Longshoremen Ilwu Local 7 (Georgia Pacific)

LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC) Local Union No 7, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and Bellingham Di vision, Georgia Pacific Corporation and Belling ham Stevedoring Co and Local Union No 194, Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work ers Case 19-CD-415 September 30 1988 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On December 14 1984 the National Labor Rela tions Board issued a Decision and Order' in the above entitled proceeding in which it concluded that Local Union No 7 International Longshore men s and Warehousemen s Union (ILWU or the Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by filing in lieu of grievances against Belling ham Stevedoring Co (Bellingham) both before and after the Board s 10(k) determination2 awarding the disputed work to employees of Bellingham Divi sion Georgia Pacific Corporation (the Employer) who were represented by Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (AWPPW) The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from filing such grievances and to take certain affirmative action to remedy its unlaw ful conduct The Respondent then petitioned for review of the Boards Decision and Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Board filed a cross application for enforcement of its Order Subsequently, the Board filed with the court a motion to remand the case to the Board for further consideration On March 11 1986, the court granted the Board s motion The Board thereafter invited the parties to file statements of position The General Counsel the Employer and the Respondent filed statements of position The Board sua sponte has reconsidered its ongi nal Decision and Order to the extent set forth below Our principal focus on reconsideration con cerns the Board s earlier finding that the Respond ent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by filing grievances seeking in lieu of pay before the Board made its 10(k) determination in this case 3 1 273 NLRB 363 2 267 NLRB 26 (1983) 2 The Board has also reconsidered the earlier finding that the Respond ent violated Sec 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by failing and refusing to comply with the Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute 273 NLRB at 367 In Longshormen ILWU Local 6 (Golden Grain) 289 NLRB I fn 3 ( 1988) the Board unanimously held that a refusal to promise compliance with the 10(k) determination does not serve as an independent basis for finding an 8(b)(4)(D) violation Rather such 89 On reconsideration we cannot agree with the Board s earlier finding that it was unlawful for the Respondent to file arguably meritorious work as signment grievances prior to the issuance of the Board s 10(k) determination We adhere to Board precedent holding generally that the mere filing of such grievances does not constitute coerc[ion] within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(D) See e g Brockton Newspaper Guild (Enterprise Publish ing) 275 NLRB 135 136-137 (1985) Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (Los Alamos Constructors), 206 NLRB 473 476-477 (1973) Our approach is in harmony with the basic policies of the Act and is supported by decisions of the Supreme Court We first set forth the facts the contentions of the par ties and then our discussion of the legal principles and policies involved Facts The Employer receives bulk shipments of salt about 14 times each year at its dock facilities in Bellingham Washington During unloading oper ations before September 1981 cranes located in the hold of the ship were used to scoop the salt out and into a hopper on the dock from where the salt was transported on a series of conveyor belts to a salt pad At the salt pad a shuttle conveyor was used to distribute the salt evenly over the pad ILWU members employed by Bellingham Steve donng operated the cranes while the Employer s AWPPW represented employees operated the con veyor belts including the shuttle conveyor Around September 1981 the Employer decided to cease using the shuttle conveyor and instead to use bulldozers on top of the salt pad during unload ings After a meeting between the Employer and AWPPW officials the Employer agreed to use its AWPPW represented employees to operate the bulldozers During the first unloading in September 1981 the Respondent protested to Bellingham that under the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Docu ment (PCLCD) to which Bellingham was a party by virtue of being a member of the Pacific Man time Association (PMA) ILWU members should have been ordered from the dispatch hall to oper ate the bulldozers used on top of the salt pad Barry Frost the Respondents vice president and a member of its labor relations committee admitted in his testimony that when this matter was dis cussed Bellingham contended that the collective bargaining agreement was inapplicable to the situa noncompliance serves as a triggering event for the issuance of a corn plaint In light of Golden Grain the Board has decided to reverse the finding that the Respondents failure and refusal to comply with the 10(k) determination independently violated Sec 8(b)(4)(iiXD ) The Order and notice previously issued in this proceeding will be modified accordingly 291 NLRB No 13 90 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion because Bellingham had no control over the salt after it went into the hopper The Respondent then filed a grievance under the PCLCD seeking in lieu of pay as compensation for not getting the assignment of work During all subsequent unload ings at the dock AWPPW represented employees continued to operate the bulldozers on top of the salt pad and the Respondent continued to file grievances for in lieu of pay At some point Bel lingham approached the Employer about acting as a contractor for the work on top of the salt pad but the Employer rejected the request Meanwhile the Respondents grievances proceeded through the various steps of the PCLCD grievance procedure until they were submitted for arbitration in late 1982 When AWPPW learned that these grievances had been referred to an arbitrator it advised the Employer by letter dated December 6 1982 that it would take whatever action it determines is neces sary-up to and including work stoppage-to assure that [the bulldozer operator] jobs remain covered by the AWPPW and its Local Union as they have in the past On December 16 1982 the Employer filed a charge alleging that both ILWU and AWPPW vio lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act On August 8 1983 following a 10(k) hearing the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute in which it found reasonable cause to believe that both AWPPW and ILWU violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) Regarding the Respondent the Board based its finding of reasonable cause on the Re spondent s filing of grievances against Bellingham Relying on evidence that Bellingham had no con trot over the work in dispute and that employees represented by the Respondent never had per formed such work the Board rejected the Re spondent s work preservation defense and found reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent s grievances had an object of applying indirect pres sure on the Employer to assign the disputed work to ILWU represented employees Additionally the Board found reasonable cause to believe that AWPPW also violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) based on that Union s strike threat On the merits the Board concluded that the Employers AWPPW represent ed employees were entitled to perform the work in dispute based on, inter alia the Employers prac tice preference and assignment, relative skills and training and efficiency and economy of operations Subsequent to the 10(k) hearing but before the issuance of the Board s Decision and Determina tion of Dispute an arbitrators decision issued fa vorable to the Respondents position under the PCLCD That decision indicated that on February 10 1983 after a hearing in which the Respondent and PMA participated Arbitrator Forrester decid ed that the dispute regarding the Respondents in lieu of claims turned on the determination of con trot of cargo While noting PMA s position that Bellingham s control of the cargo ends when the cargo is dumped into the hopper on the dock the arbitrator nevertheless found that the salt discharge operation is a continuous movement of cargo from the ship to the place of rest on the salt pad He therefore concluded that the work opportunity in contention is longshore work but further held that time in lieu was not payable for the Re spondent s claims made before the issuance of his decision Following the arbitration decision Bel lingham and the PMA honored the Respondent s new claims for in lieu of pay but only until the is suance of the Board s 10(k) award After the issuance of the Board s 10(k) decision the Respondent failed to notify the Regional Direc tor for Region 19 that it would comply with the Board s decision and continued to file time in lieu grievances against Bellingham Based on this con duct in derogation of the Board s 10(k) award the Region issued an 8(b)(4)(D) complaint against the Respondent On December 14 1984 the Board issued its Decision and Order finding that the Re spondent had no valid work preservation object and that the Respondents grievances were calcu lated to induce Bellingham to pressure the Employ er into reassigning the disputed work to ILWU represented employees The Board also held that the arbitrators decision was not controlling be cause neither the Employer nor AWPPW was a party to that proceeding and because the arbitra tion decision was superseded by the superior au thority of the Board s subsequent 10(k) award under Carey v Westinghouse Corp 375 US 261 (1964) Thus on the facts in this case the Board concluded that the Respondents filing of in lieu of grievances both before and after the 10(k) award amounted to an economic device employed by the Respondent against Bellingham to force the Employer to assign the disputed work to ILWU members and as such constituted proscribed eco nomic coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) Finally, the Board rejected the Re spondent s affirmative defense that Bill Johnson s Restaurants v NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) com pelted a stay of the 8(b)(4)(D) proceedings The Board relied on its reasoning in Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser Co) 271 NLRB 759 (1984) 4 that as any Section 301 suit brought to en 4 Enfd 773 F 2d 1012 (9th Cir 1985) cert denied 476 US 1158 (1986) LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC) 91 force the arbitration award would be contrary to the Board s 10(k) award and would seek to achieve a prohibited objective the suit would lack a rea ,,onable basis in fact and law The Parties Positions on Remand The General Counsel agrees with the Board s earlier finding that the grievances filed by the Re spondent after the Board s 10(k) award issued vio lated the Act Regarding the Respondents filing of grievances before the 10(k) award however the General Counsel now believes that the better view is that the in lieu of claims did not constitute pro scribed coercion The General Counsel initially argued that there was an apparent conflict between the Board s finding that such conduct constitutes a violation and its prior decisions in Retail Clerks Local 770 (Hughes Markets) 218 NLRB 680 683 (1975) and Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (Los Alamos Constructors) 206 NLRB 473 476-477 (1973) She then points out that in Carey v Westing house above the Supreme Court held that before the Board makes its 10(k) determination an ag grieved union in a jurisdictional dispute is free to pursue its contractual remedies through arbitration While recognizing that Carey can be distinguished here on the ground that the Respondents griev ance was filed against an employer that had no control over the disputed work the General Coun sel contends that the distinction is not meaningful because the national policy of encouraging the ar bitration of labor disputes is implicated in either sit uation She notes that it is possible the arbitrator might find the grieving union is not entitled to per form the work in dispute Furthermore even if the arbitrator finds in favor of that union, the General Counsel points out that there is no reason to be lieve in advance that the arbitrators decision will be inconsistent with any subsequent Board 10(k) determination She notes that although the employ er s assignment of the work would be entitled to great weight in the latter proceeding this is just one factor that the Board is required to take into account in deciding the jurisdictional dispute The General Counsel further contends that the Respondent in this case was seeking through arbi tration only in lieu of payments and not the work itself The General Counsel therefore argues citing W R Grace & Co v Rubber Workers Local 579 461 U S 757 (1983) that it would not offend the policies of the Act to permit the Respondent to seek damages for breach of contract at least until the Board has decided the 10(k) case The General Counsel finds inapposite here cases such as Associ ated General Contractors of California v NLRB 514 F 2d 433 438-439 (9th Cir 1975), and Carrier Air Conditioning Co v NLRB 547 F 2d 1178 1191- 1193 (2d Cir 1976) which hold that a contract provision providing for the assessment of a mone tary penalty against an employer for failing to pro vide its employees with work they had not tradi tionally performed or which that employer did not control constitutes coercion proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(u) She emphasizes that those cases involve Section 8(b)(4)(B) and not as here Section 8(b)(4)(D) and that the statutory scheme of the former does not manifest a Congressional intent to encourage the resolution of the dispute through private methods of adjustment as is the case with jurisdictional disputes Thus in the General Coun sel s view the Board in applying Section 8(b)(4)(D) is less free at least before making its 10(k) determi nation to interdict contractual procedures that could resolve a jurisdictional dispute than it would be for purposes of Section 8(b)(4)(B) She further contends that before making such a determination under Section 10(k) the Board could not find that a grievance was barred under Bill Johnson s as lacking a reasonable basis in fact and law In its brief, the Employer initially emphasizes citing Weyerhaeuser above that both the Board and the courts have recognized that the filing of grievances can amount to coercive activity in cer tarn situations 5 While noting that in this case Bel lingham did not control the disputed work the Employer contends that Bellingham s ability to in fluence the Employers work assignment made it a suitable vehicle for the Respondents coercion The Employer states that because it pays Bellingham on a cost plus basis for services rendered Bellingham could pass along to it the cost of any time in lieu claims The Employer further contends that by filing these claims the Respondent can effectively impose economic pressure on it to assign the dis puted work to ILWU represented employees In the Employers view this tendency to influence its business decisions constitutes coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) Furthermore based on Weyerhaeuser Co above and Emery Air Freight above the Employer argues that a finding of pro scribed conduct here is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson s above Accordingly the Employer urges the Board to re affirm its original decision in this case The Respondent argues that regardless of whether the Board has issued an adverse work award under Section 10(k) the filing of contractual grievances does not constitute unlawful coercion 5In so contending the Employer relies on Ironworkers (Hoffman Con struction) 273 NLRB 260 (1Q84) and Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight) 278 NLRB 1303 ( 1986) remanded 820 F 2d 448 (D C Cir 1987) 92 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) It em phasizes that in Carey v Westinghouse above the Supreme Court recognized that judicial action of this nature is not the kind of conduct that triggers the Boards jurisdiction to resolve such disputes The Respondent further notes that there is nothing in the legislative history of the Act that demon strates any Congressional concern with proscribing or limiting the filing of grievances The Respond ent therefore urges the Board to dismiss the instant complaint Discussion We find that the Board had jurisdiction to issue the 10(k) award based on AWPPW s work stop page threat We also agree with the Board s earlier finding that ILWU violated the Act by filing gnev ances after the 10(k) award issued because at that point the grievance filings lacked a reasonable basis and reflected an improper motivation to undermine the Boards 10(k) award 6 We do not however agree that ILWU s filing of grievances before the 10(k) award issued was coerc[ive] within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act 7 There can be no doubt that our national labor policy encourages resort to the grievance arbitra tion procedure as the preferred method of resole ing labor management disputes Congressional intent is clearly set forth in Section 203(d) of the Act which states Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is hereby declared to be the desira ble method for settlement of grievance dis putes arising over the application or interpreta tion of an existing collective bargaining agree ment This Congressional policy has repeatedly received the recognition and respect of the Supreme Court Almost 30 years ago the Court declared that federal policy is to promote industrial sta bilization through the collective bargaining agreement A major factor in achieving industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision for arbitration of grievances in the collective bargaining agreement 8 8 Longshoremen IL WU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser Co) 271 NLRB 759 (1984) enfd 773 F 2d 1012 (9th Cir 1985) cert denied 476 US 1158 (1986) See Bill Johnson s Restaurants v NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) dis cussed below ° To the extent that such cases as Hoff fman Construction supra, 273 NLRB 260 (1984) as well as our prior decisions in this proceeding (re ported at 273 NLRB 363 (1984) and 267 NLRB 26 (1983)) are inconsist eat with our decision today they are overruled 8 Steelworkers Y Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co 363 US 574 578 (1960) See Steelworkers v American Mfg Co 363 U S 564 ( 1960) Steel workers v Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp 363 U S 593 (1960) These three cases commonly referred to collectively as the Steelworkers Trilogy were In 1987 the Court citing Section 203(d) reiterated that Federal labor policy reflect[s] a decided pref erence for private settlement of labor disputes without the intervention of government 9 The Board itself has a long history of withholding its authority to adjudicate alleged unfair labor prac tices in order to facilitate private dispute resolution under the grievance arbitration process E g United Technologies Corp 268 NLRB 557 (1984) Collyer Insulated Wire 192 NLRB 837 (1971) Spielberg Mfg Co, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955) In light of the strong Congressional policy of encouraging the private settlement of disputes through the grievance arbitration machinery the Board should be reluctant to find that the mere filing of an argu ably meritorious contractual grievance is prohibited under the Act Furthermore in Carey v Westinghouse Corp 375 U S 261 ( 1964) the Supreme Court spelled out in no uncertain terms its view that the grievance arbi tration process has a major role to play in settling jurisdictional disputes The Court held in Carey that prior to a Board 10(k) award a union involved in a jurisdictional dispute may file a contractual grievance pursue it to arbitration and seek to en force an arbitration award under Section 301 The Court stated that the underlying objective of the national labor laws is to promote collective bar gaining agreements and to help give substance to such agreements through the arbitration process that [g]rievance arbitration is [a common] method of settling disputes over work assignments and that [s]ince § 10(k) not only tolerates but actively encourages voluntary settlements of work assign ment controversies between unions we conclude that grievance procedures pursued to arbitration further the policies of the Act 375 U S at 265- 266 10 We do not distinguish Carey on the ground that there the employer against which the grievance was filed controlled assignment of the disputed reaffirmed in AT&T Technologies Y Communications Workers 475 US 643 (1986) where the Court stated that they have served the industrial relations community well and have led to continued reliance on arbitra tion rather than strikes or lockouts as the preferred method of resolving disputes arising during the term of a collective bargaining agreement 475 US at 648 Paperworkers v Misco 108 S Ct 364 370 (1987) ° As noted by the General Counsel Associated General Contractors of California v NLRB 514 F 2d 433 (9th Cir 1975) involved Sec 8(b)(4)(B) not Sec 8(b)(4)(D) Sec 8(b)(4)(B) has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court as reflecting a Congressional preference for private resolution of disputes and therefore Associated General Contractors is not controlling here Furthermore Associated General Contractors was decid ed before the Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson s Restaurants v NLRB 461 U S 731 (1983) discussed infra Similarly Emery Air Freight supra cited by the Employer offers limit ed guidance here as it too involved Sec 8(b)(4)(B) and not Sec 8(b)(4)(D) LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA PACIFIC) 93 work whereas here the evidence before the Board shows that Bellingham does not control the disput ed work This reasoning misses the point national labor policy is equally implicated in either situa tion As the Court observed in Carey [T]here is work for the arbiter whatever the Board may decide 375 U S at 270 In instances in which the employer lacks control over the disputed work the arbitrator may decide that the grieving union has no valid contract claim In that case, the dispute as a practical matter may end and there would be no necessity for governmental intervention If the arbi trator decides that the grieving union is contrac tually entitled to the disputed work despite the em ployer s lack of control there is no inconsistency with any Board determination for none has yet issued If the dispute reaches the Board and the Board disagrees with the arbitrator, the Board s superior authority may be invoked and the Board s award would take precedence 375 U S at 272 In either event the therapy of arbitration is brought to bear in a complicated and troubled area Id Therefore we do not distinguish Carey but rather interpret it expansively in accord with the statutory objective of encouraging the private resolution of disputes II Indeed Board precedent r' Chairman Stephens agrees that so far as the policies underlying Sec 8(b)(4)(D) are concerned it should not matter whether the employer against which the grievance is filed has control over the work in ques tion and for that reason he is joining his colleagues in finding no viola tion of Sec 8(b)(4)(D) based on the filing of the time in lieu grievances prior to the issuance of the Board s 10(k) determination However he re gards it as an open question-not before us in this case-whether those same grievances might be found to be violations of Sec 8 (bX4)(B) of the Act Insofar as the Respondent may be seeking through the grievance procedure to impose a monetary penalty on Bellingham because Geor gia Pacific is assigning its employees who are not represented by the Re spondent to do the work in question one might argue that the Respond ent is attempting to penalize an employer in order to compel it to cease doing business with another person Bellingham can avoid liability only by canceling its contract with Georgia Pacific and contracting only with employers who do not insist on keeping the bulldozer work for their own non ILWU employees Thus an 8(b)(4)(B) violation is at least arguably present Associated General Contractors of California v NLRB supra 514 F 2d at 438-439 (finding Sec 8(bX4)(B) based on grievance filed against employer who had no control over the work which the union sought for its members) But see Teamsters Local 705 v NLRB 820 F 2d 448 (D C Cir 1987) remanding in part Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight) 278 NLRB 1303 (1986) (declining to enforce an 8(bX4 )(B) finding with out explication of how the contractual provision invoked in the grievance is itself unlawful either as written or as applied) Chairman Stephens would not however use Sec 8(b)(4)(D) as a means of striking at the evils proscribed by Sec 8(b)(4)(B) It is true of course that the two sections are not mutually exclusive NLRB Y Operat ing Engineers Local 825 400 U S 297 305-306 (1971) Plumbers Local 5 (Arthur Venneri Co) 137 NLRB 828 830-832 (1962) enfd as modified 321 F 2d 366 371 (D C Cir 1963) But the mere fact that the same con duct can theoretically be prohibited under different sections of the Act is not grounds for using the logic supporting a finding of one violation in order to bolster the finding of a different violation particularly when only the latter violation has been alleged See USCP-WESCO Inc V NLRB 827 F 2d 581 586 (9th Cir 1987) (upholding Boards quashing of a 10(k) notice but noting that where picketing has a cease-doing business objective the employer can file an 8(b)(4)(B) charge) has so interpreted Carey s eloquent language See United Technologies 268 NLRB at 560 The Supreme Court s decision in Bill Johnson's Restaurants v NLRB 461 US 731 (1983) lends further support to our view The Court held that the Board may not enjoin a state court lawsuit re gardless of the plaintiff's motive unless the suit lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law The Court rejected the Board s view that a violation of the Act is established simply by a showing that the lawsuit was filed for a retaliatory motive The Court reasoned that the Board s approach did not give sufficient weight to the first amendment right of access to the courts and to compelling state in terests in the maintenance of domestic peace Analogous considerations lead us to conclude that the Bill Johnson's test should be applied here First preserving access to the grievance machinery is critical because it is the first step in a Section 301 lawsuit toy enforce an arbitrators award This con sideration closely parallels the first amendment concerns of the Court in Bill Johnson s Second Carey teaches that private resolution of junsdic tional disputes is a paramount Federal policy This consideration is at least equal to the states interests in the maintenance of domestic peace which was stressed in the Bill Johnson s analysis These weighty interests, like the ones the Court discussed in Bill Johnson s, militate against a rule barring the processing of an arguably meritorious pre 10(k) award work assignment grievance simply on a showing of prohibited motive Therefore under Bill Johnson s both unlawful motive and lack of reasonable basis should be established before the Board may brand the mere filing of a pre 10(k) grievance as unlawful coercion under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) Thus, we find that the Respondents grievances filed before the 10(k) determination do not consti tute coercion because the grievances were arguably meritorious Indeed, an arbitrator found that the grievances were in fact meritorious Further we do not center the analysis on the right of control question right of control is simply a factor that may be relevant in determining whether the gnev ance is arguably meritorious 12 In sum, we modify the Board s original Decision and Order and dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the filing of grievances before the 10(k) determination issued violated the Act We other wise affirm the earlier decision, except as modified by footnote 3, supra 12 As explained in fn 11 supra Chairman Stephens acknowledges that these grievances might be found unlawful if considered in a proceeding based on an 8(b)(4)(B) allegation 94 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The National Labor Relations Board affirms its Order previously issued in this proceeding at 273 NLRB 363 (1984) except as modified below I Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(a) and (b) (a) Filing in lieu of claims for work performed by members of Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers with an object of forcing or requiring Bellingham Division Geor gia Pacific Corporation to assign contrary to the Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute re ported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work described below to employees represented by Local Union No 7 International Longshoremen s and Ware housemen s Union rather than to employees repre sented by Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers The work con sists of The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ er and located on a pier leased to the Employ er during times when ships and barges con taming salt to be deposited on that pad are being unloaded at the pier by employees of Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are represented by ILWU 2 Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a) and (b) (a) Withdraw and cease filing in lieu of claims which have an object of forcing or requiring Bel lingham Division Georgia Pacific Corporation to assign contrary to the Board s Decision and Deter mmation of Dispute reported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work described above to employees represented by Local Union No 7 International Longshormen s and Warehousemen s Union rather than to employees represented by Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work ers (b) Reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring Compa ny and the Pacific Maritime Association for any in lieu of claims paid to the Respondent for the above described work following the Board s Deci sion and Determination of Dispute 3 Substitute the attached notice for that attached to the Board s original Order APPENDIX 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 in lieu of claims for work per formed by members of Local Union No 194 Asso ciation of Western Pulp and Paper Workers with an object of forcing or requiring Bellingham Divi sion Georgia Pacific Corporation to assign con trary to the Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work described below to employees represented by our labor organization rather than to employees repre sented by Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers The work con sists of % The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ er and located on a pier leased to the Employ er during times when ships and barges con taming salt to be deposited on that pad are being unloaded at the pier by employees of Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are represented by ILWU ` WE WILL withdraw and cease filing in lieu of claims which have an object of forcing or requir mg Bellingham Division Georgia Pacific Corpora tion to assign contrary to the Board s Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983) the work described above to employees whom we represent rather than to employees rep resented by Local Union No 194 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers WE WILL reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring Co and the Pacific Maritime Association for any in lieu of claims paid to our labor organization with interest for the above described work following the Board s Decision and Determination of Dis pute LOCAL UNION No 7 INTERNATION AL LONGSHOREMEN S AND WARE HOUSEMEN S UNION