ILWU Local 19 (Seattle Tunnel Partners)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 2014

361 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

LONGSHOREMEN LOCAL 19 (SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS) 1031
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Lo-
cal 19 and National Construction Alliance II and
Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpen-
ters and Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint ven-
ture and Total Terminals International, LLC
Cases19–CD–111765 and 19–CD–111802
December 2, 2014
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, JOHNSON, AND SCHIFFER
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act. On Au-
gust 21, 2013, the National Construction Alliance II
(NCA) and Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Car-
penters (Carpenters) filed charges alleging that Interna-
tional Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 (Local
19 or Longshoremen) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of
forcing Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP), a joint venture, to
assign certain work to employees represented by Long-
shoremen rather than to employees represented by Car-
penters and International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 302 (Operating Engineers). Regional Director
Ronald K. Hooks issued a notice of 10(k) hearing on
August 28, 2013.1 A hearing was held on September 5,
10, 17, and 18, 2013, before Hearing Officer Michael
Snyder.2 Thereafter, Carpenters and Longshoremen filed
posthearing briefs in support of their positions. Long-
shoremen also moves to quash the Section 10(k) notice
of hearing.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire rec-
ord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
NCA and Carpenters stipulated that STP, a joint ven-
ture with a place of business in Seattle, Washington, is an
employer within the meaning of the Act. NCA and Car-
penters stipulated that Total Terminals International,
LLC (TTI), a Delaware limited liability company with a
place of business in Seattle, Washington, is an employer
1 Longshoremen’s contention that the Board lacked a quorum at the
time it announced the appointment of Ronald K. Hooks as Regional
Director for Region 19, and that consequently the notice of 10(k) hear-
ing must be quashed, is without merit. Although Regional Director
Hooks’ appointment was announced on January 6, 2012, the Board
approved the appointment on December 22, 2011, at which time it had
a quorum.
2 NCA, Carpenters, and Longshoremen participated in the hearing.
Operating Engineers, STP, and Total Terminals International, LLC did
not.
within the meaning of the Act. Longshoremen declined
to join these stipulations. Based on the record as a
whole, we find that STP and TTI annually provide ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
outside the State of Washington. Accordingly, we find
that STP and TTI are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties
stipulated and we find that Longshoremen and Operating
Engineers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) the Act. NCA and Carpenters stipulated
that Carpenters is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act. Longshoremen declined to join this stipu-
lation. Consistent with the record and prior Board deci-
sions,3 we find that Carpenters is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
On May 26, 2010, the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) issued a Request for Pro-
posal, i.e., a solicitation of bids, for the construction of a
$1.3 billion underground double-deck highway beneath
downtown Seattle. WSDOT awarded the contract to
STP in December 2010.
As required by WSDOT, STP entered into a project
labor agreement (the PLA) with various labor organiza-
tions, including NCA,4 Carpenters, and Operating Engi-
neers. Longshoremen is not a party to the PLA. There is
no evidence that WSDOT required bidders to enter into
project labor agreements with any specific unions or la-
bor organizations. The PLA’s Mission Statement pro-
vides that “[i]t is the intent of the parties to set out uni-
form standard working conditions for the efficient per-
formance of the bored tunnel and related work.” The
PLA defines covered work as “[a]ll construction work
performed at temporary facilities, such as fabrication
yards and/or assembly plants located at or adjacent to the
Project site, which are integrated with and set up for the
purpose of only servicing the construction project.” The
PLA also fully incorporates, by reference, the WSDOT
Request for Proposal. Finally, the PLA includes a sub-
contracting clause, pursuant to which STP agrees that if
it “subcontracts out any work covered by this Agree-
ment, such subcontractors, at all tiers, shall become sig-
3 See, e.g., Carpenters Pacific Northwest Regional Council (Brand
Energy Services), 355 NLRB 274, 274 (2010); Systems West LLC, 342
NLRB 851, 854 (2004); Carpenters (DWA Trade Show & Exposition
Services), 339 NLRB 1027, 1031 (2003).
4 NCA is a labor organization affiliated with Carpenters and Operat-
ing Engineers local unions throughout the Pacific Northwest. As it did
here, NCA negotiates project labor and collective-bargaining agree-
ments on behalf of these unions with signatory employers. STP is an
NCA signatory.
361 NLRB No. 122

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1032
natory to this Agreement, prior to beginning work on the
Project.”
A significant component of this project is the excava-
tion of a tunnel using a tunnel boring machine (TBM),
custom-built for this project in Japan, and a conveyor
system, which transports excavated material (muck) out
of the tunnel for removal from the construction site by
truck and barge. Operation of the conveyor system and
removal of muck via barge are at the center of this dis-
pute.
The disputed work encompasses four positions: two
conveyor operators and two winch operators. One con-
veyor operator is responsible for manning the conveyor
system as it transports muck away from the tunnel site.
This operator monitors the flow of muck and may stop
the conveyor when necessary. The conveyor system
transports some muck directly to barges. It transports
other muck to a stockpile (also known as a surge pile) for
future removal. A second conveyor operator removes the
stockpiled muck, using a front-end loader to deposit this
muck back onto the conveyor system for transport to
either truck or barge. The two winch operators use
winches to position barges for loading of muck. STP
Project Manager Chris Dixon testified that, pursuant to
the PLA, STP intended to assign employees represented
by Carpenters to the winch operator positions, and em-
ployees represented by Operating Engineers to the con-
veyor operator positions.5
In preparation for the project, WSDOT entered into a
lease agreement with the Port of Seattle (the Port) to oc-
cupy a 5-acre parcel of Terminal 46 as a staging area for
work on the project, including the disputed work here.
The Port had previously leased the entirety of Terminal
46 to TTI for its operations.6 But as part of the Port-
WSDOT agreement, TTI agreed to relinquish the 5-acre
parcel in exchange for WSDOT making improvements to
the remainder of the terminal. Pertinently, the Port-
WSDOT lease agreement states that STP will use the 5-
acre parcel “to remove tunnel spoils via a conveyor sys-
tem to Terminal 46 and barge them from the dock to
their final destination.”
Beginning in April 2011, STP met regularly with
WSDOT to discuss the project. From the outset,
WSDOT asked STP to meet with Longshoremen to dis-
cuss its members performing the work that STP intended
to assign to the Building Trades pursuant to the PLA.
Dixon testified that WSDOT encouraged STP to do what
5 Carpenters and Operating Engineers are collectively referred to as
the “Building Trades.”
6 TTI is “a full service marine terminal and stevedore operator along
the U.S. West Coast.” http://www.totalterminals.com/ (last visited
Sept. 8, 2014).
it could to accommodate Longshoremen’s desire to par-
ticipate in the project. Dixon explained that the Port was
a major funding partner of the project and that it had a
longstanding relationship with Longshoremen.
During 2011 and 2012, STP and WSDOT participated
in numerous meetings where Longshoremen’s perfor-
mance of the disputed work was discussed. Longshore-
men was present during at least some of these meetings.
Throughout these discussions, STP took the position that
it would accommodate WSDOT’s request that it assign
work to Longshoremen only if the Building Trades
agreed to the assignment. STP repeatedly proposed a
composite crew, assigning the conveyor work to Operat-
ing Engineers and the winch work to Longshoremen.
Dixon explained that STP foresaw this as the only sce-
nario under which the Building Trades would agree to
give up any of the work already promised to it under the
PLA. Longshoremen, however, rejected this compro-
mise proposal. STP did not notify the Building Trades
about these discussions.
By November 2012, STP, Longshoremen, and
WSDOT had been unable to reach an agreement. At that
time, STP received an unsolicited offer to perform the
disputed work from SSA, a company that operates two
terminals in the Port of Seattle. SSA is a member of the
Pacific Maritime Association, a multiemployer associa-
tion that negotiates and administers collective-bargaining
agreements between its member employers and Long-
shoremen. As a PMA member, SSA could utilize em-
ployees represented by Longshoremen to perform the
work if it could reach an agreement with STP. STP ex-
plained to SSA that any agreement was dependent upon
the Building Trades’ consent. On February 13, 2013,
STP abandoned talks with SSA over cost concerns.
Again, STP did not notify the Building Trades about
these discussions.
In late 2012, STP commenced negotiations with TTI to
dock, unload, and transport all components of the TBM
across Terminal 46 to the site of the tunnel excavation.7
By this time, STP had already reached an agreement with
a Japanese company to ship the TBM from Japan. The
TBM was scheduled to arrive at Terminal 46 in the
spring of 2013. By mid-February 2013, STP and TTI
had yet to reach an agreement. Like SSA, TTI is a PMA
member. On February 19, 2013, after learning of the
failed SSA deal, TTI approached STP about negotiating
an agreement that would include Longshoremen per-
forming the disputed work.
7 The TBM consists of multiple pieces, the heaviest weighing in excess
of 850 tons.

LONGSHOREMEN 19 (SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS) 1033
On March 18, 2013, the ship carrying the TBM left Ja-
pan, scheduled to arrive at Terminal 46 in 2 weeks. On
March 19, 2013, TTI presented STP with a combined
proposal to unload the TBM and perform the disputed
work. STP asked TTI to propose separate agreements.
TTI refused. TTI General Manager Blackmore explained
that doing so would be inconsistent with TTI’s practice
of only signing single agreements with contractors.
On April 2, 2013, the ship carrying the TBM arrived.
Under the terms of the agreement between STP and the
Japanese shipping company, the ship carrying the TBM
was free to leave if it did not dock within 7 days of its
arrival. Dixon testified that TTI would not allow the ship
to dock until the parties signed a single agreement. On
April 5, 2013, STP signed a single agreement with TTI.
Dixon testified that STP signed the agreement “under
duress, because it was the only way we were able to get
the ship unloaded.” Otherwise, Dixon explained, the
next window for delivery of the TBM would not have
been until October 2013. Although Blackmore testified
that he was aware that Longshoremen claimed the dis-
puted work, Longshoremen is not a signatory to the STP-
TTI agreement, and there is no evidence that Long-
shoremen had any part in TTI’s actions or bargaining
positions during its negotiations with STP.
The STP-TTI agreement pertinently states that “TTI
will provide ILWU labor to operate a conveyor system
that will convey muck spoils generated during mining
operations to either the predetermined surge pile location
or deposited directly onto barge operations berthed at the
Washington Department of Transportation five acre par-
cel located at the north end of Terminal 46.” The agree-
ment further states that TTI will “[p]rovide supervision
and [ILWU] labor” to operate “conveyors,” “front-
loaders,” and the “barge positioning system,” and it in-
cludes a more detailed description of the disputed work.
An addendum to this agreement states that STP “shall
maintain complete responsibility and authority for man-
agement and supervision” of the disputed work. Con-
cerning the addendum, Dixon testified that STP would
agree to assign work to Longshoremen only if STP re-
tained the “same level of operational control that [it]
would have with [its] own employees.”
The Building Trades learned about the STP-TTI
agreement. On May 22, 2013, NCA, Carpenters, and
Operating Engineers filed a grievance against STP, alleg-
ing that the PLA covered the disputed work and that the
STP-TTI agreement violated the PLA subcontracting
clause. In July 2013, an arbitrator ruled that STP violat-
ed the PLA and ordered STP to assign the disputed work
to the Building Trades.
On July 30, 2013, STP began tunneling work, which
initially involved only the use of trucks for muck
transport. STP had not yet begun barge work because
the winches for positioning barges had not arrived yet.
Thus, STP only required the two conveyor operators, and
it assigned this portion of the disputed work to its em-
ployees represented by Operating Engineers.
On August 20, 2013, Longshoremen began picketing
the jobsite. An employee and the president of OMA
Construction, a company hired by STP to haul away
muck by truck, both testified that Longshoremen mem-
bers stood shoulder-to-shoulder at the entry point to
Terminal 46, preventing them from entering the jobsite.
In a television interview filmed during this picketing,
Local 19 President Cameron Williams stated that the
disputed work was within the jurisdiction of Longshore-
men and that STP had breached its contractual obligation
to assign the work to Longshoremen.8
B. Work in Dispute
The notice of hearing describes the work in dispute as
the “unloading and loading of the tunnel muck from the
Seattle tunnel project, including the operation of the con-
veyor belt, operation of a front-end loader, and position-
ing of barges.”9 NCA and Carpenters stipulated that this
description is accurate; Longshoremen declined to join
this stipulation. Based on the record, we find that the
work in dispute is as set forth in the notice of hearing.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Longshoremen moves to quash the notice of hearing,
arguing that the Building Trades has not claimed the dis-
puted work and that there is no reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Long-
shoremen claims that this case involves a contractual and
work preservation dispute created by STP. Should the
Board disagree with these positions and find that there is
a valid jurisdictional dispute, Longshoremen maintains
that the disputed work should be awarded to employees it
represents based on the factors of collective-bargaining
agreements, employer preference, area and industry prac-
tice, economy and efficiency of operations, and relative
skills and training.
Carpenters contends that there are competing claims to
the work in dispute and Longshoremen has used pro-
scribed means to enforce its claim to the work. Accord-
ingly, Carpenters contends that reasonable cause exists to
8 At the hearing, counsel for NCA and Carpenters stated that he sub-
poenaed Port of Seattle representative Tay Yoshitani to testify. Coun-
sel for Yoshitani filed a petition to revoke that subpoena. This petition
was unopposed, and we grant it.
9 We have corrected an inadvertent typographical error in the de-
scription of the work in dispute in the hearing officer’s report.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1034
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Car-
penters contends that Longshoremen does not have a
meritorious “work preservation” defense because em-
ployees Longshoremen represents have not previously
performed the work in dispute. Carpenters further con-
tends that the parties do not have an agreed-upon method
to adjust the dispute voluntarily, and that the Board may
proceed to determine the dispute. On the merits of that
determination, Carpenters asserts that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by the
Building Trades based on the factors of collective-
bargaining agreements, employer preference, area and
industry practice, relative skills and training, and econo-
my and efficiency of operations.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, there must be
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. This standard requires finding that there is
reasonable cause to believe that there are competing
claims to disputed work between or among rival groups
of employees and that a party has used proscribed means
to enforce its claim to the disputed work. Additionally,
the Board will not proceed under Section 10(k) if the
parties have agreed on a method for voluntary adjustment
of the dispute. See, e.g., Laborers Local 1184 (High
Light Electric), 355 NLRB 167, 168 (2010). For the
reasons that follow, we find that this dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10(k).
The parties have not agreed on a method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.10 It is undisputed that Long-
shoremen has claimed the work. In addition, Long-
shoremen picketed the jobsite, and Local 19 President
Williams asserted during picketing that the work was
within the Longshoremen’s jurisdiction and that Long-
shoremen had a contractual right to it. Williams’ asser-
tion indicated that there was a jurisdictional objective to
the picketing. Accordingly, we find that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Longshoremen used proscribed
means to enforce its claim to the work in dispute. See,
e.g., Operating Engineers Local 150 (Royal Components,
Inc.), 348 NLRB 1369, 1370 (2006).
The Building Trades claimed the disputed work when
it filed the grievance against STP, arguing that STP’s
assignment of the disputed work to Longshoremen vio-
lated the PLA. See, e.g., Laborers Local 931 (Carl Bo-
lander), 305 NLRB 490, 491 (1991) (grievance request-
10 NCA and Carpenters stipulated that the parties have not agreed on
a method for voluntary adjustment of this dispute. Longshoremen
declined to join this stipulation. The record contains no evidence of
such a method.
ing assignment of work in dispute in compliance with
collective-bargaining agreement constituted claim for
work). Contrary to Longshoremen, we find that the
Board’s decision in Laborers (Capitol Drilling Supplies),
318 NLRB 809 (1995), does not preclude this finding.
Capitol Drilling “involved a union’s grievance against
a general contractor alone, and not against the subcon-
tractor who actually had the authority to assign the dis-
puted work.” Laborers Local 81 (Kenny Construction
Co.), 338 NLRB 977, 978 (2003). The Board found that
absent a direct claim against the subcontractor, there
were no competing claims to the disputed work and thus
a true jurisdictional dispute did not exist. Id.; see Capitol
Drilling, 318 NLRB at 811. Capitol Drilling does not
apply, however, where the general contractor, not the
subcontractor, has “assigned the disputed work to its own
employees, and thereby retains the authority to assign the
disputed work.” Kenny Construction, 338 NLRB at 978.
Here, as discussed above, STP, the general contractor,
assigned part of the work in dispute to its own employ-
ees. STP employees represented by Operating Engineers
have already begun performing a portion of the disputed
work, i.e., the two conveyor operator positions. The
Board has “long held that a group of employees perform-
ing work is evidence of their claim to that work, even
absent an explicit claim.” Operating Engineers Local
542 (Caldwell Tanks, Inc.), 338 NLRB 507, 509 (2002)
(citations and internal quotation omitted). In addition,
although the STP-TTI agreement states that TTI will
provide and supervise Longshoremen to perform the dis-
puted work, an addendum to that agreement states that
STP “shall maintain complete responsibility and authori-
ty for management and supervision” of the disputed
work. To this end, Dixon testified that STP would agree
to assign work to Longshoremen only if STP retained the
“same level of operational control that [it] would have
with [its] own employees.” Because STP is the “compa-
ny that ultimately controls and makes the job assign-
ments,” it “is deemed to be the employer for the purposes
of [this] 10(k) proceeding.” Iron Workers Local 1 (Goe-
bel Forming, Inc.), 340 NLRB 1158, 1161 (2003). Con-
sequently, Capitol Drilling is distinguishable from this
case, and we find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that there are competing claims to the disputed work.
We also find no merit in Longshoremen’s contention
that this case involves a contractual dispute between STP
and Longshoremen over the preservation of work for
Longshoremen-represented employees and therefore
does not fall within the scope of Section 10(k) of the Act.
In “all of the cases where the Board quashed a notice of
hearing based on a work preservation claim, the work in
dispute was historically performed by the union claiming

LONGSHOREMEN 19 (SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS) 1035
the breach of its agreement with the employer.” Electri-
cal Workers Local 48 (Kinder Morgan Terminals), 357
NLRB 2217, 2219 (2011) (emphasis added). In contrast,
when a union claims work for employees “who have not
previously performed it, the objective is not work preser-
vation, but work acquisition,” a dispute the Board will
resolve through a 10(k) proceeding. Id. The record es-
tablishes that employees represented by Longshoremen
have never performed the work in dispute. Dixon testi-
fied without contradiction that STP has begun a portion
of the disputed work (conveyor operations) and that only
employees represented by Operating Engineers have per-
formed it. TTI General Manager Blackmore testified that
at Terminal 46, TTI has been involved in “zero” con-
tracts that involved a conveyor operations component.
Blackmore even conceded that this type of project is
“new to Terminal 46.” Longshoremen’s objective is
plainly work acquisition. See Longshoremen ILWU Lo-
cal 14 (Sierra Pacific Industries), 314 NLRB 834, 835–
836 (1994) (no work preservation dispute where disputed
work involved the employer’s “original assignment of
new work at a new location”), enfd. 85 F.3d 646 (D.C.
Cir. 1996).
Citing Machinists District 190 Local 1414 (SSA Ter-
minal, LLC), 344 NLRB 1018 (2005), affd. 253 Fed.
Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2007), and Seafarers (Recon Refrac-
tory & Construction), 339 NLRB 825 (2003), review
denied 424 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005), Longshoremen con-
tends that the notice of hearing should be quashed be-
cause STP knowingly and willingly created this dispute
by voluntarily entering into conflicting contractual obli-
gations. We reject this contention. First, STP vigorously
disputes that its agreement with TTI assigning the dis-
puted work to Longshoremen was voluntary. As noted
above, STP initially assigned the work to employees rep-
resented by Building Trades, and signed the agreement
with TTI under pressure from WSDOT only after TTI
refused to unload the TBM at Terminal 46 unless STP
signed the agreement. Second, even if we were to find
the agreement voluntary, in both SSA Terminal and
Recon the Board quashed the notice of hearing on work-
preservation grounds. As explained above, that is not the
case here.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work based on the evidence pre-
sented by the parties. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
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 Co.), 135 NLRB 1402,
1410–1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Board certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no evidence of any Board certification con-
cerning any of the employees involved in this dispute.
STP and the Building Trades are parties to the PLA,
which describes project work as including “bored tunnel
and related work” and “all construction work performed
at temporary facilities . . . which are integrated with and
set up for the purpose of only servicing the construction
project.” The PLA also fully incorporates the WSDOT
Request for Proposal, which describes covered work as
including “[t]unnel muck storage and [a] muck load-
ing/transfer area” and the “[e]rection of conveyors and
hoppers for transfer of material onto barges.” According-
ly, we find that the PLA covers the disputed work.
Although STP’s agreement with TTI also covers the
conveyor and winch work, we do not rely on it for the
purpose of awarding the disputed work in this proceed-
ing. In that agreement, only TTI committed to assign the
disputed work to Longshoremen. This commitment,
however, is not germane because the Board looks to the
contractual obligations of STP, the employer that con-
trols and assigns the disputed work here. See Goebel
Forming, 340 NLRB at 1161. STP is not party to any
collective-bargaining agreement that requires it to assign
the disputed work to Longshoremen. Even if the STP-
TTI agreement could be read as including a contractual
commitment by STP to assign the work to Longshore-
men, it would still carry little weight because Long-
shoremen is not a party to the agreement. See id. (If
“one union has a contract which arguably supports that
union’s claim, and the other union has no contract at all
with the assigning employer, the Board will consider
those facts in its decision.”) (citations omitted). In these
circumstances, the factor of collective-bargaining agree-
ments favors awarding the work in dispute to employees
represented by the Building Trades.11
2. Employer preference and current assignment
Dixon testified that STP’s “original plan” was “never
to use the Longshoremen” on the project. Rather, he
11 We recognize that the facts concerning the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements are unusual here. Even if we were to find, based
on the STP-TTI agreement, that the factor of collective-bargaining
agreements favors neither union, we would still award the work to
employees represented by the Building Trades based on the factors of
employer preference and current assignment and economy and efficien-
cy of operations, for the reasons stated below.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1036
testified that STP “always felt . . . that [it would] assign
the work to the building trades under the Project Labor
Agreement.” Although STP proposed a composite crew
of Building Trades and Longshoremen members to per-
form the work during various negotiations, we place little
weight on that proposal. As discussed above, circum-
stances outside the control of STP led to this proposal.12
As Dixon explained, STP prefers utilizing employees
represented by the Building Trades because they, unlike
Longshoremen-represented employees, ensure economy
and efficiency of operations at the project site. Cf. Mis-
cellaneous Drivers Local 610, 196 NLRB 1140, 1142
(1972) (discounting factor of employer preference be-
cause employer did not support preference with relevant
considerations). In addition, STP currently assigns the
conveyor work to employees represented by the Building
Trades. We find that the factor of employer preference
and current assignment favors awarding the work in dis-
pute to employees represented by the Building Trades.
3. Area and industry practice
Marge Newgent, field representative for Operating
Engineers Local 302, testified that between 2004 and
2010, Operating Engineers locals have performed con-
struction work at several transportation-related projects
in the Seattle area. Newgent testified that each of these
projects involved the construction of a tunnel and remov-
al of muck, and that Operating Engineers manned con-
veyors and front-end loaders to remove waste at all of
these construction sites. Newgent testified that Operat-
ing Engineers loaded barges at only one of these projects.
Dan Hutchins, Director of the Contract Administration
Department for Carpenters, generally testified that
piledrivers (a type of carpenter) have loaded and unload-
ed dredging, jetting spoils (soil), construction waste, and
debris onto and off of barges during construction projects
in the Seattle area. Hutchins also testified that piledriv-
ers and Operating Engineers currently use cranes and
12 See Laborers Local 4 (Cleveland Marble), 285 NLRB 230, 232
(1987) (finding that employer’s preference for a composite crew of
laborers and stone setters, rather than a crew of laborers alone, was not
“freely made” and thus not entitled to much weight where the employer
changed its preference “only after there were rumors at the jobsite that
stone setters might cause a work stoppage” if they “did not perform at
least some of the work”); Longshoremen ILWU Local 50 (Brady-
Hamilton Stevedore Co.), 223 NLRB 1034, 1037 (1976), reconsidera-
tion granted and decision rescinded on other grounds 244 NLRB 275
(1979) (Board “constrained to treat the Employers’ asserted post-work-
stoppage preference for longshoremen with a good deal of skepticism
because such statements of preference may not be representative of a
free and unencumbered choice,” given that employers only changed
their original preference for operating engineers after a work stoppage
“forced” them to reassign the work to longshoremen).
forklifts to transfer waste onto barges at a Bangor, Wash-
ington Naval Facility project.
Relevant to this factor, Local 19 President Williams
testified as follows. Throughout the West Coast for dec-
ades, Local 19 and other Longshoremen locals have
loaded and unloaded a variety of cargo and materials
onto and off of barges. In Sacramento and Stockton,
California, Longshoremen load barges with grain, iron
ore, rice, and potash at terminals that include conveyor
operations. In the Port of Seattle and surrounding ports,
Longshoremen have handled grain, iron ore, general car-
go, scrap metal, cars, potash, logs, pulp, paper products,
and steel. At Terminal 86 in the Port of Seattle, Long-
shoremen operate a conveyor system that transports grain
to silos and vessels. At a dredge operation at another
port near Seattle, a Longshoremen local is performing
payloader operations and positioning a barge.
Because the evidence shows that employees represent-
ed by both the Building Trades and Longshoremen per-
form work of the type in dispute here, we find that the
factor of area and industry practice does not favor an
award of the disputed work to either group of employees.
4. Relative skills and training
The parties presented limited evidence concerning rel-
ative skills and training. Williams testified that Local 19
members are OSHA-certified to operate the equipment
used at the project. Williams further testified that Local
19 members complete Power Industrial Truck training,
which qualifies them to operate a front-end loader. Wil-
liams explained that all Longshoremen members are sub-
ject to the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code, which gov-
erns the use of barges, vessels, and “any operations” per-
formed at marine terminals, including tunnel muck work.
Williams’ testimony suggests that this safety code neces-
sitates training. Newgent testified that Operating Engi-
neers members carry the same OSHA certification as
Longshoremen and complete a HAZMAT course, which
qualifies them to handle hazardous materials. Hutchins
testified that Carpenters facilitates a 4-year apprentice-
ship program where, among other things, members re-
ceiving training in the proper tying of barges. He also
testified that piledrivers can operate winches to position
barges.
Because the evidence suggests that employees repre-
sented by both Longshoremen and the Building Trades
share comparable skills and training relative to the work
in dispute, we conclude that this factor does not favor an
award of the work in dispute to either employee group.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Dixon, Newgent, and Hutchins testified that if em-
ployees represented by the Building Trades were not

LONGSHOREMEN 19 (SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS) 1037
performing the work in dispute, they could perform other
construction work on the project. Hutchins testified that
piledrivers could perform concrete, scaffold, and shoring
work. Newgent testified that members of the Operating
Engineers who run conveyor belts “are usually like []
mechanics or [] welders.” She further explained that an
operating engineer hired to run a loader and excavator at
another project is currently manning a crane and forklift
while that project’s conveyer system is not running.
Blackmore generally testified that employees Long-
shoremen would assign to perform the work under the
STP-TTI agreement would qualify as a utility work force
that could perform “other functions” at the project site.
Local 19 President Williams testified, however, that
Longshoremen does not represent construction workers.
Based on the foregoing testimony, we find that assign-
ing Building Trades–represented employees to perform
the work in dispute is more economical and efficient than
assigning the work to Longshoremen-represented em-
ployees because the former are better capable of per-
forming additional construction work if needed. See,
e.g., Operating Engineers Local 825 (Walters & Lam-
bert), 309 NLRB 142, 145 (1992) (factor of economy
and efficiency of operations favored laborers over operat-
ing engineers because when not performing disputed
work, laborers were more familiar with additional craft
work and had more experience necessary to perform such
work). Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented by
the Building Trades.
Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by Carpenters and Op-
erating Engineers are entitled to perform the disputed
work. We reach this conclusion relying on the factors of
collective-bargaining agreements, employer preference,
current assignment, and economy and efficiency of oper-
ations. In making this determination, we award the work
to employees represented by Carpenters and Operating
Engineers, not to those labor organizations or to their
members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Seattle Tunnel Partners represented by
Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters and
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302
are entitled to unload and load tunnel muck, including
the operation of the conveyor belt, operation of a front-
end loader, and winch work related to the positioning of
barges, from the Seattle tunnel project in Seattle, Wash-
ington.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local
19 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Seattle Tunnel Partners to
assign the disputed work to employees it represents.
Within 14 days from this date, International Long-
shore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 19 in writing whether it
will refrain from forcing Seattle Tunnel Partners, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the
disputed work in a manner inconsistent with this deter-
mination.