Longshoremen's Assn., Locals No. 1413-1465

1413-1465 903 I 1 1 Longshoremen's Aesodition md ib Lacah 1413-1465, AFGCIO and Bridge make Terminal, hc rad Teanuten Union Locrl 59, r/w Ruling - - - - st& Cbd?eum, Wareboumemen Helperr America 1-CD-602 10e) cha;ge ~mployer ternational 1465, hearing Respondent 8@)(4)(D) 2(6) com- term lo&) proceeding.' 1980, Counsel directly'with transfer answer issues considered lo&) December transferring &e fded lo&) Inremarha1 ~ l r o n m m ' s Auaiarion ih h h 1413-1465, AFL-CIO fBti$.ge Terminal Ine), (1980). ~espondent &tion 8@)(4)(D) held was 8@)(4)0) parties B(b)(4)(ii)(D) lo&) unrepresented to Detennina- tion 8@)(4)0). raieed pro~etding.~ Board, answer ~omplaint,~ for lo&) Local 40, lnremarional Bmlkrrlpod Elurtiml Worken fF & B / C m C a l ~ m i a IIU.). In 1qk) proceeding, the Boud ruaomble uuae believe See. 8(b)(4MD) had been md Respondent daa now cmtcat Boud'a rusonrble caw eamted. .nd adminuion ita mwcr h n r c f d comply bard's DetCInliluti~n we in w n force and usign diiputsd reprrmtcd unreprcscntcd handkn therefore w n proscribed Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) 1 I LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCALS NO. International No. No. International Brotherhood of Term- md of Case February 19, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed on May 8, 1980, and amend- ed on June 26, 1980, by Bridge Terminal, Inc., herein called the Employer, and duly served on In- Longshoremen's Association and its Locals No. 14 13- AFL-CIO, herein called ILA or Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 1, issued a complaint and notice of on October 24, 1980, alleging that has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections and and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the plaint alleges in substance that Respondent violated the Act by failing and refusing to comply with the of the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in a In its answer dated October 29, 1980, Respondent admits in part, and denies in part, the allegations in the complaint. On November 19, counsel for the General filed the Board a motion to to the Board for decision, motion to strike denials in Respondent's answer, and motion for summary judgment, submitting that Respondent in its raises no which were not previ- ously and decided by the Board in the proceeding and that Respondent is precluded from relitigating these matters. On 2, 1980, the Board issued an order pro- ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. On December 15, 1980, Respondent filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause and a motion to reopen hearing to in- troduce newly discovered evidence. On December 17, 1980, the Employer filed its opposition to Re- spondent's response to the Notice To Show Cause and to Respondent's motion to reopen the hearing. On December 23, 1980, counsel for the General Counsel his opposition to Respondent's motion to reopen the hearing. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- cluding the record in the proceeding and the and Na 252 NLRB No. 97 254 NLRB No. 12 Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute therein, the Board the following: on the Motions To Strike and for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Section of the Act. followinn a charge and amended filed by the alleging that had violated of the Act, a hearing was on July 30, 1980. On September 30, 1980, the Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute finding that there reasonable cause to believe that Sec- tion of the Act had been violated by Re- spondent and that there was no agreed-upon method for the voluntary settlement of the dispute to which all were bound. Concluding there- fore that it was not precluded from making a deter- mination of the merits of the dispute within the meaning of Sections and of the Act, the Board decided that cargo handlers em- ployed by the Employer, who were at the time of the hearing, were entitled to the work in dispute rather than employees represented by ILA. In its answer the complaint. Respondent admits that it has refused and continues to refuse to comply with the Board's Decision and of Dispute, but denies that it has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion The issues by Respondent have previously been litigated and there is no issue which is proper- ly litigable in this As all material issues have been decided previously by the or are admitted by Respondent's to the , there are no matters requiring a hear- ing. Accordingly, we grant both the General Counsel's motion to strike the denials in Respon- dent's answer and the General Counsel's Motion Summary Judgment. Ruling on the Motion To Reopen Hearing In its motion to reopen the record of the proceeding, Respondent asserts that it wishes to in- troduce evidence that members of the ILA unload frozen fish at several ports on the east coast other of AFL-CIO of 205 NLRB 730 (1973). the found that exist- ed to that violated not the finding that such Accordingly, in view of Respondent's in that it to with the Decision and of Dispute, find that conduct intended to require the Employer to the work to employes by it rather than to cargo employed by the Employer and for an object by of the Act. Bedford. unavailable 102.48(d)(l), THE OF Rhode Bedford, excess $50,000 find 2(2) 2(6) assert 11. LABOR Locals 2(5) 111. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Dkpute Bedford, a/w 1413-1465. collec- I 1 i ployer's I longsh6remen's This aaked Fish were expected ILA, sters contract.* Norcan .its 6 DeCruz, lo@) Determination ' reawn itr 8(b)O) mnection 'lhe bard a 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL than New Respondent argues that, at the time of the hearing, Respondent did not anticipate that such evidence would be relevant to the issue of area practice. However, at the hearing, the Em- ployer introduced its own evidence on this issue, but Respondent failed to request a recess so that it could obtain similar evidence. In view of the fact that Respondent has not dem- onstrated that such evidence is newly discovered or that it was at the time of the hear- ing, Respondent's motion to reopen the record is denied. See Section Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. I. BUSINESS THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a Island corporation en- gaged in the business of providing public ware- housing services at Fish Island, New Mas- sachusetts. It annually derives gross revenues in of from the provision of these ser- vices for commodities traveling in interstate com- merce and from the provision of these services to companies that are directly engaged in interstate commerce. Accordingly, we that the Employ- er is an employer within the meaning of Section of the Act, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to jurisdiction herein. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Longshoremen's Association and its No. 1413-1465, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section of the Act. THE A. Background and Facts of the At all times material herein, the Employer has operated a public cold storage warehouse on Fish Island in New Massachusetts. The ware- house is used primarily for the storage of frozen fish, which arrive at the Employer's dock by ship or truck. The Employer's warehouse employees are represented by Teamsters Union Local No. 59, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, herein referred to as the Teamsters. Prior to the onset of the present controversy, ships were unloaded at the Employer's dock by longshoremen who are members of Locals No. The longshoremen were hired by steve- doring companies that were employed by agents of the ships. The Employer has never had a LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive-bargaining agreement with the ILA. The Em- ! warehouse employees, represented by the Teamsters, moved the fish from the dock to the warehouse. The conditions of employment are determined by the ILA national collective-bar- gaining agreement. agreement requires that a crew of at least 16, plus a staff of up to 4 long- shoremen, be hired to unload each hatch of a ship. During 1979, the Employer the ILA Locals to reduce their manning requirements at Island. The Locals declined, stating that they powerless to deviate from the national agreement. The Teamsters collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, covering warehouse employ- ees, expired on May 3, 1980. During negotiations for a new contract, the Employer proposed that it hue a new classification of employees, to be desig- nated as cargo handlers and added to the Team- sters unit. These cargo handlers would unload the ships and thus obviate the need to use stevedoring companies that hired longshoremen. The Employer to use fewer employees than were re- quired by the and thereby reduce costs at its Fish Island facilities. The Employer claims that the president of the Teamsters Local orally agreed to a contract which would embody this proposal. However, the Team- has not signed the proposed On May 8, 1980, the vessel arrived at Fish Island. In accordance with proposed contract with the Teamsters, the Employer hued six new employees to unload the cargo. On that morning, approximately 12 members of the ILA, including Shop Steward Jackie Tavares and Local President Antonio formed a picket line on the Em- ployer's premises. The pickets shouted obscenities and threats at the new employees, and threw rocks and bottles at them. Warehouse employees refused to cross the picket line. On May 9, the pickets re- turned and continued to threaten and harass the new employees. This conduct caused them to cease unloading the vessel although the job was not com- plete. The Employer procured a temporary injunction against the ILA Locals on August 4, 1980, which was in effect at the time of the proceedings. B. The of Dispute On September 30, 1980, the Board issued its De- cision and Determination of Dispute assigning the work of unloading cargo vessels at the Employer's According to the Employer, the Teamsters h a not given any for failure to sign the contract. The Employer h a filed an charge, Case 1-CB-4858,in with this matter. has not yet rendered decision thereon. 1413-1465 Bedford, Empl~yer.~ 8(b)(4)(D) October o k r c o n f i e d seeking 8(b)(4)(D) Act." 1V. EPPECT 111, 8(b)(4)(D) 2(5) The Bolrd noted thaf pending resolution B(bX3) clurge, w u no valid contract Tumrtem, hired hendlm remined unrrpresmted. ' Laal 4Q htenational Brotherhaad EIutrisal Workers (F d B / C m CaI1/ornio Inc.). supw International Longshornmen S AUP ciation Local 1410 (Employr-Memben Stamship As- xybtion), 2(2) I Determination vessels Bedford. employear 8(b)(4)(D) practices practica 2(6) lqc) as Locais Bedford, unrepre- Termi- ' &irmative business ofices "Appendi~."~ f o m thi m r Judgment r State G u n Appclls, radii& Natiod Ldbor Boud" shdl r e d "Posted Punu- r States G u n Appals Natiod Ldbor Boud." LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCALS NO. 905 Fish Island dock and warehouse in New Massachusetts, to unrepresented cargo handlers employed by the The Board also found that Respondent was not entitled by means pro- scribed by Section of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by ILA. C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply On 17, 1980, Respondent, by its counsel, informed the compliance for Region 1 by telephone that Respondent did not intend to honor the decision of the Board. Respondent this conversation by letter. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this proceeding, we find, as described above, that Respondent's conduct in to force or require the assignment of the work in dis- pute to employees represented by it, rather than to unrepresented cargo handlers employed by the Employer, and Respondent's refusal to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute violated Section of the M E OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section above, occurring in connection with the oper- ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found' that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: 1. International Longshoremen's Association and its Locals No. 1413-1465, AFL-CIO, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section of the Act. of the Employer's there with the and the newly cargo of AFL-CIO of AFL-CIO. of Mobile 242 NLRB 807 (1979). 2. Bridge Terminal, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section of the Act. 3. By refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- sion and of Dispute and by attempt- ing to force or require the Employer to assign the work of unloading cargo at its Fish Island dock and warehouse in New Massachu- setts, to represented by International Longshoremen's Association and its Locals No. 1413-1465, AFL-CIO, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor are unfair labor affecting commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section of the National Labor Relations Act, amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International Longshoremen's Association and its No. 1413-1465, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute or otherwise threatening, coercing, or restraining Bridge Terminal, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce where an object is to force or require Bridge Ter- minal, Inc., to assign the work of unloading cargo vessels at Bridge Terminal's Fish Island dock and warehouse in New Massachusetts, to em- ployees represented by ILA rather than to sented cargo handlers employed by Bridge nal. 2. Take the following action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked Copies of said notice, on provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced or covered by any other material. In the event that Order enforced by of United of the words in the notice "Ported by Order of the Relations ant to Judgment of the United of Enforcing an Order of the Relations 906 DEClSIONS NATlONAL date N m c ~ POSTED ORDER N A ~ O N A L L a m a Bedford, Massachusetts, unreprcstnted b- dlers coerce, fleeting unrepresent- ASSOCIATION LOCALS OF LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 1 signed copies of such notices for posting by Bridge Terminal, Inc., if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with. APPENDIX T o EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS BY OF THE RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- pute awarding the work of unloading cargo vessels at the Fish Island dock and warehouse of Bridge Terminal, Inc., in New to cargo employed by Bridge Terminal, Inc., or threaten, or restrain Bridge Terminal, Inc., or any other persons engaged in com- merce or an industry commerce, where an object is to force or require Bridge Terminal, Inc., to assign said work to employ- ees represented by us rather than ed cargo handlers employed by Bridge Termi- nal. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN'S AND ITS NO. 1413-1465, AFL-CIO