ILWU, Alaska Longshore Division (American President Lines, Ltd.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 63 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 63
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
ILWU, Alaska Longshore Division and ILWU, Unit 22
and American President Lines, LTD and Samson
Tug and Barge, LLC, Intervenor. Cases 19–CD–
225672 and 19–CD–225674
April 28, 2020
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section
10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act. American Pres-
ident Lines, Ltd. (APL) filed charges in Cases 19–CD–
225672 and 19–CD–225674 on August 15, 2018, alleging
that the Respondents, ILWU, Alaska Longshore Division
and ILWU, Unit 222 (collectively “ILWU”) violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in proscribed ac-
tivity with an object of forcing APL to assign certain work
to employees ILWU represents rather than to employees
represented by the Inland Boatmen’s Union of Alaska af-
filiate of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association
(IBU/MEBA) and employed by Intervenor Samson Tug
and Barge (Samson).1
A hearing was held on January 15–17, 2019, before
Hearing Officer Adam Morrison. Thereafter, the parties
and Samson filed posthearing briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board2 affirms the hear-
ing officer’s rulings, finding them free from prejudicial er-
ror. On the entire record, the Board makes the following
findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that APL is a Delaware corpora-
tion engaged in the business of operating ocean-bound
cargo shipping vessels and terminal port management at
several ports on the west coast of the United States, in-
cluding Kodiak, Alaska. During the past year, APL pro-
vided services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to en-
tities located outside the State of Alaska. The parties also
1 Samson Tug and Barge filed a Motion to Intervene on December
13, 2018, which was granted by the Regional Director of Region 19 on
December 14, 2018.
2 Chairman Ring has recused himself from consideration of this De-
cision and Determination of Dispute. He is a member of the panel for
quorum purposes, but did not participate in this decision on the merits.
In New Process Steel v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), the Supreme
Court left undisturbed the Board’s practice of deciding cases with a two-
member quorum when one of the panel members has recused himself.
Under the Court’s reading of the Act, “the group quorum provision [of
Sec. 3(b)] still operates to allow any panel to issue a decision by only
two members if one member is disqualified.” New Process Steel, 560
stipulated that Samson is an Alaska corporation engaged
in the business of interstate shipping with headquarters in
Sitka, Alaska. During the past year, Samson provided ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 directly to entitles lo-
cated outside the State of Alaska. The parties further stip-
ulated, and we find, that APL and Samson are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act and are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board, and that ILWU and IBU/MEBA are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
APL transports processed seafood products for its Alas-
kan customers from its deep-water port in Dutch Harbor,
Alaska to various international locations. Eugene Ma-
karin is general manager of APL’s Alaska operations.
Mike Mizell is APL’s terminal manager in Kodiak. APL
and ILWU are signatories to the All Alaska Longshore
Agreement (AALA), a state-wide agreement covering a
multiemployer unit of longshore workers in specified
Alaskan ports, including Kodiak. The Alaska Longshore
Division is the statewide ILWU representative and Dennis
Young is the president. Unit 222 is the Port of Kodiak
ILWU representative and its president is Frank Tentis-
Major and its vice-president is Dustin Fraser. Samson is a
barge freight carrier that provides barge service to ports
between Seattle, Washington, and Dutch Harbor. George
Baggen is Samson’s president. Samson’s employees are
represented by IBU/MEBA and Samson and IBU/MEBA
are signatories to their own collective-bargaining agree-
ment.3
In order to transport cargo from ports APL cannot ser-
vice directly, like Kodiak, APL has “connecting carrier
agreements” (CCAs) with third-party barge operators,
such as Samson. In Kodiak, Samson has operated out of
Womens Bay4 since the early 1980s and, since at least the
late 1980s, IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employees
loaded and unloaded APL cargo to and from Samson
barges at Womens Bay.5
U.S. at 688; see also, e.g., NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation,
870 F.3d 113, 127–128 (3d Cir. 2017); D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB 2277,
2277 n.1 (2012), enfd. in relevant part, 737 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2013);
1621 Route 22 West Operating Co., 357 NLRB 1866, 1866 n.1 (2011),
enfd. 725 Fed. Appx. 129, 136 fn.7 (3d Cir. 2018).
3 Representatives for both Samson and IBU/MEBA testified that they
are honoring and operating under the collective-bargaining agreement,
even though it has expired.
4 Specifically, Samson operated out of what was then called the
LASH Dock.
5 Following APL and ILWU’s settlement of a grievance filed by
ILWU in 2014, the parties adjusted how APL’s cargo was exchanged
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Until 2018,6 APL had CCAs in Kodiak with two barge
operators—Samson, discussed above, and Matson Navi-
gation Company of Alaska (Matson), which operated out
of Pier III.7 As a result of a business dispute unrelated to
this proceeding, Matson terminated its CCA with APL ef-
fective the end of 2017. Shortly thereafter, Matson, which
had become Samson’s landlord at Womens Bay, informed
Samson that it could no longer handle APL cargo at Wom-
ens Bay. APL began searching for an alternate location for
its Kodiak operations and, in March 2018, APL Terminal
Manager Mizell began working on an operations agree-
ment for Pier II at the Port of Kodiak.8
While the Pier II operations were being negotiated with
the City of Kodiak, APL and ILWU began discussing, at
a series of Joint Port Labor Relations Committee (JPLRC)
meetings9 and over email, how the operations would run.
APL Terminal Manager Mizell testified that APL in-
tended for Samson barges calling at Pier II to be worked
on the dock side by ILWU-represented employees and on
the water side by IBU/MEBA-represented Samson em-
ployees.10 ILWU representative Young testified that
ILWU had questions about how the Pier II operations
would run and sought answers from APL. At the July
JPLRC meeting, APL Terminal Manager Mizell told
ILWU to put their questions in writing, which they did,
and ILWU requested a response within 2 weeks. The par-
ties also agreed to have a follow-up JPLRC meeting in
early August.
On July 25, Mizell emailed ILWU representatives Ten-
tis-Major and Fraser that APL was expecting the first
barge to arrive late the following week. He related APL’s
plan for manning and stated “[a]s we have discussed, Sam-
son will man the water side operations on all barges.” Ten-
tis-Major replied later the same day stating, among other
things, that “the Union demands APL honor the terms [of]
the AALA specifically Section 1: Jurisdiction” and further
declaring that the ILWU “do[es] not and ha[s] not agreed
between the two groups of employees, but the IBU/MEBA-represented
Samson employees continued to perform the work of loading and un-
loading APL’s cargo to and from Samson’s barges.
6 All dates are in 2018, unless otherwise indicated.
7 Matson is also a signatory to the AALA.
8 Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Samson
barges called at Pier III, where Matson works, for about 8 weeks in be-
tween when Samson lost the ability to handle APL cargo at Womens Bay
and when the operations at Pier II got up and running and that those Sam-
son barges were worked on the water side by IBU/MEBA-represented
Samson employees.
9 The JPLRC in Kodiak is made up of representatives of Unit 222,
APL, and Matson, the other AALA-signatory employer working in Ko-
diak.
10 He also reached out to Matson in late May about stevedoring Sam-
son barges at Pier II, but Matson declined.
11 APL General Manager Makarin testified that after he received the
Terminal Operation Contract (TOC) from the City of Kodiak, he
with the Employer position on manning or that a 3rd party
is entitled to perform longshore work in any manner under
the AALA.” A couple of days later, Tentis-Major sent an
email to APL and Matson, with the subject line “Jurisdic-
tional Questions,” following up on the employers’ re-
sponse to the written questions ILWU had submitted. APL
Terminal Manager Mizell replied on July 30, attaching
APL’s responses.
APL received approval to operate at Pier II in early Au-
gust.11 On August 8, APL, Matson, and ILWU held an-
other JPLRC meeting.12 After disagreeing about the topics
to be discussed, the parties contacted the Alaska Arbitra-
tor. ILWU representative Young’s email to the arbitrator
stated that, at the July JPLRC meeting, APL had refused
to discuss the water side work at Pier II, asserted that the
“greater issue” before the parties was the “jurisdictional
boundaries of what is or isn’t ILWU work covered under
the scope of the AALA,” and accused APL of “refus[ing]
to acknowledge Section 1, of the AALA, when determin-
ing proper manning for Pier II operations.” After declaring
that APL’s answers to the ILWU’s questions were “vague
and ambiguous,” Young stated that ILWU’s proposed
manning was aimed, in part, at ensuring “the historical ju-
risdiction of the workforce is preserved.” Later that day,
the Alaska Arbitrator issued a decision directing ILWU to
accept APL’s order and dispatch workers for the Samson
Barge at Terminal II and ordering the parties to meet to
adjudicate the issue under the AALA.
The next day, August 9, barge operations were sched-
uled to begin at 8:00 a.m. on the first Samson barge at Pier
II. At 7:55 a.m., ILWU began picketing the pier, holding
signs protesting APL’s refusal to provide information.
Both the ILWU-represented employees and the
IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employees scheduled to
work the barge refused to cross the picket line. The parties
contacted the Alaska Arbitrator who issued a decision di-
recting ILWU to “request the picket line to disperse” and
approached Samson President Baggen and asked whether Samson would
provide a waiver for ILWU-represented employees to perform the water
side work and Baggen declined.
12 The day before the August JPLRC meeting, ILWU filed two unfair
labor practice charges against APL. One alleged APL “fail[ed] to furnish
information requested by the Union on July 13, 2018, which the Union
requested in order to represent employees employed at a new facility
opened by the Employer and covered under the collective-bargaining
agreement” in violation of Sec. 8(a)(5). The second alleged, among other
things, that on about July 25, APL “announced that it was unilaterally
implementing new terms and conditions of employment, including but
not limited to staffing levels and having employees of other employers
perform unit work, for employees at a new facility in Kodiak, Alaska,
and also unilaterally implement[ed] these conditions” in violation of Sec.
8(a)(5).
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU, ALASKA LONGSHORE DIVISION AND ILWU, UNIT 22 (AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD) 3
finding that there was a “bona fide Health and Safety is-
sue” but that the “picket line is not a bona fide picket line
under the AALA.” After the arbitrator issued his decision,
the picket line dispersed. The picket line lasted approxi-
mately 60 to 90 minutes. There has been no picketing
since August 9.
B. Work in Dispute
The notice of hearing described the disputed work as
“[t]he water side work of loading and unloading, including
the handling, moving, stowing and lashing/unlashing, of
cargo to and from barges and vessels at Pier II of the Port
of Kodiak in Kodiak, Alaska.” At the hearing, the parties
stipulated that the work in dispute is specifically the water
side work related to loading and unloading APL’s contain-
ers to and from Samson’s barges at Pier II.
We find, based on the record, that the work in dispute is
the water side work of loading and unloading, including
the handling, moving, stowing and lashing/unlashing, of
APL’s containers to and from Samson’s barges at Pier II
of the Port of Kodiak in Kodiak, Alaska.
C. Contentions of the Parties
APL and Samson contend that the Board is authorized
to determine the merits of this jurisdictional dispute. They
argue that there are competing claims for the work in dis-
pute and that there is reasonable cause to believe that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated in light of
ILWU’s August 9 picket of Pier II. On the merits, APL
and Samson contend that the work in dispute should be
awarded to the IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employ-
ees based on Samson’s collective-bargaining agreement
with IBU/MEBA, employer preference and past practice,
area and industry practice, relative skills and training, and
economy and efficiency of operations.
In its posthearing brief, ILWU contends that the Board
should quash the notice of hearing because the sole pur-
pose of its August 9 picket was to protest APL’s refusal to
provide responses to ILWU’s information requests. Alter-
natively, ILWU asserts that if the notice of hearing is not
quashed, the disputed work should be awarded to employ-
ees it represents based on the factors of Board certifica-
tions and collective-bargaining agreements, employer
preference and past practice, industry and area practice,
relative skills and training, and economy and efficiency of
operations.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The Board may proceed with a determination of a dis-
pute under Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vi-
olated. This standard requires finding that there is reason-
able cause to believe that there are competing claims to
the disputed work, and that a party has used proscribed
means to enforce its claim to the work in dispute. Addi-
tionally, there must be a finding that the parties have not
agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute. See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D
Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005). We find that these
requirements have been met.
1. Competing claims for work
We find reasonable cause to believe that both ILWU
and IBU/MEBA have claimed the work in dispute for the
employees they respectively represent. At the hearing, the
parties stipulated that ILWU claims the work in dispute.
Specifically, ILWU stipulated that it made a claim for the
disputed work by filing a grievance against APL and arbi-
trating that grievance. Jeff Duncan, the Seattle branch
agent of MEBA, testified that the IBU/MEBA unit was
also claiming the disputed work for its members. In addi-
tion, IBU/MEBA-represented employees have been per-
forming the work in dispute since August 10, 2018. Per-
formance of the work in dispute is “evidence of a claim
for the work by those employees, even absent a specific
claim.” Operating Engineers Local 513 (Thomas Indus-
trial Coatings), 345 NLRB 990, 992 fn. 6 (2005).
2. Use of proscribed means
We turn now to the issue of whether there is reasonable
cause to believe that ILWU has used proscribed means to
enforce its claim for the disputed work. ILWU asserts that
the picketing of Pier II, as the picket signs indicated, was
because of APL’s alleged unfair labor practice in refusing
to provide the information requested by ILWU. But even
assuming that the picketing had a lawful objective, it is
well settled that a union may violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) if
another object of the conduct is prohibited. Carpenters
(Prate Installations, Inc.), 341 NLRB 543, 545 (2004).
We find that an object of the ILWU’s picketing was to ob-
tain exclusively the disputed work that was to be per-
formed by Samson employees represented by
IBU/MEBA. Both Young and Tentis-Major’s communi-
cations made clear they considered the water side work to
be ILWU work and that ILWU objected to a “third party”
performing that work. Moreover, the picketing took place
at Pier II, the location where the disputed work was to be
performed, on the very morning the first Samson barge
was due to arrive a mere 5 minutes before the operations
were set to commence. We conclude, therefore, that there
is reasonable cause to believe that an object of ILWU’s
picketing was to force or require APL and/or Samson to
assign the disputed to work employees ILWU represents.
See, e.g., Electrical Workers Local 124 (Pepper Construc-
tion Co.), 339 NLRB 123, 124 (2003).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
The parties stipulated that there is no agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment of the work in dispute
that would bind all parties. Thus, we further find no
agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
Based on the foregoing, we find 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 the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. We accordingly find that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determination.13
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work after considering various fac-
tors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Columbia
Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 577 (1961). The Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is “an
act of judgment based on common sense and experience,”
reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular
case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402, 1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the deter-
mination of this dispute.
1. Board certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
There are no Board certifications concerning any of the
employees involved in this dispute.14
Both the AALA and IBU/MEBA’s contract with Sam-
son arguably cover the disputed work. The AALA states
that it applies “to the handling of cargo and its transfer
from vessel to first place of rest, and vice versa” and fur-
ther that it covers: “[a]ll movement of cargo on vessels, or
loading to and discharging from vessels of any type, and
on docks, or to and from railroad cars, ferries and barges
at docks” as well as “movement of outbound cargo from
the time it enters a dock and comes under the control of
13 The ILWU did not orally move at the hearing or file a motion to
quash the Sec. 10(k) notice of hearing. As they do argue in their post-
hearing brief that the notice should be quashed, we have nevertheless
addressed that argument, and we deny it on the merits. See, e.g., Iron
Workers Local 112 (Freesen Inc.), 346 NLRB 953, 955 fn. 5 (2006) (ad-
dressing substantive issue of the applicability of the statute notwithstand-
ing no motion to quash being filed).
14 ILWU claims that the Board’s certifications weigh in favor of
awarding the disputed work to employees it represents, citing Alaska
Steamship Co., 172 NLRB 1200 (1968). In that case, however, the Board
specifically noted that it was clarifying a unit represented by an uncerti-
fied union, 172 NLRB at 1202 fn. 8. ILWU also claims that there is a
certification pertaining to Samson employees, Samson Tug & Barge Co.,
194 NLRB 317, 318 (1971). However, the union in that case was the
Inland Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific, not the Inland Boatmen’s Union
of Alaska, which is an affiliate of MEBA, and the bargaining representa-
tive of Samson’s employees.
any terminal, stevedore, agent or vessel operator covered
by this Agreement and covers movement of inbound cargo
only so long as it is at a dock and under the control of any
vessel operator, agent, stevedore, or terminal covered by
this Agreement.” The AALA specifically lists Kodiak as
an “ILWU Port” and Letter of Understanding No. 12
(LOU #12) specifies that, in the Ports of Kodiak and Dutch
Harbor, “[b]arges worked at non-private docks shall be
worked by ILWU Longshoremen under the terms of the
AALA (e.g—public city docks).”15
Samson President Baggen testified that the Samson
IBU/MEBA-represented bargaining unit is “top to bot-
tom” and covers employees from Seattle to Dutch Harbor.
Section 8 of the expired Samson-IBU/MEBA contract
states that it applies “to all vessels and to all shore based
locations of the Employer” and “to the handling of cargo
and transfer from vessel” when the work is done by Sam-
son employees. Furthermore, IBU/MEBA-represented
Samson employees employed under the Samson-
IBU/MEBA contract are performing the disputed work.
See, e.g., Pepper Construction, supra, 339 NLRB at 125.
Because both agreements arguably encompass the dis-
puted work, this factor does not support awarding the
work in dispute to employees represented by either union.
See, e.g., Michigan Laborers District Council, An Affiliate
of the Laborers’ International Union of North America,
AFL–CIO (Ram Construction Services of Michigan, Inc.),
368 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 5 (2019).
2. Employer preference, current assignment, and past
practice
IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employees have been
performing the work in dispute since it commenced in late
2018. Prior to the commencement of operations at Pier II,
IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employees performed
similar work at Womens Bay and, briefly, at Pier III. Alt-
hough Samson President Baggen did not say so explicitly
in his testimony, the parties agree that Samson’s
15 On March 1, 2019, ILWU filed a Motion to Reopen the Record.
The motion was filed for the purpose of introducing a February 9, 2019
arbitration decision as evidence that the AALA covers the disputed work
and requires APL to assign the disputed work to employees represented
by ILWU. APL and Samson both filed oppositions to ILWU’s motion
and ILWU filed a response. The evidence that ILWU obtained an arbi-
tration award interpreting the AALA in a manner consistent with
ILWU’s claim to the work does not materially affect our conclusion that
both the AALA and the Samson-IBU/MEBA contract arguably cover the
work in dispute. In addition, the Board has given little or no weight to
arbitration awards when one of the parties to the jurisdictional dispute
was not bound thereby. Machinists District 160 Local 289 (SSA Marine),
347 NLRB 549, 551 fn. 4 (2006). Accordingly, we deny the motion to
reopen the record on the ground that the additional evidence sought to be
adduced would not require a different result. See Sec. 102.48(d) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations.
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU, ALASKA LONGSHORE DIVISION AND ILWU, UNIT 22 (AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD) 5
preference is for the IBU/MEBA-represented employees
to continue performing the work in dispute. Baggen and
APL General Manager Makarin both testified that Baggen
declined Makarin’s request to consider using ILWU-
represented employees to perform the disputed work. Ma-
karin testified that he would prefer the work in dispute be
performed by ILWU-represented employees, but also tes-
tified that he would prefer the parties find a way to accom-
modate both ILWU-represented employees and
IBU/MEBA-represented employees. Through testimony
at the hearing and in its brief, APL expressed that its over-
riding preference is to be able to continue contracting with
Samson for barge services in Kodiak.
The factor of employer preference is generally entitled
to substantial weight. See Iron Workers Local 1 (Goebel
Forming, Inc.), 340 NLRB 1158, 1163 (2003). The parties
vigorously disagree on which employer’s preference is
relevant—ILWU argues that APL’s preference controls
and APL and Samson argue that it is Samson’s preference
that matters. Thus, APL’s stated preference that the dis-
puted work be assigned to ILWU-represented employees
is at odds with its position that it is Samson’s preference
that should be considered and also with its overall position
that the factors favor an award of the disputed work to
Samson’s IBU/MEBA-represented employees. In these
circumstances, we recognize APL’s stated preference, but
we also find that APL’s desire to continue contracting with
Samson, Samson’s preference that the disputed work be
awarded to its IBU/MEBA-represented employees, as
well as the parties’ current assignment and past practice
favor the award of the disputed work to Samson’s
IBU/MEBA-represented employees. See, e.g., Steelwork-
ers Local 3-U (Greyhound Exposition), 302 NLRB 416,
419–420 (1991).
3. Industry and area practice
In some Alaskan ports, Samson barges are worked on
the water side by IBU/MEBA-represented Samson em-
ployees, and in other Alaskan ports Samson barges are
worked on the water side by ILWU-represented employ-
ees. In those circumstances, we find that this factor favors
neither group of employees. See, e.g., International Un-
ion of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL–CIO (Jack
Gray Transport, Inc. d/b/a Lakes & Rivers Transfer), 364
NLRB No. 132, slip op. at 3–4 (2016).
4. Relative skills and training
The parties all agree that both groups of employees in-
clude individuals who are capable of operating the equip-
ment necessary to load a barge. APL and Samson, how-
ever, dispute that ILWU-represented employees possess
the skills necessary to operate that equipment on a barge
(rather than on land) and argue that ILWU-represented
employees lack the knowledge of Samson’s overall oper-
ations necessary to load and stow APL’s cargo on Sam-
son’s barge in Kodiak. In contrast, Samson employees
have been and are performing the work in dispute, which
confirms that they possess the requisite skills. See, e.g.,
Local 876, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, 365 NLRB No. 81, slip op. 5 at (2017). ILWU argues
that more ILWU-represented employees are trained and
qualified to perform the disputed work. ILWU contends
that there are four ILWU longshoremen in Kodiak who
currently can operate a bull forklift or top pick aboard a
Samson barge and seven more could learn “in about two
weeks.”
Based on the foregoing, it appears that both groups of
employees may possess the relative skills to perform the
disputed work. However, based on the IBU/MEBA-
represented Samson employees’ knowledge of Samson’s
overall operation, including knowledge of the specific
needs and limitations of subsequent ports, and on their ex-
perience in performing the work in dispute, we find that
this factor favors an award to Samson’s IBU/MEBA-
represented employees. See, e.g., Longshoremen ILWU
Local 51 (Port Townsend Paper), 271 NLRB 354, 358
(1984).
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Samson argues that the current arrangement is working
well, due in large part to having Samson’s IBU/MEBA-
represented employees performing the work in dispute.
Samson President Baggen testified that in his opinion it
would not work to have ILWU-represented employees
perform the work. He further testified that Samson would
stop taking its barges to Pier II and try to work out an al-
ternative for providing service to APL in Kodiak if the
work in dispute is awarded to ILWU-represented employ-
ees. APL argues that Samson employees are better able to
operate during barge loading operations and are cross-
trained to handle multiple tasks.
ILWU contends that the factors of economy and effi-
ciency of operations favor awarding the disputed work to
ILWU-represented employees because the equipment
ILWU-represented employees would use to perform the
work (a top pick) is more efficient than the equipment
IBU/MEBA-represented employees use to perform the
disputed work (a bull forklift); when ILWU-represented
employees are working both water side and dock side they
are in regular communication and know the number and
roles of every other longshoreman working the barge;
ILWU-represented employees work under a common set
of safety rules and standards; and APL can order skilled
ILWU-represented employees from other ports to travel to
Kodiak to train Kodiak-based employees or work the
barge themselves.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
ILWU-represented employees have not performed the
work in dispute, so Samson’s position that this factor fa-
vors the IBU/MEBA-represented employees is based pri-
marily on opinion testimony from its witnesses. At the
same time, ILWU’s position that this factor favors the
ILWU-represented employees likewise is based primarily
on opinion testimony from its witnesses. However, as
noted above, IBU/MEBA-represented Samson employees
possess greater knowledge of and experience in Samson’s
overall operation, including knowledge of the specific
needs and limitations of subsequent ports, than the em-
ployees represented by ILWU who have not previously
performed the work in dispute. See, e.g., Port Townsend
Paper, supra, 271 NLRB at 358. Thus, we find that the
factor of economy and efficiency of operations favors an
award to Samson’s IBU/MEBA-represented employees.
CONCLUSION
After considering all of the relevant factors, we con-
clude that Samson employees represented by IBU/MEBA
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the factors of current assignment,
past practice, relative skill, and economy and efficiency of
operations. In making this determination, we award the
work to Samson employees represented by IBU/MEBA,
not to that labor organization or to its members. The de-
termination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to
this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Samson Tug and Barge, LLC, repre-
sented by Inland Boatmen’s Union of Alaska affiliate of
the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association are entitled
to perform the water side work of loading and unloading,
including the handling, moving, stowing and lashing/un-
lashing, of American President Lines, Ltd.’s containers to
and from Samson’s barges at Pier II of the Port of Kodiak
in Kodiak, Alaska.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 28, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD