Longshoremen Ila Local 3000 (Coastal Cargo)

546 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Longshore Workers Local Union No. 3000 of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO and Coastal Cargo Company, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 270, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO,' Party to the Dispute and Mississippi River Grain Elevator, Inc., Party to the Dispute. Case 15-CD-295 June 30, 1988 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed on November 12, 1985, by the Employer, al- leging that the Respondent, General Longshore Workers Local Union No. 3000 of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to em- ployees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO. The hearing was held on Decem- ber 3 before Hearing Officer Lyn J. Beck.2 The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following find- ings. I. JURISDICTION The Employer, Coastal Cargo Company, Inc. (CCCI) a Louisiana corporation, operates a cargo company. Based on a projection of the Employer's New Orleans operations (since they commenced on July 16, 1985), the Employer will derive annual gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for services performed as a link in interstate commerce and will annually purchase and receive goods and materials I On November 1, 1987, the Teamsters International Union was read- mitted to the AFL-CIO. Accordingly, the caption has been amended to reflect that change. 2 The Employer made a motion to consolidate this proceeding with a companion case, Longshoremen ILA Local 3000 (Coastal Cargo Co.), 289 NLRB 542 The motion is denied as the work in dispute in each case dif- fers in scope All parties present in the proceeding stipulated to include the record transcript from the companion case The parties requested the Board to take official notice of the proceedings in that case and stipulated that the facts set out in that record would constitute the record here valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Louisiana. The parties stipulated to facts that satisfy the Board's jurisdictional requirements. We find that CCCI is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Mississippi River Grain Elevator, Inc. (MRGE) is a party to the dispute. MRGE is engaged in the storage, sale, and transfer of grain. The parties stip- ulated that MRGE in the preceding 12-month period in the course and conduct of its business op- erations within the State of Louisiana derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the transportation and handling of commodities and cargo in inter- state commerce pursuant to arrangements with and as agents for various common carriers. The parties further stipulated that during this 12-month period MRGE purchased and received at its Myrtle Grove, Louisiana facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Louisiana. We find that MRGE is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties stipulate, and we find, that Local 3000 and Local 270 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute CCCI was incorporated on July 16, 1985. It is a cargo company, which loads and unloads ships docked at the Port of New Orleans. CCCI loads grain, breakbulk, and containerized cargo onto ves- sels and discharges cargo from vessels or barges onto the dock. In a related case, Coastal Cargo Co., 286 NLRB 200 (1987), the Board found that CCCI is the alter ego of a now-defunct company called Coastal Cargo Company, which operated from May 4 to October 1, 1984; this company had a col- lective-bargaining agreement with Local 270, which ran from May 1, 1984, to April 30, 1987. On July 1 CCCI signed a collective-bargaining agree- ment with Local 270 effective until June 30, 1988. The Board determined that this was a valid agree- ment because CCCI was a continuation of Coastal Cargo Company and was subject to the latter's bar- gaining obligations.3 MRGE first subcontracted work to CCCI in September 1985. On September 5 MRGE contract- ed with CCCI for the unloading of the M/V Anas- tasia II. Over a 16-hour period, employees of CCCI represented by Local 270 loaded the ship 3 Coastal Cargo Co, 286 NLRB 200, 203-204 (1987). 289 NLRB No. 70 LONGSHOREMEN ILA LOCAL 3000 (COASTAL CARGO) 547 with approximately 4700 tons of grain. No mem- bers of Local 3000 picketed the ship. CCCI per- formed other loading services at MRGE in late October and early November with no pickets in at- tendance. On November 7, CCCI was under contract with MRGE to load the M/V Massmiliano F. with grain. Employees of CCCI commenced loading op- erations on November 7 at 6 p.m. During the after- noon of November 8, Durel Landry, CCCI's presi- dent, received word that Local 3000 was going to put up a picket line at the MRGE facility where the Massmiliano F. was still being loaded. Landry testified that at 5:45 a.m. on November 9 he observed three men with picket signs at the en- trance to the main road leading to MRGE's facili- ty.4 Landry recognized one of the pickets as Paul Sarentine,5 a current member and previous vice president and business agent of Local 3000. The pickets remained all day and left at 5:30 p.m. The grain loading continued through the night and fin- ished at 9:30 a.m. on November 10. B. Work in Dispute The work in dispute6 involves the loading and unloading of oceangoing vessels within the jurisdic- tional boundaries of General Longshore Workers Local Union No. 3000 of International Longshore- men's Association, AFL-CIO in the Port of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer, CCCI, contends that reasonable cause exists to believe that Local 3000 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act; and that the work in dispute should be awarded to CCCI's employees represented by Local 270 based on the factors of employer preference, past practice, the collective- bargaining agreement, skill, and economy and effi- ciency. MRGE argues that the picketing is an extension of the picketing in the companion case. It maintains that the work in dispute should be awarded to em- ployees represented by Local 270 on the basis of company preference and economy and efficiency of operations. MRGE also states that neither it nor CCCI are parties to any procedure for the joint resolution of jurisdictional disputes. 4 The picket signs read "Teamsters Local 270 Unfair ILA Longshore- men", "M R G E Unfair to ILA 3000", and "Feruzzi Sillo Non Gusto a ILA-Operaio " b Variously spelled Seruntme and Serantme in the record 6 The specific work involved in this case was the loading of grain aboard an oceangoing vessel at the Myrtle Grove, Louisiana facility of MRGE The Regional Director's notice of hearing broadened the dispute to include any similar operation within the geographical jurisdiction of Longshoremen Local 3000 No party contested the scope of the dispute Local 3000 does not acknowledge the existence of a jurisdictional dispute. It disputes the applicabil- ity of the statute in this matter and denies that "reasonable cause" exists to believe that it violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. It contends that the picketing was isolated. Local 3000 also contends that the ILA and the Teamsters have formed a joint board to resolve jurisdictional disputes. D. Applicability of the Statute Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D) charge has arisen. However, before the Board pro- ceeds with a determination of dispute, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary set- tlement of the dispute. At the beginning of the dispute, CCCI's employ- ees represented by Local 270 had been assigned to perform the work in dispute. The longshoremen contended the work belonged to them. Members of Local 3000 picketed the MRGE facility at which the M/V Massmiliano F. was docked. The picket signs indicated that the Teamsters, Local 270 was "unfair" to Local 3000 members. There is reasona- ble cause to believe that an object of the picketing was to force or require CCCI to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 3000 rather than to its own employees represented by Local 270.7 Although MRGE did not control the work in dispute, Local 3000 accused it of being unfair to Local 3000. There is no evidence that CCCI or MRGE are bound to any resolution reached by the joint board. Therefore there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the instant dispute. We find reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for deter- mination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af- firmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in 7 We note, as set forth in the companion case, that, according to Local 270's president , Mitchell Ledet, Local 3000's president, Cliven Cormier, threatened to do whatever was necessary to get the stevedoring work back from Local 270 548 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by bal- ancing the factors involved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute. 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreement(s) CCCI has a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 270;8 it has no collective-bargaining agree- ment with Local 3000. No Board certification has been issued regarding any CCCI employees en- gaged in stevedoring operations or regarding any other unit of employees. This factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees repre- sented by Local 270. 2. Company preference and past practice CCCI prefers that the work in dispute be done by its employees who are represented by Local 270. CCCI's alter ego Coastal Cargo Company used employees represented by Local 270 to load and unload ships. This factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by Local 270. 3. Area practice The record shows that the loading and unloading of ships in the Port of New Orleans has in the past been done by employees represented by Local 3000. On occasion MRGE has contracted stevedor- ing work to companies whose employees were rep- resented by Local 3000. Employees represented by Local 270 have also engaged in stevedoring work in the Port of New Orleans. Therefore, this factor does not favor awarding the disputed work to either group of employees. 4. Relative skills Both employees represented by Local 270 and Local 3000 possess the skills needed to load and unload ships. Both groups of employees have expe- rience in stevedoring work. Therefore, this factor does not favor awarding the disputed work to either group of employees. a The agreement covers the classifications of checker, crane operator, lift driver, loader, flag man, loading crew, labor, and palletizer The agreement does not describe the work that these classifications perform 5. Economy and efficiency CCCI's president, Landry, testified that it is more economical and efficient for the Employer to use its own employees represented by Local 270. Landry testified that usually he would have to hire 18 longshoremen as opposed to 7 teamsters for each job. Landry also testified that he only hired as many teamsters as he needed and did not have to hire waterboys and timekeepers as required by the longshoremen. Therefore, this factor favors award- ing the disputed work to employees represented by Local 270. Conclusion After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by Local 270 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the collective-bar- gaining agreement between CCCI and Local 270, employer preference, past practice, and economy and efficiency. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. Employees of Coastal Cargo Company, Inc., represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 270 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the loading and unloading of oceangoing vessels for Coastal Cargo Company, Inc., within the jurisdictional boundaries of General Longshore Workers Local Union No. 3000 of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO in the Port of New Orle- ans, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. General Longshore Workers Union No. 3000 of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Coastal Cargo Company, Inc. to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from this date, General Long- shore Workers Union No. 3000 of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15 in writ- ing whether it will refrain from forcing the Em- ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsist- ent with this determination.