Longshoreman Ilwu Local 13 (Sea-Land)

616 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13; and International Longshore- men's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 63 and Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division) and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Help- ers Union, Local No. 692, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO,' Party in Interest. Case 21-CD-514 July 29, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On August 17, 1983, Administrative Law Judge Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief in reply to the Respondents' exceptions and in support of the judge's decision. The Respondents then filed a motion to strike certain portions of the Charging Party's brief or, in the alternative, to file a supple- mental brief.2 The Charging Party filed a reply to the Respondent's motion. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,3 and conclusions, as modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified, and set forth in full below.' ' 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 We deny the Respondents' motion because, with one exception, we have not relied on those portions of the Charging Party's brief that the Respondents seek to strike . We note that the Respondents objected, inter alia, to the Charging Party's reliance on Longshoremen ILWU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser), 271 NLRB 759 (1984), in support of its argument that the Respondents have a "coast-wide policy" of misconduct. At the time of the Charging Party's brief and the Respondents' motion, Weyerhaeuser was still pending before the Board. Of course, we may now rely on Weyerhaeuser because it has issued, but we find it unnecessary to consider the Charging Party's argument that the Respondents have a coast-wide policy of misconduct. ' In sec. III,B, par . 3 of his decision, the judge erroneously referred to January 10, 1982, rather than to 1983. We correct this inadvertent error. We shall modify the judge's recommended Order to accord with our findings below, and we shall also order that Sea-Land, Container Steve- doring Company, Inc., and Pacific Maritime Association be reimbursed for the time-in-lieu payments that they made to the Respondents. Cf. United Marine Division Local 333 (MOTC Acquisitions), 226 NLRB 1214 (1976). The judge ordered the Respondents to cease and desist from failing and refusing to comply with the Board's previous Decision and Determi- nation of Dispute, 258 NLRB 412 (1981). Noncompliance with a determi- nation of the Board under Sec. 10(k) is not itself a violation of Sec. 8(b)(4)(D); it serves, instead, to trigger the issuance of a complaint. Long- shoremen ILWU Local 6 (Golden Grain), 289 NLRB I fn. 3 (1988). We shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly. The facts are set forth fully in the judge's deci- sion . The judge found, and we agree, that Re- spondent Local 13 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) when its agent, Lomelli, threatened a work stop- page if employees represented by the Teamsters were permitted to perform the disputed work. Con- trary to the judge, however, we do not find that Lomelli's threat can be attributed to Respondent Local 63. Evidence is lacking that Respondent Local 63 authorized Lomelli to act on its behalf, or that it ratified the threat either expressly or by its conduct. These circumstances distinguish this case from cases in which the Board has concluded that an agency relationship existed between sister locals. See, e.g., Plumbers Local 119 (Kamtech), 264 NLRB 688, 690-691 (1982). However, we agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by filing time-in-lieu grievances. In doing so, we rely on the fact that the grievances sought pay- ments for work that was explicitly included in the Board's prior 10(k) award to Teamsters-represented employees or, as the judge found, "clear[ly]" inci- dent to that work.5 The Respondents therefore un- lawfully sought to undermine the Board's award. Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser), 271 NLRB 759 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser) v. Pacific Maritime Assn., 773 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1158 (1986).6 For the reasons set forth in the Weyerhaeuser de- cisions, supra, we reject the Respondents' conten- tion that the Board is precluded from enjoining the grievances by Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983). In Bill Johnson's, the Supreme Court held that "the Board may not halt prosecu- tion of a state-court lawsuit, regardless of the plain- tiff's motive, unless the suit lacks a reasonable basis in fact and law." 461 U.S. at 748. In Weyerhaeuser, the Board applied the Bill John- son's rationale to consider the Board's authority to enjoin a Section 301 lawsuit. The Board in Weyer- haeuser found that Bill Johnson's did not compel staying Board. proceedings while the Section 301 5 Contrast Broadcast Employees NABET (Metromedia), 255 NLRB 372 ( 1981), petition for review dismissed as moot 676 F.2d 711 (9th Cir. 1982), in which the 10(k) award's interpretation was open to reasonable doubt . The Board thus found lawful the union's Sec. 301 suit to arbitrate the employer's failure to assign work arguably not covered by the award. 6 With respect to Local 63, we do not base our findings on the fact that its grievances sought payments for employees performing clerks' work . That work was not within the 10(k) award . Clerks' work arises, however, only when the disputed work is assigned to Local 13, contrary to the 10(k) award . Thus, Local 63's grievances undermine the award in the same manner as Local 13's. In finding Respondent Local 63 violated the Act, we find it unneces- sary to rely on Detroit Building Trades Council (Chatham Supermarkets), 259 NLRB 970 (1982), cited by the judge. 290 NLRB No. 76 LONGSHOREMAN ILWU LOCAL 13 (SEA-LAND) suit was pending in a case in which the General Counsel alleged the respondent union unlawfully filed work-assignment grievances and the lawsuit despite a contrary 10(k) award. The Board relied in part on Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 272 (1964), in which the Court held that Board's rulings under Section 10(k) "take prece- dence" over contrary arbitration awards, and that an employer who acts in accordance with a Board ruling will not be liable for damages under Section 301. Thus, the Board found Carey deprived the Section 301 suit of a reasonable basis in fact and law. Like the respondents in Weyerhaeuser, the Re- spondents here filed grievances contrary to a 10(k) award. The grievances thus lacked a reasonable basis in fact and law, and Bill Johnson 's therefore does not,preclude the Board from enjoining the Respondent's grievances. Accordingly, we conclude that by filing griev- ances with an unlawful motive and without a rea- sonable basis in fact or law, the Respondents vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that A. Respondent International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Filing time-in-lieu claims for work performed by members of General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Local 692), with an object of forcing or requiring Sea- Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division) (Sea-Land) and/or Container Stevedoring Company, Inc. (Container), to assign, contrary to the Board's De- cision and Determination of Dispute reported at 258 NLRB 412, the work described below to em- ployees represented by International Longshore- men's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13 (Local 13), rather than to employees represented by Local 692. The work consists of: The transportation and grounding of contain- ers outside the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the temporary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work inci- dent thereto, and the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, at the Long Beach, California, facility 617 of Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. (b) Threatening to engage in a work stoppage with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land and/or Container to assign the work described above to employees represented by Local 13, rather than to employees represented by Local 692. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and cease filing time-in-lieu claims that have an object of forcing or requiring Sea- Land and/or Container to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute re- ported at 258 NLRB 412, the work described above to employees represented by Local 13, rather than to employees represented by Local 692. (b) Reimburse Sea-Land, Container, and the Pa- cific Maritime Association for any time-in-lieu pay- ments made to it pursuant to claims filed on Janu- ary 10, 11, and 18, and on March 29, 1983.7 (c) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona- ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the Regional Director for posting by Sea-Land and Container, if they are willing, at all locations on the jobsite where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. B. Respondent International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 63, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from filing time-in-lieu claims with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land and/or Container to assign , contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at ' The record does not clearly establish which of the Employers made the time-in-lieu payments. Of course, we intend that reimbursement be made only to the Employer that actually made the payments. 8 If 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 618 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 258 NLRB 412, the work described below to em- ployees represented by Local 13, rather than to employees represented by Local 692. The work consists of: The transportation and grounding of contain- ers outside the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the temporary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work inci- dent thereto, and the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, at the Long Beach, California, facility of Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and cease filing time-in-lieu claims that have an object of forcing or requiring Sea- Land and/or Container to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute re- ported at 258 NLRB 412, the work described above to employees represented by Local 13, rather than to employees represented by Local 692. (b) Reimburse Sea-Land, Container, and the Pa- cific Maritime Association for any time-in-lieu pay- ments made to it pursuant to claims filed on Janu- ary 10, 11, and 18, and on March 29, 1983.9 (c) Post at its office and meeting halls copies copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the Regional Director for posting by Sea-Land and Container, if they are willing, at all locations on the jobsite where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT file time-in-lieu claims for work performed by members of General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division) (Sea- Land) and/or Container Stevedoring Company, (Container) to assign, contrary to the Board's Deci- sion and Determination of Dispute reported at 258 NLRB 412, the work described below to employ- ees whom we represent rather than to employees represented by the Union described above. The work consists of: The transportation and grounding of contain- ers outside the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the temporary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work inci- dent thereto , and the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, at the Long Beach, California, facility of Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. WE WILL NOT threaten to engage in a work stoppage with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land and/or Container to assign the work de- scribed above to employees whom we represent rather than to employees represented by the Union described above. WE WILL withdraw and cease filing time -in-lieu claims that have an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land and/or Container to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- pute, the work described above to employees whom we represent rather than to employees rep- resented by the Union described above. WE WILL reimburse Sea-Land, Container, and the Pacific Maritime Association for any time-in- lieu payments made to us pursuant to claims that 9 As we noted above in In . 7, we intend that reimbursement be made only to the Employer that actually made the payments. 10 See fn . 8, above. LONGSHOREMAN ILWU LOCAL 13 (SEA-LAND) we filed on January 10, 11, and 18, and on March 29, 1983. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 13 APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT file time-in-lieu claims with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land Service (Pacific Division) (Sea-Land) and/or Container Stevedoring Company (Container) to assign, con- trary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at 258 NLRB 412, the work de- scribed below to employees represented by Interna- tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, rather than to employees repre- sented by General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local No. 692 , International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO. The work consists of: The transportation and grounding of contain- ers outside the container yard , and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the temporary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work inci- dent thereto, and the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, at the Long Beach, California, facility of Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. WE WILL withdraw and cease filing time-in-lieu claims which have an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land and/or Container to assign, contrary to the Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- pute, the work described above to employees rep- resented by International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, rather than to employees represented by General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union, Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO. WE WILL reimburse Sea-Land, Container, and the Pacific Maritime Association for any time-in- 619 lieu payments made to us pursuant to claims that we filed on January 10, 11, and 18 , and on March 29, 1983. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 63 Lucy Acevedo, Esq., for the General Counsel. William H. Carder and Richard Zuckerman, Esqs. (Leon- ard & Carder), of San Francisco, California, for the Respondent. Robert A. Attaway, Esq. (Barlow & Attaway), of Princeton, New Jersey, for the Charging Party. Ann E. Isaac, of Iselin, New Jersey, for Sea-Land Indus- tries, Inc. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter was held before me in Los Angeles, California, on May 17 and 18, 1983. The charge was filed on January 28, 1983, by Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division) (Sea- Land). Thereafter, on March 14, 1983, the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice of hearing al- leging a violation by International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 63 (Respondents) of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence . Since the close of the hearing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel, counsel for Respondent, and counsel for the Charging Party. I On the entire record, and based on my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Sea-Land is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of transporting containerized freight , and oper- ates a marine facility in Long Beach, California. Sea- Land annually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers who, in turn , annually sell and ship goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. It is admitted , and I find, that Sea-Land is, and has been at all times material , an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act ; an employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act ; and a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- 620 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is admitted that the Respondents are, and have been at all times material , labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act; and that General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Teamsters) is and has been at all times material a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue The principal issue raised by the pleading is whether the Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by unlawfully attempting to cause Sea-Land to assign certain work to their members rather than to members of another labor organization, in violation of a prior Board Decision and Determination of Dispute. B. The Facts The facts are substantially as set forth in the Board's prior Decision and Determination of Dispute issued on September 30, 1981 , involving the identical parties, and reported at 258 NLRB 412. In that case, the Board made the following determination at 415: Employees of Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Di- vision), who are represented by General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, are entitled to perform the work of the trans- portation and grounding of containers outside the container yard , and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the temporary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work incident thereto, and the return of such containers to the container yard , and the work incident there- to, at the Long Beach, California, facility of Sea- Land Services, Inc. (Pacific Division ), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. Thereafter, on October 14, 1981, Respondent Interna- tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, filed a motion for reopening of record and re- consideration of decision, contending that the Board should reopen the record to consider relevant provisions of various contracts, which, as the original decision noted, were not admitted into evidence at the hearing. On January 28, 1982, the Board denied the motion as lacking in merit. From the time of the 10(k) award until January 10, 1982, Sea-Land extensively continued the aforemen- tioned work at Pelican Pond ' utilizing Teamsters mem- ' Pelican Pond is the name given to an unenclosed I-acre paved area across the street from Sea-Land's marine yard bers, without incident . The work during this time includ- ed grounding and staging and also flipping , bundling, and unbundling of chassis (infra). On January 10, 1983, Respondents submitted a griev- ance seeking time-in-lieu payments as provided by their contract with Container Stevedoring Company, which supplies Sea-Land with employees represented by Re- spondents for performing work related to the loading and unloading of ships at Sea-Land's marine yard. The grievance claim was that Respondents should have been given the work that was performed at Pelican Pond that very day by Teamsters members employed by Sea-Land. An immediate arbitration proceeding was held, in which the Teamsters were not a party, and on January 13, 1983, the arbitrator determined the issue in favor of the Re- spondents. Despite this arbitrator's award, and a prior ar- bitration award,2 Sea-Land continued to use Teamsters employees to perform whatever work was required at Pelican Pond. Gene Borg, a manager for Container Stevedoring Company, testified that on January 24, 1983, he received a call from Richard Lomelli, a relief business agent with Local 13. Lomelli stated he was calling to investigate a rumor that Sea-Land was doing work in Pelican Pond. Borg said he would investigate and call back . Thereafter, Borg called Lomelli and indicated that the "top han- dler," a large piece of equipment that lifts containers from the top four corners,3 had been used by Teamsters employees at Pelican Pond. Lomelli said, "Lou [Louis Loveridge, president of Local 13] told me to go down to the Sea-Land facility, and if the Teamsters were using the top handler in the Pelican Pond, to walk the gang if they're working a ship." Borg's testimony stands unre- butted in the record. As a result, to avoid a work stoppage that would inter- rupt the schedules of the sea-going vessels Sea-Land has discontinued using Pelican Pond. Respondents have claimed time-in-lieu payments for all work performed by the Teamsters at Pelican Pond on January 10, 11, and 18 and March 29, when Sea-Land removed the remaining empty grounded containers , and time-in-lieu claims in the amount of about $4300 have been paid. Louis W. Rios is secretary-treasurer of Local 13. Rios testified that regarding the current dispute the officers of Respondent were instructed by officers of the Interna- tional Union to follow the Board's Section 10(k) ruling, but to also follow the contractual grievance procedure and continue to file time-in-lieu claims because the work in dispute is work belonging to Respondents. Rios testi- fied that it is Local 13's position that it is entitled to per- form the work of the transportation and grounding of containers outside the container yard at the Pelican Pond; the temporary staging of containers at Pelican Pond and the work incident thereto; and the return of 2 As noted in the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute, in an earlier 1980 arbitration proceeding in which the Teamsters were not a party, the work at Pelican Pond was awarded to Respondents a The record shows that Teamsters members performed the same work at Pelican Pond with the top handlers as they had performed with fork- lifts, but that the characteristics of the top handler enable the various functions to be performed more safely and efficiently LONGSHOREMAN ILWU LOCAL 13 (SEA-LAND) such containers from the Pelican Pond to the marine yard and the work incident thereto . In summary, Rios admitted that the Union is continuing to claim all the work that was the subject of the 10(k) hearing. Respondents take the position that the more recent work performed by Teamsters at Pelican Pond in Janu- ary 1983 was not work specifically covered by the 10(k) award. Rather, the work included not only grounding or staging, but also flipping of containers, and bundling and unbundling of chassis . As noted in the prior Board deci- sion, "grounding" is defined as the removal of the con- tainer from the chassis and setting it on the ground; "staging" is the parking of the chassis and container as a single unit . "Flipping" is the removal of a container from a chassis and substituting another chassis ; "bundling" is the stacking of chassis on top of each other for the pur- pose of transporting them elsewhere or simply to con- serve space; "unbundling" is the removal of the stacked chassis as they are needed . The record shows that all the work, when performed in the marine yard , was typically performed by members of Respondents with whatever available equipment could get the job done. Similar work outside the marine yard has typically been performed by members of the Teamsters with whatever available equipment was necesary to perform the work . Moreover, it is crystal clear that the flipping, bundling, and unbun- dling of chassis at Pelican Pond is work incident to the transportation of containers. This is true simply because it is necessary to have chassis available to move the con- tainers, and sometimes the containers need to be flipped from one chassis to another in the event that a particular chassis, for various reasons, may not be appropriate. C. Analysis and Conclusions Respondent Local 13 fully participated in the afore- mentioned 10(k) proceeding and is bound by the award notwithstanding it was not the charged party therein. National Assn. of Broadcast Employees (NABET), 230 NLRB 75 (1977). In the instant matter, the record shows that the position of both Respondents are identical. Moreover, they must necessarily work together at Sea- Land's marine yard, Local 13 members performing long- shoremen's work and Local 63 members performing the related clerks work in connection therewith . Therefore, I find that Local 63 is properly a party here, and is also bound by the aforementioned award . See Detroit Building Trades Council (Chatham Supermarkets), 259 NLRB 970 (1982). It is clear, and I find, that Lomelli specifically threat- ened Borg with a work stoppage if the Teamsters were using the top handler to perform work at the Pelican Pond. The fact that Lomelli singled out the top handler does not diminish the clear record evidence that Re- spondent's threat was calculated to secure the work awarded to the Teamsters, as the top handler is merely a piece of equipment that was substituted for forklifts, to perform the identical work the Board determined prop- erly belonged to the Teamsters. Respondents contend that the time -in-lieu claims are not violative of the 10(k) award. In National Assn. of Broadcast Employees, 255 NLRB 372 (1981), the Board stated at 374: 621 [W]hen, as here, a respondent pursues its legal rem- edies for an arguably meritorious claim under a properly negotiated collective-bargaining agreement and the record fails to disclose extrinsic evidence of threats, restraint, or coercion of the employer, we are unable to conclude that it has done more than its status as employee representative authorizes. In the instant case, however, Respondents' time-in-lieu claims cannot be viewed in isolation , but must be per- ceived as related to the Lomelli's threat, thus providing extrinsic evidence of the Respondents ' unlawful intent in filing the time-in-lieu claims. Further, contrary to the cases cited by Respondents, the instant factual situation is not one that may be char- acterized on "work preservation." In dismissing a 10(k) notice of hearing because the controversy legitimately in- volved work preservation rather than a jurisdictional dis- pute, the Board stated in Seattle Building & Trades Coun- cil (Seattle Olympic Hotel), 204 NLRB 1126, 1127 (1973), cited by Respondent: Before the Board may proceed to a determination of dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. On the record before us, we are not satisfied that any such violation has occurred in this case. The present dispute is in significant respects simi- lar to those cases in which the Board has found that a union was attempting to protect and preserve work which had traditionally been performed by its members and that such disputes are not the type of controversy Congress intended the Board to resolve pursuant to Section 8(b)(4)(D) and Section 10(k) of the Act. Further, the record herein fails to establish competing claims between classes of employees or any dispute over the assignment of particular work. Our conclusion is that Respondent picketed for a lawful objective, i.e., to regain work for four em- ployee craftsmen who were members of the crafts which had traditionally performed the work for Olympic for many years along with Olympic's maintenance staff. Accordingly, we find that no ju- risdictional dispute exists and we shall therefore quash the notice of hearing. In the instant case the work that Respondents alleged- ly are attempting to "preserve" is the very work, and work incidental thereto as found which has been deter- mined by the Board to belong to the Teamsters, follow- ing a threat by the Teamsters, as noted by the Board's decision, in the event the work was given to Respond- ents. Such work, outside the marine yard , has never been performed by Respondents' members but has always been performed by members of the Teamsters at various locations, even prior to Sea-Land's acquisition of Pelican Pond. The competing claims and disputes by the two labor organizations over the assignment of the work are crystal clear. Thus, I find Respondents' work-preserva- tion claim to be without merit , as the dispute is singular- ly jurisdictional in nature. 622 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the foregoing , I find that the Respond- ents have failed to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute , and by threats and the filing of time-in-lieu claims, have violated Section 8(b)(4)(iiXD) of the Act, as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13 and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 63 are Labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division) is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by failing and refusing to honor and comply with the Board's De- cision and Determination of Dispute reported in 258 NLRB 412 by threatening a work stoppage to force or require Sea-Land Service Inc. (Pacific Division), and/or Container Stevedoring Company, to assign particular work to its members, and by filing "time-in-lieu" claims for work performed by members of the Teamsters, with an object of forcing or requiring Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Division), and/or Container Stevedoring Com- pany, to assign the work described below to employees represented by Respondents rather than to employees represented by the Teamsters. The work consists of: The transportation and grounding of containers out- side the container yard, and the work incident thereto, the return of such containers to the con- tainer yard, and work incident thereto, the tempo- rary staging of containers outside the container yard, and the work incident thereto, and the return of such containers to the container yard, and the work incident thereto, at the Long Beach, Califor- nia facility of Sea-Land Services, Inc. (Pacific Divi- sion), and at the nearby Pelican Pond area. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]