Longshoremen's Assoc., Local 1248

LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC., LOCAL 1248 273 International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1248, AFL-CIO and International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1458, AFL-CIO' and Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, Dis- trict Council and International Longshoremen's As- socation, AFL-CIO and U.S. Naval Supply Center. Cases 5-CC-571, 5-CC-572, 5-CC-573, and 5-CC- 574 which is composed of various steamship lines , steam- ship agencies, and stevedoring companies doing busi- ness in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, port area. Supply Center was not a member of the Association . The con- tract contained the following clauses: The ILA shall have ... all work of rigging and unrigging of cargo and passenger vessels and the loading and discharging of their cargoes.... . January 31, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On August 31, 1971, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, all parties filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions but only as modified herein. U.S. Naval Supply Center (Supply Center) is en- gaged at Norfolk, Virginia, in the receipt, storage, and transshipment of ocean cargo through the ports of Hampton Roads, Virginia. For more than 30 years, Supply Center has shipped from and received at its own docks U.S. Department of Defense break-bulk cargo by either commercial vessels or ships operated by the De- partment of Defense. The loading and unloading of break-bulk cargo at the Supply Center docks has been performed by the Supply Center's own employees who, since 1964, have been represented by International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO (IAM). Since 1967, the Supply Center has also shipped Department of Defense cargo by containers owned and supplied by oceangoing transportation com- panies. The containers have been stuffed by the Supply Center's employees at its own docks and then trucked to commercial terminals in the ports of Hampton Roads, where they have been loaded onto oceangoing vessels by employees of stevedoring companies who are represented by Respondent International Long- shoremen's Association, Local 1248, AFL-CIO (ILA). ILA had a collective-bargaining contract effective from October 1, 1968, to September 30, 1971, with Hampton Roads Maritime Association (Association) ' During the hearing Respondents' unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint against Respondent Local 1458 because of noninvolvement herein was granted * Containers owned or leased by Employer-signa- tory members ... which are destined for or come from, any person ... who is not the beneficial owner of the cargo, and which either comes from or is destined to any point within a 50-mile radius from the center of any North Atlantic District port shall be stuffed and stripped by ILA long- shore labor... . On December 11, 1970, the ILA notified the As- sociation that it deemed shipowners who permitted their containers to be stuffed and unstuffed at the Sup- ply Center by civil service workers were in violation of the collective-bargaining contract with the Association and that it would demand a penalty of $1,000 for each container "stuffed or unstuffed by Government work- ers.... " In the same letter the ILA further threatened to demand renegotiation of container provisions of the contract and to refuse to work the specific containers involved. By letter of April 7, 1971, to the Association, the ILA reiterated the threats contained in its letter of December 11, and also demanded all work involved in the loading at the Supply Center of commercial ships owned and controlled by signatories to the ILA con- tract under threat of refusing to load cargo when the ships called at other commercial ports. On or about April 16, 1971, ILA instructed its members not to load approximately 120 containers, which had been stuffed at the Supply Center, onto commercial ships operated by signatories to the ILA contract. Since April 27, 1971, ILA has also instructed its members not to han- dle or load such containers onto motor carrier equip- ment for shipment back to the Supply Center. The General Counsel contends that by the foregoing threats and coercive conduct, Respondents sought to compel the stevedoring companies to cease doing busi- ness with the shipping companies and the latter with the Supply Center in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that Respondents' conduct aimed at securing the work of handling break-bulk cargo at the Supply Center was primary activity and therefore not unlawful because the ILA's collective-bargaining contract with the Associa- tion provided that ILA members were to perform such work. "Thus, ILA's action was addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employers vis-a-vis their 195 NLRB No. 41 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD own employees."' On the other hand, he found that Respondents' conduct with respect to containerization was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) because, under his construction of the relevant container provi- sions in the ILA contract, the stuffing and unstuffing of containers containing military supplies and the per- sonal effect of military personnel was not reserved to ILA members. Thus, according to the Trial Examiner, the Respondents cannot claim that by their conduct they were striving to preserve unit work bargained for in the ILA contract. All parties have excepted to the Trial Examiner's findings: General Counsel and U.S. Navy to the dismissal of allegations concerning break- bulk cargo, and the rationale for finding a violation on the container issue; Respondents to the finding of viola- tion. We agree with the positions of the General Counsel and the U.S. Navy. There is no question but that Re- spondents' conduct constitutes inducement of em- ployees and coercion of employers within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii). The single question is whether the employer-members of the Association against whom Respondents directed their conduct are primary or secondary employers in the disputes over the handling of break-bulk cargo and stuffing of con- tainers at the Supply Center. If the former, Respond- ents' conduct is lawful; if the latter, it is clearly unlaw- ful. At the outset it should be noted that this is not a case like National Woodwork,' where the union's sole objec- tive was the protection of traditional unit work of union members from diminution as the result of changes in technology. ILA members had never handled, so far as appears, either break-bulk or container cargo at the Supply Center. Whatever the charter jurisdiction of the ILA, it had not in practice been extended to the Supply Center. This is therefore a case of a "union seeking to restrict by contract or boycott an employer.... for the purpose of acquiring for its members work that had not previously been theirs."' We hold that under these cir- cumstances members of the Association are neutral employers and the pressure exerted on them is for an objective prohibited by Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act.' Work at the Supply Center is performed for the U.S. Navy by employees hired by the latter. These em- ployees have never been part of the work unit covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between the As- sociation and Respondents. Nor has the precise work which is the focus of the dispute herein ever been per- formed by employees working under that agreement. The sole function of the shipowners with respect to such work historically has been the receiving and trans- shipping of cargo to designated ports; that of the steve- dore companies, the loading and unloading of cargo delivered to them for that purpose. The ILA's real dispute is thus with the U.S. Navy. Its demands can only be met if the U.S. Navy were to replace its own employees represented by the IAM with ILA members. The U.S. Navy is therefore the primary employer, and the shipping and stevedoring companies are neutrals who are embroiled by Respondents in a dispute not their own in order to compel them to cease doing busi- ness with the primary employer in the hope that this will induce the primary employer, the U.S. Navy, to give in to the ILA's demands.6 The fact that the restric- tive provisions in the ILA-Association collective-bar- gaining contract, upon which Respondents rely may in other circumstances have valid work preservation ob- jectives,' does not mean that they can be used as a shield for conduct aimed not at work preservation but at acquisition of work historically performed by em- ployees in another work unit. Accordingly, we find that by inducing employees of Association members to en- gage in work stoppages, and by this conduct and by threats directed to Association members with an object of forcing certain Association members to cease doing business with other Association members and, in turn, forcing these other members to cease doing business with Supply Center, thereby bringing pressure to bear on Supply Center to displace its own employees' han- dling break-bulk cargo and containers at the Supply Center with ILA members, Respondents violated Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.' THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in un- fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, we shall order Respondents to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v N.L.R B., 386 U S 612. Id. Id. at 648 (Memorandum of Mr Justice Harlan) Local Union No. 98 of the Sheet Metal Workers, et al (Cincinnati Sheet Metal & Roofing Company), 174 NLRB No 22, enfd. 433 F.2d 1189 (C.A D C ), Local Union No 141 of the Sheet Metal Workers; et al. (Cincin- nati Sheet Metal & Roofing Company), 174 NLRB No. 125, enfd 425 F 2d 730 (C.A 6). 6 International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, Local 501, et al [Sam- uel Langer] v NL.R.B., 181 F 2d 34, 37 (C A 2), affd 341 U.S. 694. ' See Intercontinental Container Transport Corp. v New Pork Shipping Association, 426 F.2d 884 (C A 2) ° International Association of Hear and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (Westinghouse Electric Corp.), 193 NLRB No 4; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355 (A. S. Abell Company), 183 NLRB No 99 LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC., LOCAL 1248 275 ORDER Respondents, International Longshoremen's As- sociation, Local 1248, AFL-CIO, International Long- shorement's Association, AFL-CIO, District Council, and International Longshoremen's Association, AFL- CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from (a) engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of United States Lines, Inc., American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., Southern Stevedoring Corporation, Atlantic and Gulf Stevedore, Inc., and Norfolk International Terminal, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (b) threatening, coercing, or restraining any of the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, by threatening to impose or imposing $1,000 fines, or by other means, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require any of the above-named employers, or any other person, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufac- turer, or to cease doing business with Naval Supply Center or any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify members of International Long- shoremen's Association, Local 1248, AFL-CIO, that Respondents have no objection to loading or unloading cargo, including containers, that has been handled by employees of U.S. Supply Center. (b) Notify members of International Long- shoremen's Association, Local 1248, AFL-CIO, that any previous instructions, requests, or appeals which Respondents have made against loading or unloading cargo, including containers, forwarded by U.S. Supply Center as set forth in (a) above, have been withdrawn. (c) Post at their business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Co- pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Re- spondents' representatives, shall be posted by them im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." by Respondents to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Furnish said Regional Director with signed co- pies of the aforesaid notice for posting by United States Lines, Inc., American Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., South- ern Stevedoring Corporation, Atlantic & Gulf Steve- dore, Inc., and Norfolk International Terminal, or such of said employers as may be willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply here- with. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence it has been found that we vi- olated the law by committing unfair labor practices. Accordingly we post this notice and we will keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT (a) engage in, or induce or en- courage employees of United States Lines, Inc., American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., South- ern Stevedoring Corporation, Atlantic and Gulf Stevedore, Inc., and Norfolk International Termi- nal or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employ- ment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any ser- vices, or (b) threaten, coerce or restrain any of the above-named employers or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, by threatening to impose or imposing $1,000 fines, or by other means, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require any of the above-named employers, or any other person, to cease using, selling. handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the product of any other pro- ducer, processor, or manufacturer or to cease do- ing business with any other person or with U.S. Naval Supply Center. WE Do hereby cancel and withdraw any orders and instructions given to our members and any other individuals not to load or otherwise handle cargo forwarded from U.S. Naval Supply Center. WE WILL and do hereby notify our members, and other individuals employed by the above- named employers, that we have no objection to 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their loading or otherwise handling cargo of U.S. Naval Supply Center. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1248, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT COUNCIL (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO (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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: these matters, pro- ceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, were tried before me at Norfolk, Virginia, on June 16, 1971,' with all parties par- ticipating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint2 issued by the General Counsel on June 2. The complaint alleges that ILA engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. In its duly filed answer ILA does not deny any of the allegations of the com- plaint' and affirmatively pleads that it engaged in concerted activity against its primary employers with whom it is in- ' All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted ' Based on a charge filed against each Respondent (who collectively are also referred to herein as ILA) on April 27 by U S Naval Supply Center ' Consequently, pursuant to Section 102 20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the allegations are deemed to be admitted to be true volved in a labor dispute for the protection of its work juris- diction which is protected by law. All parties were represented and were afforded an oppor- tunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and ILA and have been carefully consid- ered. Upon the entire record in the cases,' which consists only of the pleadings and documentary evidence,' I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I COMMERCE Naval Supply Center, a facility of U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, is engaged in Norfolk, Virginia, in the receipt, storage, and shipment of military transshipment ocean cargo moved through the ports of Hampton Roads, Virginia, to and from overseas ports, such cargo being a wide variety of mili- tary supplies owned by the United States Government or household goods and personal effects owned by military per- sonnel under the control and subject to the orders of the Department of Defense. Hampton Roads Maritime Association (herein called As- sociation) is an organization composed of various steamship lines, steamship agencies, and stevedoring companies doing business in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, port area, includ- ing the city of Norfolk, Virginia, in the movement of freight in interstate and foreign commerce. Employer-members of Association include the following: United States Lines, Inc. (U.S. Lines), is a New Jersey corporation which is engaged in the transportation of cargo by oceangoing vessels in interstate and foreign commerce with revenues far in excess of $500,000 annually. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. (American Ex- port), is a New York corporation which is engaged in the transportation of cargo by oceangoing vessels in interstate and foreign commerce with revenues far in excess of $500,000 annually. Southern Stevedoring Corporation (Southern) and Atlan- tic and Gulf Stevedore, Inc. (A & G), are Virginia corpora- tions each of which is engaged in the business of loading and unloading cargo onto and from vessels owned by the compa- nies engaged in interstate and foreign commerce with reve- nues in excess of $100,000 annually. Norfolk International Terminal (NIT) is a public terminal facility owned by the city of Norfolk and operated by the Norfolk Port Authority, which is engaged in supplying termi- nal facilities to various owners of commercial oceangoing vessels, including, but not limited to, U.S. Lines and Ameri- can Export, for the storage of break-bulk cargo and cargo containers and the loading and unloading of such break-bulk cargo and cargo containers onto and from such commercial ' During the hearing ILA's unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint against Respondent Local 1458 because of noninvolvement herein was granted ' Pursuant to arrangements between the General Counsel and counsel for ILA, Resps Exhs admitted after No 5 have been renumbered as follows No 6-Alston's letter of April 26 , 1971, to Mace re Request for Im- mediate Arbitration under Section 41 of ILA-HRMA General Cargo Contract, No 6-A-Alston's letter of April 26, 1971, re Disputed Containers Previously Notified Of No 6-B-Alston's letter of May 28 , 1971, to Mace re- Request for Immediate Arbitration under Section 41 ofILA-HRMA General Cargo Contract; No 7-Telegram of April 28 , 1971 , from Rear Admiral E W Sutherl- ing to Mr Thomas W Gleason, President, ILA LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC., LOCAL 1248 277 vessels for transportation to or from ports located in the United States and foreign countries. Respondents do not deny, and I find, that, at all times material herein, Naval Supply Center has been a person within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and that U.S. Lines, American Export, Southern, A & G, and NIT have been employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act. II THE LABOR UNIONS INVOLVED Respondents do not deny, and I find, that, at all times material herein, each Respondent has been a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find further that, at all times material herein, Local Lodge 97, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, has also been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The undenied allegations of the complaint show that: The Association exists for the purpose, among others, of bargaining collectively on behalf of its member-employers with labor organizations, including but not limited to ILA, concerning wages, hours, working conditions, and other con- ditions of employment of the employees of said members. At all times material herein, more particularly for 30 or more years, Naval Supply Center has shipped from and re- ceived at its docks Department of Defense break-bulk cargo either by commercial vessels, supplied by U.S. Lines, Ameri- can Export, and other oceangoing transportation companies, pursuant to contract, where such cargo weighs 250 tons or more, or by "grey ships" owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense. Since approximately 1967 Naval Supply Center has also shipped Department of Defense cargo by containers owned and supplied by oceangoing transporta- tion companies including, but not limited to, U S. Lines and American Export. The loading of break-bulk cargo onto and unloading of such cargo from commercial vessels at the Naval Supply Center has over the years been performed by the Supply Center's own employees who, since approximately 1964, have been members of, or represented by, Local Lodge 97, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called IAM). Also since 1967 the stuffing and stripping of containers as aforesaid at the Naval Supply Center has been performed exclusively by its own employees who are members of, or represented by, IAM. The assignment of the work of loading and unloading break-bulk cargo and the stuffing and unstuffing of containers at the Naval Supply Center at all times material herein, which has been, and is being, performed by civilian employees who are members of, or represented by, IAM, as aforesaid, has been made pursuant to a current collective-bargaining agree- ment effective from April 14, 1969, to September 8, 1971. At all times material herein, containers stuffed at the Naval Supply Center by its own employees who are members of, or represented by, IAM have been transported by motor carrier to commercial terminals in the ports of Hampton Roads, including, but not limited to, NIT, to be loaded onto oceango- ing vessels owned and operated by, among others, U.S. Lines and American Export. The work of loading the containers onto such vessels at said commercial terminals has been per- formed by individuals who are members of, or represented by, Respondent Local 1248 and employed by various contract stevedoring companies, including, but not limited to, South- ern and A & G, and by NIT. At all times material herein, such work of loading contain- ers aboard oceangoing vessels at NIT, and other commercial terminals, has been performed by individuals who are mem- bers of, or represented by, ILA pursuant to collective-bar- gaining agreements negotiated by and between ILA and the Association acting on behalf of, and binding as parties to such agreements on, its various members, including U.S. Lines, American Export, Southern, A & G, and NIT. The current contract has been, and is effective from October 1, 1968, to September 30, 1971. At no time material herein has Naval Supply Center been a member of the Association or in any manner a party to the aforesaid agreement between ILA and the Association and any of its members, and at no time material herein has any Respondent been certified or recognized as the collective- bargaining agent of any of Naval Supply Center's employees who are, and have been , engaged in the loading and unloading of break-bulk cargo or the stuffing or unstuffing of containers at the Naval Supply Center. Since on and before December 11, 1970, ILA, by its offic- ers, agents, and representatives, has demanded that the work of stuffing and unstuffing of containers and since on or about April 7, 1971, ILA has demanded that the work of loading and unloading of break-bulk cargo on commercial vessels, respectively, at Naval Supply Center be assigned to individu- als who are members of, or represented by, ILA, rather than to Naval Supply Center's own employees who are members of, or represented by, IAM and who are not members of, or represented by, ILA. In furtherance of the aforesaid demands, ILA, by its offic- ers, agents, and representatives, since on or about December 11, 1970, has threatened to impose a $1,000 fine on any shipowner-member of the Association which should own and supply containers to Naval Supply Center for stuffing or un- stuffing of such containers by Naval Supply Center's own employees who are represented by IAM as aforesaid; since on or about April 7, 1971, threatened the Association and its members, including, but not limited to, U.S. Lines, American Export, Southern, A & G, and NIT, to refuse to handle containers stuffed at Naval Supply Center and transported to NIT as set forth above; since on or about April 6, 1971, has ordered, instructed, requested, and appealed to its members employed by Southern, A & G, and NIT to refuse to handle and/or load aboard oceangoing vessels of U.S. Lines and American Export at NIT approximately 120 containers stuffed as aforesaid at Naval Supply Center, and since on or about April 27, 1971, has directed its members to refuse to handle such containers and load them onto motor carver equipment for shipment back to Naval Supply Center. At all times material herein, an object of the acts and conduct of the Respondents, and each of them, set forth above, was and is to force or require Southern, A & G, NIT, and other persons to cease doing business with U S. Lines, American Export, and other persons thereby to force or re- quire U.S. Lines, American Export, and other persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise deal- ing in the products of, and to cease doing business with, the Naval Supply Center By the acts and conduct described above, the Respondents, and each of them, have engaged in, and have induced and encouraged individuals employed by persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, and to perform services, and have threatened, coerced, and restrained per- 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer and to cease doing business with another person. ILA's answer interposed an affirmative defense asserting that it engaged in concerted activity against primary employ- ers with whom it is involved in a labor dispute for the protec- tion of its work jurisdiction. In support of that defense, ILA introduced in evidence eight letters which were sent to the Association during the period of November 10, 1970, through May 28, 1971. These letters state that Association members were contracting out the work of stuffing and stripping their containers in the Hampton Roads port area in derogation of their bargaining agreement with ILA (hereafter referred to as the ILA contract). Specifically, ILA claims that the shipping lines, including U.S. Lines and American Export, have per- mitted their containers to be picked up at NIT and trucked to Naval Supply Center where they are stuffed with cargo and/or stripped by civil service workers who are employed by Naval Supply Center, after which the containers are trucked back to NIT for loading aboard ships. It alleges that this practice is not permitted at any port on the east coast regard- less of whether the cargo is Government owned, that, in fact, the Navy is not the beneficial owner of this cargo, as claimed, nor was the "beneficial owner" exception in their container agreement intended to apply to situations allowing govern- ment workers to invade ILA work jurisdiction on commercial vessels, that shipowners will be penalized at the rate of $1,000 for each container so handled, that its repeated demands for renegotiation of all provisions of their contract regarding containers, pursuant to the terms thereof, have been ignored, that its requests for arbitration in the matter have also been ignored, and that containers stuffed or unstuffed by civil ser- vice workers will not be loaded or unloaded from commercial ships belonging to ship-owner signatories to the ILA con- tract. The relevant contracts admitted in evidence pertaining to the alleged work jurisdictions involved herein are: 1. The ILA contract provides that it is intended to cover the loading and discharging of deepwater ships in the general Hampton Roads port area, and that the ILA shall have "all work of rigging and unrigging of cargo and passenger vessels and the loading and discharging of their cargo, including all carpentry and lashing required in securing cargo while vessel is alongside pier." The stuffing and unstuffing of containers and their loading and unloading are covered in section 53 of the ILA contract and applies to an area within 50 miles of the center of Hampton Roads. The pertinent provisions of sec- tion 53 are attached hereto as Appendix A. 2. The Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS) Con- tainer Agreement which the Navy entered into with certain shipowners (carriers), including American Export and U.S. Lines, Association members who are signatories to the ILA contract, provides that the shipowner (the carrier) will supply its containers to the Navy for stuffing, for carrier pickup after suffing by the Navy, and for drayage of the stuffed or un- stuffed containers; that the carrier will spot and carry the container to the Navy on its facilities for loading or stuffing and, after release by the Navy, the carrier will remove the container to its vessel; that the carrier will pay all costs of stevedoring for stuffing and unstuffing of containers and load- ing and discharging containers; and that the Navy will fur- nish the labor employed to stuff and unstuff the containers (except when ordered from the carrier). 3. The MSTS Shipping Agreement between the Navy and the carriers is similar to the MSTS Container Agreement with respect to its terms and responsibilities but relates to general cargo rather than containers. 4. The Naval Supply Center collective- bargaining agree- ment with IAM, the exclusive representative of its civil ser- vice employees, makes no provision for the exclusive work jurisdiction of IAM and provides for the contracting out of bargaining unit work or assigning it to employees not in the bargaining unit, in the discretion of Naval Supply Center subject of certain limitations. The dispute between the shipowners and ILA was brought to a head on April 27 when 120 containers belonging to U.S. Lines and American Export were trucked to NIT after having been discharged by ships of these companies at Naval Supply Center and stuffed by Naval Supply Center employees who are members of IAM. Employees of Association members, pursuant to ILA instruction, refused to handle these contain- ers because these shipping lines had contracted away their work of stuffing containers to labor other than members of ILA in violation of the ILA contract. B. Contentions of the Parties and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that ILA, by orders, direc- tions, instructions, requests, and appeals, induced and en- couraged their members, employees of A & G, Southern, and NIT (secondary employers) to engage in strikes and refusals to work for their respective employers, an object thereof being to bring about a cessation of business between A & G, South- ern, NIT, U.S. Lines, and American Export, the signatories to the ILA contract, and Naval Supply Cneter . In substance, he contends that ILA's conduct was addressed to the labor relations not of the signatories to the ILA contract but rather to the labor relations of Naval Supply Center and its em- ployees, represented by IAM, neither of which is privy to the ILA contract. Or, expressed in terms of boycott terminology, ILA exerted pressures against neutral or secondary employ- ers in order to force them to cease doing business with Naval Supply Center, the primary employer. In support he cites International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 v. N.L.R.B., 181 F.2d 34, 37 (C.A. 2), affd. 341 U.S. 694, where Judge Learned Hand stated: The gravamen of a secondary boycott is that its sanc- tions bear, not upon the employer who alone is a party to the dispute, but upon some third party who has no concern it it. Its aim is to compel him to stop business with the employer in the hope that this will induce the employer to give in to his employees' demands. The General Counsel contends further that neither National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612, nor Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 664, can support ILA's position that all it did was to protect its work jurisdiction under the ILA contract because its pressures were "calculated to satisfy un- ion objectives"6 at Naval Supply Center rather than at NIT. Paraphrasing the court's rationale, the General Counsel argues that the Association members against whom the pres- sures were applied were neutral bystanders in a secondary boycott involving a proscribed object in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. ILA contends that when the Association members in- volved herein entered into the two MSTS agreements,' in 6 Quoting the court's observation in the National Woodwork case at 644-645 ' These agreements appear to be made only with carriers, including American Export and U S Lines, and do not include stevedoring compa- nies LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC., LOCAL 1248 279 which they agreed to have certain stevedoring services per- formed by Naval Supply Center's employees, they infringed on the work jurisdiciton given to ILA members by the ILA contract. In order to enforce that agreement, and thereby preserve its work jurisdiction, ILA engaged in lawful activi- ties directed against the employer-signatories to that con- tract, after its letters to the Association failed to elicit any relief or even response to its complaints and demands. As related above, I find the ILA contract provided that in the Hampton Roads port area all work of rigging and unrig- ging of cargo and passenger vessels and the loading and dis- charging of the cargo of Association members was to be performed by ILA employees of Association members. When these members entered into the MSTS Shipping Agreement, they agreed to contract out the aforesaid work to non-ILA members, which by the terms of the ILA contract was re- served to ILA members. Upon failing to obtain any redress from the Association for breaching their contract, ILA re- sorted to direct action against Association members by induc- ing their employees not to perform services in the course of their employment. Despite its consequences at Naval Supply Center, ILA was endeavoring to compel the Assocation members to comply with the provision of the ILA contract in the geographic area covered by it. Thus, ILA's action was addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employers vis-a-vis their own employees. As the court stated in National Woodwork, the touchstone in determining whether a viola- tion has been committed "is whether the agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of the con- tracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees."' Under this test, it appears, and I find, that a violation has not been established herein with respect to the rigging and unrigging of cargo and the loading and discharging of cargo of Associa- tion members. With respect to containerization services, the ILA contract provides that containers owned or leased by employer-mem- bers of the Association, which are destined for or come from any person who is not the beneficial owner of the cargo, and which either comes from or is destined to any point within a 50-mile radius from the center of any North Atlantic dis- trict port, shall be stuffed and stripped by ILA longshore labor at longshore rates and under the conditions of the gen- eral cargo agreement. It also appears that a container which comes within each and all of the criteria applicable to con- tainers shall be stuffed and stripped by ILA longshore labor, paid and employed at longshore rates under the terms and conditions of the general cargo agreement Notwithstanding the applicable rules on containers, LTL loads or consolidated container loads of mail, of household goods with no other type or cargo in the container, and of personal effects of military personnel shall be exempt from the rule of stripping and stuffing.' In construing and interpreting the above-related container provisions of the ILA contract insofar as they affect Naval Supply Center, I find that the Navy, as an agency of the United States Government, is not only the beneficial owner ' See Danielson v Painters District Council No 20 of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, 305 F Supp. 1108, 1117, where the court in reviewing the applicable law on work preservation stated the proper test for determining whether a § 8(b) (4) (B) violation has occurred is whether the conduct of the union has as its object the preservation of work for unit employees, or whether the agreements and boycotts are tactically calculated to satisfy the union's objective elsewhere The court then quoted from the National Woodwork case as follows "The touchstone is whether the agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees " ' See Appendix A but the legal owner as well of military supplies or ordnance shipped to or from Supply Center.10 I, therefore, conclude that the stuffing or unstuffing of containers containing mili- tary supplies are exempted from the work jurisdiction of ILA members under the ILA contract." I conclude further that stuffing of containers with the personal effects of military personnel and the stripping of such containers are also ex- empted from the work jurisdiction of ILA members under the provisions of the ILA contract. Accordingly, ILA, by the terms of its contract, did not reserve the disputed container services for its members. Therefore, the Association mem- bers, who are parties to the MSTS Container Agreement, did not infringe on their obligations under the ILA contract with respect to said services. Thus, ILA cannot claim that, by threatening to fine Association members who agreed to per- mit non-ILA employees to service their containers and by instructing ILA employees of Association members not to service such containers, it was striving to preserve unit work bargained for in the ILA contract. The thrust of its actions was to obtain the container work at Naval Supply Center by applying pressure to Southern, A & G, and NIT to force them to cease handling the containers of American Export and U.S. Lines and to cease doing business with them, and thereby to force American Export and U.S. Lines to cease doing business with Naval Supply Center. I, therefore, con- clude that, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, ILA induced employees of Association members to engage in refusals in the course of their employment to handle or work on certain containers and, by threats, also coerced and restrained their employers, an object thereof being to force certain Association members to cease doing business with other members and, in turn, to force these other mem- bers to cease doing business with Naval Supply Center, thereby bringing pressure to bear on Naval Supply Center to have the disputed work performed by ILA members.12 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of ILA set forth in section III , above, occur- ring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the cases , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Each Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. American Export, U.S. Lines, Southern, A & G, and NIT are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Southern, A & G, and NIT to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, pro- 1° The Board has jurisdiction to interpret a collective -bargaining contract to the extent necessary to resolve an unfair labor practice charge under the Act N.L.R.B. v. C & C. Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421, and N.L.R.B. v Acme Industrial Company, 385 U S. 432 11 See also ILA's letter of November 10, 1970, to the Association which defines "beneficial owner" as "a person who is the ultimate owner entitled to the beneficial use, enjoyment , possession and title to the cargo." 11 Nor need there be an actual dispute with Naval Supply Center or a demand upon it for the activity to fall within Section 8(b) (4) (B) so long as Naval Supply Center or its employees was the actual objective of ILA 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cess, transport, or otherwise handle the work on goods, arti- cles, materials, or commodities or to perform services, and also by coercing and restraining said companies , where an object thereof was to force or require Southern, A & G, and NIT to cease doing business with American Export and U.S. Lines to force or require American Export and U.S. Lines to cease doing business with Naval Supply Center, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Except as found above, Respondents have not engaged in any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A I CONTAINERIZATION Containers owned or leased by Employer-signatory mem- bers (including containers on wheels) containing LTL loads or consolidated full-container loads, which are destined for or come from, any person (including a consolidator who stuffs containers of outbound cargo or a distributor who strips containers of inbound cargo and including a forwarder, who is either a consolidator of outbound cargo or a distributor of inbound cargo) who is not the beneficial owner of the cargo, and which either comes from or is destined to any point within a 50-mile radius from the center of any North Atlantic District port shall be stuffed and stripped by ILA longshore labor at longshore rates on a waterfront facility under the terms and conditions of the General Cargo Agreement. (Rules on Containers are listed below.) II RULES ON CONTAINERS The following provisions are intended to protect and pre- serve the work jurisdiction of longshoremen and all other ILA crafts at deepsea piers or terminals. To assure compli- ance with the collective bargaining provisions the following rules and regulations shall be applied A. Definitions and Rule as to Containers Covered Stuffing-means the act of placing cargo into a con- tainer Stripping-means the act of removing cargo from a container Loading-means the act of placing containers aboard a vessel Discharging-means the act of removing containers from a vessel. These provisions relate solely to containers meeting each and all of the following criteria: 1. Containers owned or leased by employer-signatory members (including containers on wheels) which contain LTL loads or consolidated full container loads. 2. Such containers which come from or go to any person (including a consolidator who stuffs containers of outbound cargo or a distributor who strips containers of inbound cargo and including a forwarder, who is either a consolidator of outbound cargo or a distributor of inbound cargo) who is not the beneficial owner of the cargo. 3. Such containers which come from or go to any point within a geographical area of any port in the North Atlantic District described by a 50-mile circle within its radius extend- ing out from the center of each port. It is understood that the center of Hampton Roads will be defined as Middle Ground Light. B. Rule of Stripping and Stuffing Applied to Such Containers A container which comes within each and all of the criteria set forth in "A" above shall be stuffed and stripped by ILA longshore labor. Such ILA labor shall be paid and employed at longshore rates under the terms and conditions of the General Cargo Agreement. Such stuffing and stripping shall be performed on a waterfront facility, pier or dock. No con- tainer of cargo shall be stuffed or stripped by ILA longshore labor more than once. Notwithstanding the above provisions, LTL loads or consolidated container loads of mail, of household goods with no other type of cargo in the container, and of personal effects of military personnel shall be exempt from the rule of stripping and stuffing. C. Rules on No Avoidance or Evasion The above rules are intended to be fairly and reasonably applied by the parties. To obtain nondiscriminatory and fair implementation of the above, the following principles shall apply. 1. Agreement in the Port as to the geographic area as provided in "A (3)" is based on present LTL movement patterns in the port. Should any person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of evading the provisions of "B" hereof, seek to change such pattern by shifting its operations to, or com- mencing new operations at, a point outside agreed-upon geo- graphic area, then either party may raise the question whether said point should be included within the said geo- graphic area, then either party may raise the question whether said point should be included within the said geo- graphic area, and upon agreement that the purpose of the shift in its operations was to evade the provisions of "B", then said point shall be deemed to be within the said geographic area for the purpose of these rules. 2. Containers owned or leased by companies which are affiliated either directly or through a holding company with an employer-member shall be deemed to be containers owned or leased by employer-members. Affiliation shall include sub- sidiaries and/or affiliates which are effectively controlled by the employer-member, its parent, or stockholders or either of them. 3. It shall be the obligation of employer-members to clearly mark each container's documentation as to whether or not it is an "A" container which is to stuffed and stripped at the waterfront facility (pier or dock). 4. Each employer-member shall keep records of each con- tainer supplied to a consolidator or other non-owner of cargo, located within the agreed geographic area, and such record shall be available to the Committee provided in (7) below. With respect to all containers received at or delivered from the vessel, a record of the same shall be made by ILA Check- ers or Clerks. 5. Failure to stuff or strip a container as required under these rules will be considered a violation of the contract between the parties. Use of improper, fictitious or incorrect documentation to evade the provisions of "B" shall also be considered a violation of the contract. If for any reason a container is no longer at the waterfront facility at which it should have been stuffed or stripped under the rules then the LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC, LOCAL 1248 281 steamship carrier found guilty of intent to cause improper, fictitious, or incorrect documentation to evade the provisions of "B" above shall pay to the joint Welfare Fund $150 00 per container which should have been stuffed or stepped. 6. If any shippers or their agents who have at any time used, are now using, or in the future use containers owned or leased by employer-members, hereafter use containers not owned or leased by employer-members, for the purpose of evading the provisions of "B" hereof, then, the containers so used shall be considered to be within "A" and "B". 7. A committee represented equally by management and Union shall be formed and shall have the responsibility and power to hear and pass judgment on any violations of these rules. Any inability to agree shall be processed as a grievance under the applicable contract except as limited by "C (8)" hereof. 8. If the purpose of protecting and preserving the present work jurisdiction of longshoremen and all other deepsea ILA crafts over any containers loaded with LTL cargo, or con- solidated full container loads as defined herein is not accom- plished by the provisions of these rules on containers, then either party shall have the right to renegotiate these provi- sions or any part thereof by giving notice to the other party. This provision shall not be subject to arbitration. Pending renegotiation and settlement of the given dispute, the em- ployees may decline to work the specific containers involved in the dispute and such refusal to work shall not be subject to arbitration. The renegotiation referred to above will not be subject to arbitration. Interpretation of this provision shall not be determined by an arbitrator but by a court of compe- tent jurisdiction. This Agreement settled and agreed upon this 20th day of February, 1969.