L. W. U. and the I. L. A. were represented by counsel and
presented argument
Upon'the entire 'record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR BUSINESS
It is not disputed, and upon the entire record we find, that the
Coast Association, the Shipowners Association, the Washington As-
sociation; and their member companies who employ longshore labor
in the port of Tacoma constitute the employer of the longshoremen
in that port within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act; 2 the
above-mentioned associations and their member companies who em-
ploy longshore labor in the port of Port Angeles constitute the
employer of the longshoremen in that port within the meaning of
Section 2 •(2) of the Act; the above-mentioned associations and their
2 Matter of Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast et at . and International Long-
shoremeni8 and Warehousemen 's Union, District 1; Matter of Waterfront Employers of
Southern California and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local
1-13, 7 N. L. R. B. 1002.
2 Section 2 (2) of the Act reads "The term 'employer' includes any person acting in the
interest of an employer , directly or indirectly .. .
1
I
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 671
member companies who employ longshore labor in the port of
Anacortes constitute the employer of longshoremen in that _port
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.'
The parties stipulated at the hearing in substance and we find
as follows: (1) That each company listed on Appendix A is a member
of the Shipowners Association, the Coast Association, or the Wash-
ington Association, and is engaged in the transportation or handling
of water-borne cargo-; (2) that the longshoremen on whose behalf
the petitions in these proceedings are filed handle said waterborne
cargo; (3) that more than 50 per cent of said cargo at the time it is
handled by said longshoremen is in the course of transportation be-
tween States of the United States or between the United States and
foreign countries, or between the United States and noncontiguous
territories or possessions of the United States; and (4) that the com-
panies which are members of the Shipowners Association or Coast
Association, or Washington Association, are either firms engaged in
the transportation of cargo or passengers by water, stevedoring com-
panies, or terminal operators.
The Companies, the Coast Association, the Shipowners Association,
and the Washington Association admit, for the purposes of this pro-
ceeding, that they are engaged in intersate commerce and are subject
to the jurisdiction of the Board.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's Association is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and admits to mem-
bership all workers engaged in longshore work. Pacific Coast District,
International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 38, herein called
District 38, has jurisdiction over all ports of the Pacific Coast in Wash-
ington, Oregon, California, Alaska, British Columbia, and the Ha-
waiian Islands. Each of its locals has jurisdiction over one or, more
ports. Local No. 38-83, Local No. 38-86, and Local No. 38-97 are
locals of District 38 and have jurisdiction respectively over the ports
of Anacortes, Port Angeles, and Tacoma.
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
It admits to membership all workers engaged in longshore work.
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, District
No. 1, has jurisdiction over the ports of Washington, Oregon, Cali-
fornia, Alaska, Hawaii, and British Columbia.
-Matter of Associated Banning Company and IVaierfront Employers Association, etc.,
19 N. L. R. B. 140.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Oil or about August 30, 1940, Locals 38-83, 38-86, and 38-97 're-
quested the Coast Association and the Washington Association to
grant them exclusive recognition for the longshoremen employed in
the ports of Anacortes, Port Angeles, and Tacoma respectively and
to enter into negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement. The
Coast Association and the Washington Association refused the re-
quest on the ground that the Board had certified the I. L. W. U. as
exclusive representative for the longshoremen in these and other ports.
On September 12, 1940, the petitions herein were filed. On December
20, 1940, the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Association executed 'a collec-
tive bargaining agreement, containing terms with respect to preferen-
tial employment similar to those in a prior agreement, for the Pacific
Coast ports. It is not contended that this agreement , which was
executed after the petitions in this proceeding were filed, constitutes a
bar to an investigation of representatives.
The I. L. A., by virtue of substantial adherence among the em-
ployees 4 in the three ports above mentioned, and the I. L. W. U., by
virtue of its contracts above mentioned, have a substantial interest in
the representation of the longshoremen in the ports of Port Angeles,
Anacortes, and Tacoma.
We find that questions have arisen concerning representation of
longshoremen in the ports of Anacortes, Port Angeles, and Tacoma.
IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen occurring in connection with the operations described in Sec-
tion I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and with foreign
countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce, and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. L. A. contends that the longshoremen in the ports of Tacoma,
Port Angeles, and Anacortes, respectively, constitute separate appro-
'There was introduced in evidence at the hearing a statement by a Board Field Ex-
aminer showing that the I. L. A. had submitted to him a membership roster and records
of dues payments of Local 38-83 containing the names of 41 persons , 38 of which appear
on the pay rolls of the Companies in the port of Anacortes , which pay rolls consisted of 40
names ; the statement also showed that Local 38-86 had submitted to the Field Examiner
a membership roster and record of dues payments containing the names of 101 persons,
94 of which appeared upon the pay rolls of the Companies in the port of Port Angeles,
which pay rolls consisted of 94 names ; the statement recited further that Local 38-97
had submitted to the Field Examiner a membership roster and dues payment records
containing the names of 656 persons , 624 of which appeared on the pay rolls of the Com-
panies in the port of Tacoma, which pay rolls consisted of 624 navies
SHIPOWNERS. ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 673
priate units., The I. L. W. U. contends that longshoremen on the entire
Coast, constitute an appropriate unit., The employers have taken no
position with respect to the unit.5
The ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes' are located in
the, Puget Sound area of Washington which includes also the-ports of
Bellingham, Port Townsend, Seattle, and Olympia. The. largest port
in the, area is Seattle,, in which approximately, 1400 longshoremen are
employed ; there. are approximately 600 longshoremen employed at
Tacoma,,97 at Port Angeles, and 39 atAnacortes. All the ports, in this
area handle substantially similar cargoes which consist, primarily of
lumber and copper. They are connected with each other and with,
other ports on the. Coast by, a well developed transportation system of
barges, railroads,, and highways.
The history of organization and collective bargaining
Prior to 1908 the I. L. A. began organizing the longshoremen in some
of the ports in the Puget Sound area, and in 1908' conducted an un-
successful strike of longshoremen in those ports. In the same year
the employers of longshore labor in Seattle formed an employers'
association which was followed in subsequent years by similar asso-
ciations among, the employers' in San Francisco, Portland, and' San
Pedro.
In 1909 the I. L. A., the Longshoremen's Union of Pacific, and the
American Federation of -Labor entered into an agreement creating
District 38 of the I. L. A. The agreement provided that District 38
should have autonomy on the Pacific Coast within the I. L. A. and
that local, unions' could be chartered only with. its approval.
Thereafter, the I. L. A. organized longshoremen in other ports on
the Coast. In 1916 it conducted a strike in which the 1'ongshorelnen
in the major ports on the Coast participated. The strike was unsuc-
cessful largely because the San Francisco longshoremen broke the unity
of the strike by entering into a separate agreement with the employer
association in San Francisco. Following this strike, the longshore-
men in all ports on the Coast except those in Oregon, Washington, and
British Columbia, were largely unorganized until 1933.
In August 1919, District 38 and the Focal unions of the I. L. A.,
executed a collective bargaining 'agreement with an employer asso-
ciation, called the Northwest Waterfront Employers Union,, covering
longshore work in all ports in which I. L. A. local unions were or-
ganized in Oregon, Washington,, and British Columbia. The agree-
ment provided, inter alia, for preferential employment of I. L. A.
8 The I. L. A. in its petitions requested„ and- the I L, W. U., and the employers do not
object to , the exclusion of, "walking , bosses," supervisory and, clerical employees in all
three ports. We shall exclude such employees from the elections hereinafter directed.
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
longshoremen in those ports. In 1920,'District 38 and the Washing-
ton section of the Northwest Waterfront Employers Union. executed
a similar agreement covering longshore labor in ports located in the
State of Washington.
From 1920 until 1933, the I. L. A. was unable to organize or main-
tain local unions in any of the Pacific Coast ports except Tacoma. In
Tacoma 6 the local unions generally maintained their own hiring halls
from which longshoremen were dispatched by dispatchers chosen by
the local unions, or, occasionally, by agreement between the local
unions and the employers. During this period the only substantial
collective bargaining consisted of negotiations in 1932 between repre-
sentatives of the local unions and the employers in Tacoma relative
to the terms of a document issued by the employers entitled "Wage
Scale Rules and Working Conditions on the Tacoma Waterfront,"
which contained provisions relating inter alia, to basic wage rates,
hours of work, and holidays.
In 1933 the I. L. A. organized local unions in other ports on the
Coast including those of Anacortes and Port Angeles. In November
1933, the I. L. A. called an informal conference of longshoremen from
a large number, but not all of the Pacific Coast ports. The conference
formulated and presented to the employers certain demands with
respect to wages, hours, and working conditions for the Coast. The
employers failed to reply to the demands and the conference recom-
mended that a strike vote be taken among the I. L. A. locals.
In 1934 the employers of longshore labor on the Coast formed four
regional associations, the Waterfront Employers of Seattle, the Water-
front Employers of Portland, the Waterfront Employers Union of
San Francisco and Marine Service Bureau of Los Angeles, which
included substantially all companies employing longshore labor.7
On February 25, 1934, District 38 began its district convention in
San Francisco. The convention appointed a committee and instructed
it to meet with a committee of employers for the purpose of negotiat-
ing a coast-wide contract covering, longshore work. The employers
refused to negotiate on a coast-wide basis and stated that they would
negotiate only concerning longshore labor for the port of San Fran-
cisco. Thereafter, pursuant to direction of the convention, District
38 conducted a coast-wide referendum which resulted in an over-
whelming vote in favor of a coast-wide strike. On May 9, 1934,
District 38 called all longshoremen on the Coast out on strike. Shortly
6 Two local unions existed in Tacoma , Local 38-30 , known as the "Old Town" Local for
longshoremen engaged in handling lumber, and Local 38-3, known as the "New Town" Local
for longshoremen handling general cargo. In 1934 they combined to form Local 38-97.
7 The associations subsequently changed their names and are now called , Waterfront
Employers of Washington , Waterfront Employers of Portland , Waterfront Employers
Association of San Francisco , and Waterfront Employers Association of Southern Cali-
fornia.
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 675
afterward the sailors, firemen, licensed officers, and the cooks and
stewards also struck on a coastwide basis. Subsequently, the teamsters _
in some of the ports, particularly Tacoma and San Francisco joined
the strike. During the strike the I. L. A. demanded the establishment
of hiring halls in all ports, $1 an hour straight time and $1.50 an hour
overtime as basic wage rates, and a 6-hour working day.
During the strike representatives of the four employer associa-
tions above named formed a committee to carry on all negotiations
with the I. L. A. on behalf of the employers on the Coast. Negotia-
tions during the first part of the strike were conducted for the I. L. A.
by the executive board of District 38, and in the latter part. of the
strike, by a committee of which Harry Bridges was chairman. In
the northwest ports a Regional Strike Committee was established to
direct the strike in those ports.
On June 8, 1934, the Regional Strike Committee entered into an
agreement with the shipowners providing for shipment of foodstuffs
to Alaska. The agreement which provided, inter alia, for arbitra-
tion, basic union wages, and preferential hiring of I. L. A. employees,
established the first 6-hour day on the Coast. The executive board
of District 38 consented to this agreement upon a - regional basis
because of public pressure upon the union to insure the free flow
of foodstuffs to Alaska, but insisted that all other negotiations be
conducted upon a coast-wide basis.
On or about August 7, 1934, following arbitration by a board
appointed by President Roosevelt, an arbitration award, herein called
the 1934 award, was issued, and the strike ended. The 1934 Award
consisted of a series of agreements between District 38 acting on be-
half of its local unions and the regional associations of employers.
It established basic wage rates and hours of work for all longshore-
men on the Coast, and provided for the establishment of hiring halls
in all ports, except Tacoma, to be operated jointly by the I. L. A. and
the employers. The 1934 Award excepted Tacoma from the hiring-
hall provisions because the I. L. A. had maintained its own hiring-
hall in Tacoma for many years. By its terms the 1934 Award was
to be binding on all parties until September 30, 1935,, and was to be
automatically renewed from year to year unless written notice- of
intention to terminate or modify it was given by one of the parties
40 days prior to its expiration date. The settlement of the strike of
the other maritime unions against the employers was effected by
similar awards.
In January 1935, pursuant to a call sent by District 38 to all
maritime unions on the Pacific Coast, the unions representing the
longshoremen, seamen, licensed officers, engineers, firemen, and radio
operators sent delegates to a convention and established the Maritime
Federation of the Pacific, and thereafter these unions established
448692-42-vol. 32-44
676 DECISIONS; OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a, coast, policy committee, to. determine the policy to be followed by all
the maritime unions in negotiating new contracts. In its district
convention, held from May 5. to. 14, 1935, at Portland, Oregon, Di strict
38, adopted ,resolutions. vigorously supporting, a continuation of
bargaining-upon a coast-wide basis and cooperation with the other
maritime unions.
In May, 1935: the four. regional employer associations appointed
Francis R. Foisie coast coordinator of the. employer associations, and
in the spring, of '1936 created a Coast' Committee to- act exclusively on
behalf' of the associations in negotiating with District 38 for''the
modification or renewab of the existing agreements under- the 1934
Award', settlement of disputes arising in, connection with the agree-
ments, or negotiation and execution of a new contract.
In August 1936 the Coast Committee for the employers- and Dis-
trict. 38 gave notice of intention to amend- the 1934 Award', which
had been extended by the parties- in, 1935, until September- 30; 1936.
On October 28, 1936, following unsuccessful' negotiations with, the
employers, the maritime. unions called a simultaneous. strike and
authorized the coast policy committee to, conduct it.
On February 4, 1937, the strike was terminated by the execution
of an agreement. between, District 38. and the Coast Committee for
the, employers, acting in behalf of the. four employer- associations.
The agreement, which was in the form of an amendment to the 1934
Award; provided, inter alia, for further. negotiations to establish
uniform maximum, load provisions, and uniform penalty rates 8' The
agreement again excepted Tacoma from. provisions. continuing the
jointly controlled, hiring halls. Pursuant. to the terms= of- the agree-
ment, a subcommittee of' the' executive board of District 38, negotiated
uniform maximum load and penalty rate provisions' with the- Coast
Committee. The provisions, which were, subsequently approved by
a, coast-wide referendum' among, the I. L. A. locals, generally increased
the. penalty, rates. and reduced the- maximum- loads over the entire
Coast; but in- a few instances they resulted in a' reduction in, penalty
rates,on, cargoes handledi in Tacoma, and, in an increase in the maxi,
mum load on, some- cargoes, handled in San Francisco.
In, June 1937; pursuant to a recommendation of the Coast Com-
mittee, the employers on the Pacific' coast createdi and incorporated
the- Coast Association for the purpose off formulating labor policies
for the, entire Coast. in connection, with' longshore' labor. The Coast
Association has:
power to establish policies for its members and' the corporation
in all' matters relating to labor, contracts and` labor controversies
eA penalty, rate, is , an additional rate . paid to,longshoremen' for handling cargo which
is dangerous , cumbersome , or otherwise difficult to handle.
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 677
and shall have power to represent and act on behalf of its. mem-
bers in any negotiations, carried on by the corporation in behalf
of its members with unions of longshoremen or other employ-
ments ashore, and, subject to the provisions of Article V of these
bylaws, any contracts, commitments, or undertakings made by
this corporation on behalf of its members with any union shall
bind the members of this corporation.
Substantially all employers of longshore labor on the Pacific Coast
are members of the Coast Association and, according to its constitution
and bylaws, have authorized the Coast Association to act for and
bind them in the negotiation and execution of collective bargaining
agreements with the longshoremen.
On July 16, 1937, District 38 conducted a referendum among all
I. L. A. locals on the Coast to determine whether they desired to
affiliate with the Committee for Industrial Organization. The refer-
endum resulted in a vote of 11,441 in favor of, and 3,349 opposed to,
such affiliation. The longshoremen in Tacoma, Olympia, Port An-
geles, and Anacortes voted against affiliation. On August 11, 1937,
the executive board of District 38 received a charter from the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization, and formed the I. L. W. U.,
District 1. Thereafter, all longshore locals on the Coast, except the
4 above mentioned, applied for and received charters from the
I. L. W. U.
The longshoremen in Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes have
maintained their local organizations and their affiliation with the
I. L. A. The record contains testimony tending to show the existence
of distrust and hostility between the I. L. A. and union sympathetic
to it, such as the teamsters and the sailors, on the one hand and the
I. L. W. U. and unions sympathetic to it, such as the cooks and
stewards and the radio operators, on the other. In a number of
instances, representatives of one group have, refused to observe the
picket lines of the other.
In early 1938 the I. L. W. U. invited Local 38-97 to send delegates
to the I. L. W. U. convention in Aberdeen, Washington. Local 38-
97 answered, stating that a referendum on the question of sending
delegates had resulted in a vote of 188 to 149 against sending dele-
gates. On May 2, 1938, the I. L. W. U. locals, acting upon instruc-
tions from Matt Meehan, secretary of the I. L. W. U., withdrew from
the Puget Sound Sub-District Council, which had been established by
the I. L. A. in 1937 for representatives of local unions in the North-
west. Thereafter, the convention of the Maritime Federation of the
Pacific refused to seat the delegates from Local 38-97 and, as a result,
delegates of the seamen and some of the delegates representing the
firemen, engineers and licensed officers, withdrew from the convention.
678 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 21, 1938, the Board certified the I. L. W. U. as exclusive
representative for "the workers who do longshore work in the Pacific
Coast ports of the United States for the companies which are mem-
bers of Waterfront Employers of Seattle, Waterfront Employers of
Portland, Waterfront Employers Association of San Francisco,
Waterfront Employers Association of Southern California, and Ship-
owners' Association of the Pacific Coast ..."
On July 15,1938, the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Association signed
a memorandum agreement which provided as follows :
The Longshore agreements of February 4, 1937, are amended
by substituting the name of the I. L. W. U. for I. L. JA. in all
places where I. L. A. appears as to all ports on the Pacific Coast
in which the longshoremen indicated a preference for the I. L.
W. U. in the proceedings before the N. L. R. B. . . . except
Olympia, Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes, in which ports
the said agreements will remain unchanged . . . 'except as to
amendments which may be agreed upon by the employers and
the I. L. W. U. to take effect after September 30, 1938.. .
The memorandum provided also for exclusive recognition of the
I. L. W. U. as the representative of "all longshoremen who do long-
shore work in such Pacific Coast ports as are covered by existing
longshore agreements to which the employer associations are par-
ties ..."
On October 1, 1938, the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Association
executed a collective bargaining agreement which in form further
amended the 1934 Award as amended by the 1937 agreement. The
agreement provided, inter alia, for preferential employment of I. L.
W. U. longshoremen and for uniform hours, wages, penalty cargo
rates, overtime, and grievance procedures for the entire Coast. The
agreement provided further for the establishment of joint hiring
halls in each port, and for the operation of the hiring halls by a
labor relations committee consisting of employer representatives and
representatives of the local I. L. W. U. union in each port. The
dispatcher in each hiring hall was to be appointed by the I. L. W. U.
The agreement, expressly excepted the port of Tacoma from the pro-
visions relating to the hiring halls and the dispatchers. By a sup-
plementary memorandum attached to the, agreement, the I. L. W. U.
agreed not to assert -its right to preference in employment in the
ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, Anacortes, or Olympia until it estab-
lished that it represented a majority of the longshoremen in those
ports.9 The supplementary memorandum stated, however, that it
should not be construed to abridge the power of the labor relation s
• Shortly thereafter , the longshoremen in Olympia affiliated with the I. L. W U.
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE' PACIFIC COAST 679
committees in those ports to control the hiring halls, nor to consti-
tute a waiver by the I. L. W. U._ of any of its rights under the Board's
certification.
• In the spring of 1939 the I. L. W. U. appointed representatives
on the labor relations committees for the ports of Tacoma, Port An-
geles, and Anacortes; consisting of I. L. W. U. officers who were not
longshoremen in those ports. The Coast Association resisted the ac-
tion, and pursuant to the terms, of the 1938 contract the issue was
submitted to arbitration. The I. L. W. U. did not notify the Tacoma,
Port Angeles, or Anacortes longshoremen of, or invite their participa-
tion in, the arbitration hearings. The arbitrator decided that the
I. L. W. U. did not have the right to select employee representatives
for the labor relations committees or to select dispatchers in the hiring
halls of those ports. The award' was based upon the arbitrator's
finding that Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes had been treated
as "exception ports" in the October 1, 1938 agreement, and that the
parties had not intended that the I. L. W. U. should have the right
to name the employee representatives on the labor relations' com-
mittees or the dispatchers in those ports.
Subsequent to the date of the arbitrator's ruling,-the labor relations
committees in those ports have continuously consisted of represent-
atives of the I. L. A. and the local employers. They have handled
grievances with respect to such matters as local working rules, the
manner of choosing gangs, and the rates of pay for longshoremen
ordered into the hiring hall when no work is provided. In some in-
stances the I. L. A. has refused to abide by arbitration awards under
the I. L. W. U. contracts where they concern local working conditions,
such as the number of men required to a gang in particular loading
operations. The I. L. A. has negotiated with the employers for the
restoration of specific penalty cargo rates which were lowered in the
1937 agreement.
Prior to the expiration of the 1938 agreement on September 30,
1939, the I. L. W. U., pursuant to a referendum among its members,
notified the Coast Association of its desire to amend the agreement.
Thereafter, negotiations between the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Asso-
ciation were conducted relative to a new collective bargaining agree-
ment for the entire Coast. No longshoremen from Tacoma, Port
Angeles, or Anacortes were represented on the I. L. W. U. negotiating
committee.
On August 30, 1940, the I. L. A. conducted a strike in Tacoma,
Anacortes, and Port Angeles because the Coast Association refused
to recognize or negotiate with the 'I. L. A. in view of the Board's
certification. During the strike the employers diverted cargo from
the I. L. A. ports to I. L. W. U. ports. On September 12, 1940, the
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I. L. A. concluded the strike upon the report of one of its committees
that the Board had authorized a proceeding.
On November 12, 1940, the I. L. W. U. and the Coast Association
reached a tentative agreement, which was referred to and approved
by a referendum vote of the I. L. W. U. locals. On the same day
Harry Bridges, president of the I. L. W. U., wrote to Local 38-97,
Local 38-83, and Local 38-86, notifying them of the referendum vote
on the proposed contract and stating that the agreement would not
be submitted for their approval.
The 1940 agreement, like previous agreements, is in the form of an
amendment to the 1934 Award. It is to remain in effect until Sep-
tember 30, 1942. It provides, inter alia, for uniform basic wage rates
on the Coast and for uniform hours, penalty rates, overtime, maximum
loads, and compulsory arbitration of grievances. It also provides for
the establishment of a coast labor relations committee which has power
to overrule decisions arrived. at by the local labor relations committee
in any port. The agreement again excepted Tacoma from the pro-
visions concerning jointly controlled hiring halls and renewed the
supplementary memorandum whereby the I. L. W. U. agreed not to
assert its right to preferential employment in Tacoma, Port Angeles,
and Anacortes. I
So far as the record shows, the I. L. W. U. has at no time had any
members among the longshoremen of, Tacoma, Port Angeles, • or
Anacortes.
Concluding findings
The parties are not in dispute that comparatively uniform stand-
ards for longshoremen should prevail all along the Pacific Coast.
This is the ideal and was eagerly sought by the union leaders and
the articulate rank and file until the split occurred in the longshore-
men's organization in 1937. The Board, however, must decide upon
the appropriate unit not under ideal conditions but under all the
circumstances "in each case." 10
As the Board pointed out in its previous decision," the organiza-
tion of the employers on a coast-wide basis, the need for uniformity
in basic wages, hours, and working conditions over the entire Coast,
and the history of collective bargaining on a coast-wide basis since
1934 are persuasive of the appropriateness of the coast-wide unit.
That decision was concerned primarily with establishing the appro-
priateness in general of the coast-wide unit. In view of the conten-
tions which the parties stressed, the Board's attention at that time
vas not directed to the possibility that while the coast-wide unit was
See Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'- See supra, footnote 2, at pp. 1021-1025.
SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATLON OF THE'. PACIFIC' COAST 681
in general appropriate, certain ports might be exceptional and that
the. employees at- those "exception" ports' should be given an oppor-
tunity to determine. whether, or not they- should be excluded from the
broad unit. The present record and the contentions, now made call
for a determination by the Board as to whether special factors. in
respect to, the, ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes; require
that, the employees of these three ports, be given a "Globe" election 12
The I: L. W. U. had no, members: in these, three ports: at the time it
was certified and has, apparently gained none in the 3: years following
the, certification. There. is no, showing that it, now- has' any represen-
tation there. It- is not disputed that the longshoremen in those, ports
have designated the I. L. A. as their representative. Since the split
between the, I. L. A. ands the It. L. W. U. in 1,937, the. longshoremen
in Tacoma, Port. Angeles, and Anacortes, have, never been a_ part. of
the coast-wide, organization, of longshoremen, and have never volun-
larily participated- in collective. bargaining within the coast-wide
i init. They 'have. maintained their own organizations,. and; although
they, were. invited to send delegates. to the, 1938 I: L. W. TJ. conven,r
tion, they have not. served nor been asked to serve on, the negotiating
committees, which negotiated' the last two coast-wide contracts,- and
t hey- have had no, voice, in the, modification, approval,, or rejection, of
those contracts.
In. important, particulars, they, have continued to exist ass units
apart from the rest of the organized. longshoremen, on the. Coast.
Thus; they have maintained their. owns representatives; on, the, port
labor. relations. committees and, have negotiated. withl the, employers
concerning all grievances, arising.' over local, working conditions: In
some, instances ,, where their. resolution of. grievances has conflicted
with. the results, reached by,, coast-wide arbitration; they.- have, refused
to abide by, the arbitration awards. They have continued, to, main-
tainti and, operate their. own hiring halls, and; have continuously. con=
trolled the hiring and dispatching of all longshoremen in their own
ports: In 1940, they resorted to strike action, independently, of the
rest of the Coast.
It can, hardly-be doubted} that. the longshoremen at these -ports. have
considered themselves apart from, the rest, of the coast-wide; unit.
Moreover, in important respects,. they-have, been so considered; by the
1. L. W. U:, the employers, andithe•,arbitrators., The I. L. W..U., in its
negotiations with-the employers, has agreed not-to assert its rights to
preferential employment, intthese:por,,ts,.andthas_expressly,excepted Ta-
coma.from theprovisions; in} its, contracts -concerning the, control of the
hiring, hall's, and- the dispatching of- longshoremen;, The, employers
12 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Company and Metal Polishers Union, etc,
and United Automobile Workers of America, 3 N L. R B 294 and subsequent cases.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have contended and the arbitrators held, that these ports are "excep-
tion ports" and that the I. L. W. U. did not have the right, under its
contracts with the Coast -Association, to name the employee repre-
sentatives on the labor relations committees in those ports or to select
the dispatchers thereof.
The fact that the I. L. W. U., following its certification as repre-
sentative of a coast-wide unit, found it necessary in its agreement
with the Coast Association to recognize the existence of the "excep-
tion ports" indicates plainly that certain conditions existed at these
ports which cast doubt upon the appropriateness of including them
in the coast-wide unit. In these ports the I. L. W. U. did not repre-
sent a majority of the longshoremen at the time the certification on
the coast-wide basis was made in 1938. There were four of these
"exception ports" at that time, Olympia, Tacoma, Port Angeles, and
Anacortes; and in none of these ports did the longshoremen have an
opportunity to determine for themselves whether they desired to be
included in the coast-wide bargaining unit. Subsequently, however,
the longshoremen in Olympia voted to affiliate with the I. L. W. U.
and thereby voluntarily became a part of the coast-wide unit. Thus,
Olympia is no longer an "exception port," and only Tacoma, Port
Angeles, and Anacortes remain as exceptions under the coast-wide
agreement.
The method by which the Port of Olympia became an integral
part of the coast-wide unit as a result of the voluntary choice of the
longshoremen at that port seems to us a reasonable method of deter-
mining who shall and who shall not be included in a widespread
geographical unit, the component parts of which may have conditions
with respect to labor organization and representation differing in
vital respects. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the longshore-
men at Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes are also entitled to
choose for themselves whether they desire to be represented by the
I. L. A. in separate units.
If the I. L. W. U. had extended its organization to the "exception
ports," if the longshoremen in these ports, or a sufficient portion of
them, had joined the I. L. W. U. so that the coast-wide agreement
could have been effectively extended to these ports and effectively
administered in the ports, a different question would be presented
to the Board. Then the question would have been whether a portion
of the employees in an appropriately established and practically
functioning bargaining unit could be properly set apart as a separate
bargaining unit. The Board has consistently held that under such
circumstances the established appropriate unit could not be split and
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 683
a new smaller unit set up.13 In the present case, however, the ques-
tion presented is quite different. The so-called "exception ports"
were separately represented at the time the coast-wide unit was found,
they have continued to exist for 3 years since that time, and the
employees at these ports have at no time been given an opportunity
to'choose for themselves whether they .desire to, be represented in the
larger coast-wide unit.
Since the I. L. W. U. has never had any members among the long-
shoremen of Tacoma, Port Angeles, or Anacortes and the I. L. A.
has been designated by all, or almost all, of the longshoremen at these
ports, and these ports-have been treated as exception ports, we shall
allow , the desires of the employees of these ports to determine whether
they shall function as separate bargaining units or as part of the
coast-wide unit 11 If a majority of the longshoremen in any of these
three ports decide, through the secret ballot elections, hereinafter di-
rected that they desire to be represented by the I. L. A., we shall find
that port to be a separate -appropriate unit and certify the I. L. A. If
the I. L. W. U. obtains a majority in any of the three ports in which
an election is herein directed, we shall include such port or ports in
the coast-wide unit.
VI. THE DETFR31INATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation can best be
resolved by the holding of the above-mentioned elections by secret
ballot. -
We shall direct that all longshoremen, excluding "walking bosses,"'
supervisory, and office employees, in the ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles,
and Anacortes, respectively, shall be eligible to participate in the
elections.
''See Matter of Alston Coal Company and Progressive Mine Workers of America, 13
N. L. R. B. 683; Matter of,Wisconsin Power and Light Company and United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local No. 113,4, 6 N. L. R. B. 320; Matter of
Stevens Coal Co., and Progressive Mine Workers etc., 19 N. L. R. B. 98.
14 Cf. Matter of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company and Federation of Glass, Ceramic,
and Silica Sand Workers of America, 31 N. L R. B. 243; Matter of Mullins Manufac-
turing Corp and Pattern Makers Leaque of, North America, etc, 31 N L R B. 532;
Matter of Maryland Dry Docks Co. and Baltimore Assn, etc., 23 N. L. R B 917; Matter
of Chicago Malleable Castings Co. and Int'l Union of Operating Engineers , etc., 16 N. L.
R. B 15; Matter of General Electric Company and Pattern Makers' League of North
America A F. L., 29 N. L. R B . 162; Matter of General Electric Company and Pattern
Makers League, etc, 29 N L R B 1066; Matter of Sullivan Machinery Company and
Int'l Union, etc., 31 N. L R. B. 749; Matter of The Riverside and Fort Lee Ferry
Company and United Marine Division, etc, 23 N. L. R B. 493; Matter of The B F
Goodrich Company and Pattern Makers League, etc ., 16 N. L. R. B 165 . Cf. also Matter
of John Kausel, etc., and Local No. 132 of the International Moulders Union (A. F. of L.),
28 N. L R B 906; Matter of Racing Publications, Inc and New York Printing Pressmen's
Union, 29 N. L R. B 633
684 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis 'of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board -makes ;the following :
' CONCLUSION OF ,LAW
.1. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of longshoremen in the ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and
Anacortes within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor'Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and-pursuant=to the powers vested in the National'L'ab'or
Relations Board by Section 9 `(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article 'III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
Dnu cTED that, as part,of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for 'collective bargaining of the employees
engaged in longshore -work in the ports of -Tacoma, Port Angeles, and
Anacortes, separate elections by secret ballot shall be 'conducted as
early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and 'supervision of the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent of
the National Labor Relations •Board and subject'to•Article III,'Section
9 of said Rules and 'Regulations, among all longshoremen, excluding
"walking bosses," supervisory, and office employees,
At the port of Tacoma, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by International 'Longshoremen's Association, affiliated with
the A. F. of L., Local No. 38-97, or by International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, District 1, for the'purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither;
At the port of Anacortes, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by International Longshoremen's Association, affiliated
with the A. F. of L., Local No. 38-83, or 'by International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, District 1, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither;
At the port of Port Angeles, to -determine whether they desire to
be represented by International Longshoremen's Association, affiliated
with the A. F. of L., Local No. 38-86, or by International Longsho"re-
men'sand Warehousemen's Union, District 1, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither. -
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 685
MR. EDWIN S.'SMITH , dissenting:
The unit embracing all longshoremen on the Pacific Coast is firmly
rooted in a Board certification 15 and in collective bargaining agree-
ments.18 That the coast-wide unit is appropriate is plainly demon-
strated by the findings recited in the present majority decision. The
majority in relying upon so-called special factors for directing elections
in the three ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes is, in my
opinion, grasping at straws.
It is difficult to conceive of a situation where all the material circum-
stances so militate against the determination to disrupt the coast-wide
unit. The ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes are single
links in a chain that extends the length of the Pacific Coast. Other
agencies of the government in their various dealings with the maritime
industry have not been blind to the intimate interrelationship of the
various ports on the West Coast. In effect, they constitute an inte-
grated system analogous to a system of communications, transporta-
tion, or public utilities. The Board, in such cases, has found appro-
priate the more comprehensive unit 17
15 See footnote 2, supra. Cf . Matter of Bendiw Products Corp. and Patt. Mkrs. Assn. of
So. Bend, 15 N. L. R. B . 965, where following certification of an industrial unit including
pattern makers , the Pattern Makers Association petitioned the Board to establish the
pattern makers as a separate unit. Board Member Leiserson concurred in the dismissal
of the petition and stated the following:
I agree that the petition filed by the Pattern Makers ' Association should be dis-
missed. When the Board , after due investigation and hearing , has determined that
all the e hourly paid production employees of the Company constitute an appropriate
unit , I am' of the opinion that it is not free in subsequent proceedings to find the same
unit inappropriate or to disregard it. I think such , changes in succeeding opinions make
stable collective bargaining impossible . The collective bargaining that follows certi-
fication of a representative of an appropriate unit establishes rights and privileges for
the employees constituting. the unit which would be , adversely affected by the Board
changing its mind as to the appropriateness of a unit. It seems to me arbitrary and
capricious to make different findings as to the appropriateness of a bargaining unit in
two successive cases involving the same production employees.
Cf. Matter of West Coast Wood Preserving Company and Boommen and Rafters Union,
Local 130 , etc., 15, N. L. R. B. 1, where the Board dismissed a petition to establish a sepa-
rate unit composed of boommen and rafters Mr Leiserson concurred in the dismissal of
the petition on the following ground : '
.
We have here, a valid contract , the third such contract , duly negotiated under the
provisions of the Act by authorized representatives of the employees establishing an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining . Boommen and rafters , like the other em-
ployees, are included as a portion of this appropriate unit. As I stated in Matter of
American Can Company [13 N. L. R. B 1252 ] I am of the opinion that we do not
have the authority to set aside an appropriate unit thus established by negotiation
between the legally authorized representative of the employees and, their employers
and maintained in contracts between them.
See in this connection Matter of General Electric Company and Pattern Makers League of
North America, A. F. L, 29 N. L R. B 162.
17 Matter of Gulf States Utilities Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, A. F L, 31 N.-L R. B 740; Matter of E. T, & W. N. C. Motor Transporta-
tion Company and Drivers and Warehousemen 's Union, 30 N. L R. B 505 ; Matter of
Gulf Oil and Gulf Employees Association of New England, et at , 19 N. L R B. 334;
Matter of Iowa Southern Utilities Company and Utility Workers Organizing Committee, etc,
15 N. L. R. B. 580; Matter of Postal Telegraph -Cable Corp. of New York and Commercial
Telegraphers ' Union, 9, N. L. R. B . 1060;. Matter of Tennessee Electric Power Co. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 24; Matter of Wisconsin
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employers of longshore labor, recognizing the unitary character
of the West Coast, organized effectively on a coast-wide basis. They
have taken full advantage of the peculiar' nature of longshore employ-
ment, the large number of ports, the existence of a well developed
transportation system between the ports and the fact that most of the
cargo carrying vessels load and discharge at several ports. When the
longshoremen attempted to engage in collective action on a port or
regional basis, as in the 1916 strike, the employers` thwarted their at-
tempts by diverting cargo to, other ports or regions. Acting with
their combined bargaining power, the employers played . one port
against another, created dissension among the longshoremen, and
rendered futile their local organizations. Again in the 1940 strike,
the employers pursued the same tactics by diverting cargo to Seattle,
Portland, and San Francisco.
The entire history of organization and collective bargaining by the
longshoremen is encompassed in their attempt to meet this combined
bargaining power of the employers on a basis of equality. The desires
of the men expressed in the resolutions of every convention of the
I. L. A., the statements of their leaders-including those who would
now set themselves apart from the rest of the Coast-and the long
and costly strikes of 1934 and 1937 bear eloquent testimony to the
realization of the longshoremen that they must act as a coast-wide
unit.",
Prior to 1934, when the longshoremen were acting on a, port or
regional basis, they were unable to achieve any satisfactory collective
bargaining or even to maintain their own organization. Since 1934,
when they have acted as a coast unit, their success' both in organiza-
tion and bargaining provides a striking and persuasive contrast.
They have succeeded in organizing almost every longshoreman in every
port on the Coast and they have negotiated and executed comprehen-
sive coast-wide contracts with, the employer associations. In the
recent Kausel case,19 in a unanimous decision, the Board dismissed the
petition for a single foundry unit because "the full benefit of the
employees' right to self-organization and collective bargaining cannot
be insured by breaking up the collective bargaining unit [composed
of several foundries owned • by several employers associated in a
-Foundrymen's Committee] which has been established by the history
of contractual relations" between the union and the Foundrymen's
Committee. The Board, in reaching this result, relied on persuasive
Power and Light Company and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
etc., 6 N. L. R. B. 320; Matter of Portland Gas and Coke Co. and Gas and Coke Workers
Union, etc., 2 N. L R B. 552.
is It is notable that the I. L. A. locals and their supporters , after they withdrew from
the Maritime Federation of the Pacific , immediately established a parallel coast-wide
organization which they called the Mutual Assistance Pact.
19 Matter of John Kausel, etc. and Local No. 18$, etc, 28 N . L R B 006
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 687
precedents.20 The majority decision is in conflict with these decisions
and with the settled policy of the Board in respect to cases where
collective bargaining- has proceeded upon the basis of associated
employer wide units.21 In the National Dress ease ,'22. also recently
decided, the Board found appropriate an employer association unit,
because sanctioned by the history of collective bargaining therein, and
cited with approval the previous Board case finding that the long-
shoremen throughout the Pacific Coast constitute the, appropriate
unit. t
No adequate reason has been advanced for arriving at a different
conclusion now. It may be noted that two recognized experts-
Paul C. Smith, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, and Paul Eliel,
Director of the Division of Industrial Relations of the Graduate
School of Business at Stanford University-testifying on the basis of
the facts as they exist today stated the coast unit was the only appro-
priate one. There is no expert testimony to contravene these views.
The majority opinion seeks to differentiate between the "ideal"
situation where only one longshoremen's organization is involved and
the actual situation where there exist two rival longshoremen's or-
ganizations. But the split had already occurred at the time of the
previous decision involving the longshoremen. , The Board had this
fact before it and still decided that the coast unit, including the ports
of Tacoma, Port Angeles and Anacortes, was the appropriate one.23
The majority relies also on the allegedly exceptional character of
these ports. But the respects in which they were treated as excep-
tions are over-shadowed by the other circumstances disclosed by the
record. The I. L. A. with Tacoma as one of its constituent ports par-
ticipated in numerous multi-port arrangements and struggled for
years to obtain a-coast-wide agreement. In 1916, and again in 1934,
the I. L. A. conducted coast-wide strikes to obtain coast-wide bargain-
ing. From 1934 until 1938, the longshoremen in Tacoma, Port An-
20The Board cited Matter of Stevens Coal Company and Progressive Mine Workers of
America, etc., 19'N. L R. B. 98; Matter of Alston Coal Co. and Progressive Mine Workers
Of America, etc., 13 N. L. R B. '683; Matter of Associated Banning Co ., etc. and Int'l
Longshoremen's Union, etc., 19 N. L. R. B. 140. See also, Matter of Federated Fishing
Boats, etc. and American Communications Association, etc., 15 N. L. R. B. 1079; Matter
of Hyman Michels Co. and International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, etc.,
it N L. R. B. 796; Matter of Monon Stone Co. and Quarry Workers' Int'l Union of N.
A mer., 10 N L. R. B. 64; Matter of Admiar Rubber Co. and American Federation of Labor,
9 N. L. R. B. 407; Matter of Mobile Steamship Association and Int. Longshoremen and
II,arehouseinen's Union, 8 N L. R. B. 1297.
21 See, in addition to cases cited in footnotes 19 and 20, Fourth Annual Report, pp. 92,
93; Fifth Annual Report, p. 69.
22 National Dress Manufacturers' Association, etc. and Dress Pattern Makers Union, etc,
28 N. L. R. B 386.
23 Cf. Matter of Stevens Coal Co. and Progressive Mine Workers of America, etc, 19
N. L. R. B. 98, where the labor organization seeking to separate a plant from a multi-
employer unit unsuccessfully stressed the "split in the labor movement" as a ground for
departing from the multi -employer unit.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
geles, and Anacortes were subject to the coast-wide contract negotiated
and executed by the I. L. A. Since 1938, by virtue of the Board's
certification and contracts between the employers and the I. L. W. U.,
they have been included within the unit covering the entire Coast.
They have participated equally with the other longshoremen in the
increased basic wage rates, decreased hours of labor and the improved,
uniform and stable working conditions brought about through coast-
wide bargaining. They have been treated as "exception ports" only
in minor local matters.24 In so far as the majority decision proceeds
on this basis, I believe it unjustly penalizes the I. L. W. U. for
having granted concessions to the longshoremen in the three ports.25
Finally, the majority points to the fact that the I. L. W. U. has
never been designated by any longshoremen at Tacoma, Port Angeles,
and Anacortes, and that the I. L. A. since 1934 has represented all
or almost all the longshoremen at these ports. The Board in its
previous decision was aware of the fact that the I. L. W. U. did not
represent longshoremen at these ports. In face of the other' circum-
stances of this case which argue overwhelmingly for the coast-wide
unit, the I. L. A.'s representation of the longshoremen at the three
ports would hardly seem significant. The principle of the Globe
decision 26 upon which the majority seeks to rely is clearly inapposite.
Early in the Board's history, it enunciated the rule that, where the
factors favoring craft organization evenly balanced those which nor-
mally render industrial organization more effective, the desires of the
craftsmen should determine whether or not a separate craft unit is
appropriate.27 In cases in which organization and bargaining on
the craft basis has antedated self-organization on an industrial basis,
I have concurred in the application of that rule .211 But the consid-
erations-underlying the Globe, doctrine are wholly inapplicable to
situations such as the present where rival industrial unions are seeking
24 Since 1934 the tendency has been toward greater uniformity The 1937 contract
stabilized hours, wages, and grievance procedures The 1938 contract added uniform
maximum load and penalty cargo rate provisions . The 1940 contract , executed during
the pendency of this proceeding and therefore not given weight except in so far as it illus-
trates a previously existing tendency ( cf. Matter of Celanese Corporation of America and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 18 N. L. R. B. 965 ), provides also for
the negotiation of a uniform safety code and centralizes the handling of grievances in
a coast-wide labor relations committee and a coast -wide arbitrator.
25 One of the major purposes of the I . L A. strike in 1934 was the establishment of
union hiring halls . The 1934 award resulted in a compromise on this issue and established
jointly controlled hiring halls . It excepted Tacoma, however , because a union hiring hall
already existed there. In the 1937 contract , the I. L. A. continued such special recognition
of the Tacoma hiring system , and it is likely that the I. L. A. did so in order to maintain
the Tacoma hiring hall as the advanced union position which it desired to establish
in other poets . It is likely also that the I. L. W. U., by excepting Tacoma from the hiring
provisions of the 1938 and 1940 contracts , followed the same union strategy.
26 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Polishers Union, etc., 3 N. L R B.
294.
27 Ibid.
zs Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America, 4 N. L. R. , B. 412, and subsequent cases.
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION IOF THE PACIFIC "COAST 689
to bargain for ordinary employees who perform the same type of work
and have no craft tradition of •separateness.29 The desires of the
longshoremen at the three ports no more justify separate units than
do,the desires of any other fragment ,of a coherent ;group.30
Obviously the majority rule incorporated in the Act contemplates
that there may be a minority. The coast-wide unit is the broadest
unit in which -self-organization has been effective. It is the only unit
in which the longshoremen can negotiate ,on a basis of equality with
the,employers. The coast-wide unit including the ports of Tacoma,
Port Angeles, and Anacortes, is, ,as the Board has already found, the
appropriate unit within which the principle of majority -rule.should
be applied, and the longshoremen in these three ports are a ;small
minority within the appropriate unit. In the present case -the coast=
wide unit is so clearly appropriate and the factors in favor of port
units so few, that separate elections for individual ports constitute
an unwarranted disregard of the principle of majority rule.
The impracticability of separate port units is vividly illustrated by
the spectacle of the •'39 longshoremen of Anacortes attempting to
negotiate with the Coast Association which combines the bargaining
power of all the longshore employers on the Coast. Separate units
for the longshoremen of Tacoma, Port Angeles, and Anacortes will
not result in any substantial benefit to them, for the whole history
of bargaining on the Coast demonstrates the ineffectiveness of separate
units in dealing with the 'associated employers.
Years of painful effort on the part of west coast longshoremen
have gone into building up the coast-wide unit in order to achieve
greater equality of bargaining power with the west coast employers.
By the decision of the majority this effort and its fruition are now
thrown into the discard merely because a minority seeks first by
strike action then by application to the Board to assert an advantage
of their own particular membership by ,separate bargaining. The
result is peculiarly ironic when, as appears from the majority opinion,
the port of Tacoma, by all odds the most important of the three
ports involved in the petition, historically took the lead in the fight
for collective bargaining on a coast-wide basis. The irony is
especially ,apparent in the absence of any showing that the employees
in Tacoma, Anacortes, and Port Angeles have suffered from the
results of collective bargaining on a coast-wide basis now finally
established. To the contrary, the gains achieved for all longshoremen
on the Coast by the 1937, 1938 and 1940 contracts are eloquent testi-
29 See my separate opinion in Matter of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company and Federa-
tion of Glass, Ceramic and Silica Sand Workers of America, 31 N. L It. B. 243.
b Cf. for example, Matter of It. C. A Manufacturing Co, Inc and Pattern Makers Asso-
ciation, etc., 13 N. L. It. B. 667.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mony to the effectiveness of the bargaining unit which the long-
shoremen in these three ports presently seek to destroy. -
There can be little doubt that the gains which they have shared in
common with the other longshoremen, as well as the benefits derived
by the employers of longshore labor, from the coast-wide unit, are
placed in jeopardy by the present decision. The majority decision
holds forth to the employers the temptation once more to play the
longshoremen of one port against the longshoremen of another. More-
over, although the majority seeks to minimize the disruptive effect
of its decision by recognizing the appropriateness in general of the
coast-wide unit and finding that the ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles,
and Anacortes are exceptional, the inevitable consequence of directing
separate elections for these ports will be to encourage efforts to make
other ports seem exceptional and thus further to eviscerate the coast-
wide unit.
I have previously noted the tendency of the Board, beginning with
the Chrysler case,31 to permit the scope of industrial units to be
determined by the desires of the employees in the smallest industrial
grouping for which a contention is made.32 The present majority
decision is a particularly unfortunate instance of that inclination.
It will tend to disrupt a workable and stabilized bargaining relation-
ship established by certification and contract and thus frustrate the
bargaining process at a time when considerations of national welfare
render of paramount importance the effectuation of the policy of
the Act:
. . . to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions
to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these
obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice
and procedure of collective bargaining. . . 33
3' Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, etc,
13 N L R B 1303
0 See Matter of Libby-Owens -Ford Glass Co and Federation of Glass, Ceramic and Silica
Sand Workers of America, 31 N L. R B. 243, and cases there cited in footnote 17;
see also Matter of Cluett-Peabody it Co Inc, and United Garment Workers of America, etc,
31 N. L: R. B. 505.
83 Section 1. In England and Sweden collective bargaining agreements are now com-
monly negotiated on the basis of an industry-wide unit Report of the Commission on
Industrr,al Relations in Sweden ( 1938 ), p. 4; Report of the Commission on Industrial
Relations in England ( 1938 ), p 4. The Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations
In England , in regard to the effect of such large bargaining units upon strikes and other
forms of industrial unrest and strife, and the process of collective bargaining itself, states
(pp. 23-24) : -
We can, however , state with certainty that among the persons we conferred with
there was a common feeling of confidence in the existing method of handling industrial
ielations , and that in those industries where collective bargaining between national
unions and national associations of employers have long been established , strikes ha%e
been rare, and in a few instances non-existent ( with the exception of the general
strike in 1926) since the very beginnings of the collective bargaining arrangements . .
. . . the acceptance and general practice of collective bargaining on an industry
basis places upon the employers ' and workers ' organizations , because of the sheer num-_
hers of men and the magnitude of interests involved , a peculiarly heavy respousi-
SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 691
Since- the coast-wide unit is the appropriate unit, the, petitions for
three separate port elections should be dismissed.31
APPENDIX "A"
BRADY - HAMILTON STEVEDORES, INC., a corporation;
GRIFFITHS AND SPRAGUE STEVEDORING COMPANY, a
corporation; H. E. MANSFIELD, INC., a corporation; OLYMPIC
PENINSULA STEVEDORING CO., a corporation; PUGET
SOUND STEVEDORING CO., INC., a corporation; ROTHS-
CHILD-INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING COMPANY, a cor-
poration; SEABOARD STEVEDORING CORPORATION _ OF
WASHINGTON, a corporation; WASHINGTON STEVEDORING
COMPANY, a corporation; ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY,
a corporation; AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COM-
PANY, a corporation; AMERICAN MAIL LINE LTD., a corpora-
tion; ALASKA TRANSPORTATION CO., -a corporation; THE
BORDER-LINE NAVIGATION COMPANY, a corporation;
COASTAL STEAMSHIP CO., a corporation; COASTWISE LINE,
a, corporation; GRACE LINE, INC., a corporation; JAMES GRIF-
FITHS & SONS, INCORPORATED, a corporation; LUCKEN-
BACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., a corporation; MATSON
NAVIGATION COMPANY, a corporation ; McCORMICK STEAM-
SHIP CO., a corporation; NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION
CO., a corporation; OLYMPIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a cor-
poration; PACIFIC-ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP CO., a corporation;
SHEPARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a corporation; FRANK
WATERHOUSE AND COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED, a
corporation; WEYERHAEUSER STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a
corporation; AINSWORTH - DUNN DOCK CO., a corporation;
AMES TERMINAL COMPANY, a corporation; ARLINGTON
DOCK CO., a corporation; BAKER DOCK CO., a corporation;
CITY DOCK CO., a corporation; DODWELL DOCK AND WARE-
HOUSE COMPANY, INC., a corporation; LAST WATERWAY
DOCK AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a corporation; MATSON
TERMINALS, INC., a corporation; and SHAFFER TERMINALS
INC., a corporation.
bility calculated by its very nature to call forth patience, understanding , and a desire
to make and keep agreements and to achieve industrial peace.
34 Since, however , Globe elections are being directed for the ports of Tacoma, Port Angeles,
and Anacortes , I would provide , as the majority does not, that in the event neither labor
organization receives a majority of the votes cast in any of the elections directed, the
employees at such port or ports be considered part of the broad unit. See my separate
opinions in Matter of Quaber Oats Company and United Cereal Workers, etc , 32 N. L Il B
$12, Matter of the Cudahy Parting Company and Local 5S, United Packinghouse Worbeis
of America, etc, 32 N . L. R. B. 72; and Matter of Dam Manufacturing Company and
Lodge No. 1465 etc., 32 N L. R. B. 449.
448692-42--vol. 8 2--4 5