International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production and
maintenance employees in the Florida, Miami, and Jafra plants. The
three companies agree with the composition of the unit, but contend
that there should be separate units covering employees of each com-
pany. In view of our finding that the three companies constitute a
single Employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that the
single unit as sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its plants
in Miami, Florida, and Ojus, Florida, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees including shipping and
receiving employees, but excluding office clerical, technical, and pro-
fessional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN's UNION,
C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE-
HOIISEMEN'S UNION; LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION; AND SAILORS' UNION OF THE PACIFIC,
AFL and PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE-
HOIISEMEN'S UNION; AND LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MENI S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and W. R. CHAMBERLIN AND
COMPANY. Cases Nos. 20-CD-17 and 20-CD-18 (formerly 21-CD-
26). May 11, 1951
Decision and Determination of Dispute
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act. On No-
vember 8, 1950, W. R. Chamberlin and Company, herein called the
94 NLRB No. 67.
INT'ERNAT'IONAL LONG SHOREMEINVS AND WAREHOUSEMEN"Si UNION 389
Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
a charge, docketed as Case No. 21-CD-26, against International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and its Locals 13 and 48, herein
called the I. L. W. U., alleging that they had engaged in and were
engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
of the Act. It was alleged that they had and were engaging in activi-
ties proscribed by that section, with the object of forcing and requir-
ing the Company to assign particular work to their members rather
than to other employees of the Company who were members of the
Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL, herein called S. U. P.
Pursuant to Sections 102.74 and 102.75 of Board Rules and Regu-
lations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided
for an appropriate hearing, upon due notice to all parties. There-
after a hearing was held before Jerome Smith, hearing officer of the
Board, on December 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19, 1950.
On December 12, 1950, the Pacific Maritime Association, herein
called P. M. A., filed with the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region a charge against the I. L. W. U. and S. U. P., alleging, in sub-
stance, that each had engaged in and was engaging in activities pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), directed against employees of mem-
bers of the P. M. A. with the object of forcing or requiring the Com-
pany to assign particular work to its members rather than to the
members of the other labor organization.
Case No. 21-CD-26 was remanded by the Board for further hearing
on January 19, 1951, was transferred to the Twentieth Region by the
General Counsel, was renumbered Case No. 20-CD-18, and was con-
solidated for hearing with Case No. 20-CD-17.
On January 22 and 23, 1951, the consolidated hearing was held be-
fore Jerome Smith, hearing officer of the Board, pursuant to Sections
102.74 and 102.75 of Board Rules and Regulations upon due notice
to all the parties.2 The parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence hearing on the issues. The rulings
of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
I Pacific Maritime Association and the Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast were
served with notice of hearing but did not appear
2 Shipowners ' Association of the Pacific Coast , which represents the Company in its
relations with the S . U. P, was served with notice of hearing but did not appear.
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
error and are hereby affirmed.3 All the parties were afforded an op-
portunity to file briefs with the Board.4
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Company's business
The Company is and has been for over 30 years engaged at its place
of business in San Francisco, California, and elsewhere, in operating
merchant vessels of American registry for the transportation of
freight, chiefly lumber, between ports in the State of California and
ports elsewhere in the United States or in foreign countries.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The P. M. A.'s business
The P. M. A. is an incorporated membership association with its
principal office at San Francisco, California. Its 141 members are
owners and operators of ocean-going vessels and steam schooners,
wharfage and stevedoring concerns, and other water-front employers,
all of whom operate almost exclusively in interstate commerce-in 1950
to the extent of 18,000,000 tons of cargo. P. M. A. represents its mem-
bers in collective bargaining and other labor relations functions. The
Company is a member of P. M. A.
We find that the P. M. A. is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3 The P. M. A. has appealed from a ruling of the hearing officer denying its request for
a continuance of the healing . This request evidently was made tor the purpose of per-
mitting the P. M A. to prepare for inquiry into the coastwide allocation of cargo work
between sailors and longshoremen-a much broader inquiry than that presented in the
charges initiating this Section 10 ( k) proceeding ; these deal only with the dispute over
the cargo work aboard the Company' s vessel, the C-Trader, and the activities of the labor
organizations in connection with that controversy. As there appears to be no valid reason
for disturbing the hearing officer 's ruling in this respect, the ruling is hereby affirmed.
4 The request for oral argument by the P. M. A. is hereby denied, as the briefs, in the
Board's opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties
The I . L. W. U., in its supplemental brief, and the P. M A, in its brief , refer to evidence
adduced in the companion injunction proceeding after the close of the hearing in this
Section 10 ( k) proceeding . The I. L. W. U. has filed a motion to reopen the record for
the receipt of this evidence . The P. M. A. has filed a motion to strike from the I L W. U.'s
brief , and the Company and S . U P have filed motions to strike from the briefs of both
the I. L. W. U and the P. M. A. references to material not contained in the record of this
Section 10 ( k) proceeding . As the evidence referred to is not newly discovered but, on
the contrary, was available before the closing of the hearing in this proceeding and as
no stipulation was made to hold the hearing in this case open for the receipt of further
evidence in the injunction proceeding , the Board hereby denies the I. L. W. U.'s motion
to reopen the record and grants the motions to strike from the briefs of the I. L. W. U.
and the P. M. A. the references to material not contained in the official record of this
proceeding
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN' S1 UNION 391
3. The dispute
a. The facts
In June 1950 the Company purchased a three-hatch steam schooner
which it converted into a package lumber carrier-primarily through
the installation of two revolving hydraulic cranes on its deck-and
named the C-Trader. In October 1950 the vessel was ready to operate .
in the transportation of package lumber from Reedsport, Oregon, to,
Los Angeles, California.
During 1950 the Company met on several occasions with I. L. W. U.
and S. U. P. representatives with regard to the loading and unload-
ing of the C-Trader, but no arrangement concerning the allocation
of the cargo work between the sailors and the longshoremen agreeable
to both Unions was reached. The Company thereupon elected to,
assign the disputed work to the sailors represented by S. U. P. and
placed the vessel in operation on October 23, 1950, at Reedsport.
Loading of the C-Trader commenced at 8 a. m. on October 23, 1950.
Longshoremen, ordered through a stevedoring company, worked as
front-men on the dock while sailors worked cargo aboard ship in the,
loading of one hatch. Additional longshoremen, ordered to report at
10 a. m., failed to arrive. Tom Richmond, dispatcher for I. L. W. U.
Local 48, however, appeared and told company officials that if the
sailors were "split"-that is, worked in more than the one hatch-the
longshoremen who were working would leave the job and a picket line.
would be formed. After a short interval the loading proceeded with
sailors working two hatches. The longshoremen front-men left their
work, and a picket line was formed by the I. L. W. U. The picket
line continued for the next 2 days, but the work of the front-men was
performed by workers who were not members of the I. L. W. U.
On the following 2 days there was no picket line, and some work was
performed by the I. L. W. U. longshoremen. On the fifth day Rich-
mond informed company officials that an arbitration proceeding had
been held and an award had been made by which the sailors were
limited to working on one hatch. He also informed the Company
that, unless it abided by the award, all longshoremen would be pulled
off the job and a picket line reestablished. Although the Company
continued to split the sailors, there was no work stoppage or further
picketing, and the vessel was loaded.
While the vessel was en route to Los Angeles, a company official
was informed by a representative of the I. L. W. U. that there was.
going to be a large picket line at Los Angeles and was told that the
Company should limit the work of the sailors to one hatch. On
November 4, the day the vessel reached Los Angeles, the president
of I. L. W. U. Local 13 stated to a company official that the C-Trader
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would undoubtedly lie alongside the dock and rot unless the Company
limited the sailors' cargo work to one hatch. In Los Angeles the
longshoremen worked as front-men for a few hours until an arbitra-
tion award limiting the sailors to one hatch was made. Thereupon,
as the Company split the sailor crew, the longshoremen ceased work
i nd set up a picket line.
On October 25, 1950, Lundeberg, secretary-treasurer of S. U. P.,
telephoned the president of P. M. A. and stated that he "was putting
a freeze on the Oregon coastal ports, that sailors would not be per-
mitted to sail vessels in there, but the vessels in there could clear,
and that he was doing this to back up Chamberlin's decision to use
sailors on the C-Trader handling cargo." This freeze was apparently
lifted on October 30, but was resumed on December 5.
On December 11, 1950, Harry Johnson, assistant secretary-treasurer
of S. U. P., told the marine superintendent of two steamship companies
that the Oregon ports would be off limits for the S. U. P., that they
would not sail there. The unlicensed deck crew of the S. S. Wyon?.ing
signed articles only after they had been advised and were certain that
the vessel would not go into Coos Bay, Oregon.
On December 21, 1950, the S. S. Oliver Olson entered the Port of
Bandon, Oregon. In the few days that followed all of the ship's
sailors quit work and replacements through the S. U. P. were unob-
tainable. On December 27 the S. S. Margaret Schaefer entered the
port at Coos Bay, Oregon, whereupon the sailors were ordered off
the job by an S. U. P. agent.
At various times in December agents of S. U. P. stated that the
freeze was still on. Lundeberg stated that "the freeze was to be kept
on these ports in order to give starvation treatment to the longshore-
men in these ports until he had won his point with respect to the
assignment of work on the C-Trader to the sailors."
b. Contentions of the parties
The I. L. W. U. contends that it is entitled to the work by certifica-
tion, contract, and arbitration awards and, in defense of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) charges, that the Company is failing to conform to the
Board's certification. It adds that the object of its activity was not
illegal but to force the Company to comply with arbitration awards
and to cease violating wage standards.
The S. U. P. urges that it has a contractual right to the work in
dispute and that the work belongs historically to the sailors.
The Company maintains that neither the I. L. W. U. nor the S. U. P.
has any right to the work involved and that it may assign the work
as it sees fit.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S! AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 393
The P. M. A., alleging violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) by both
labor organizations, takes the position that the dispute which is the
subject matter of this Section 10 (k) proceeding goes beyond the
operation of the C-Trader and bears upon a coastwise problem.5
c. The I. L. W. U. certification
The I. L. W. U. pleads its certification by the Board on June 21,
1938,6 as a defense to charges of violating Section 8 (b) (4) (D). It
relies on the exception contained in that section of the Act which
reads : ". . . unless such employer is failing to conform to an
order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre-
sentative for employees performing such work .. ." 7 and contends
that as representative "of the workers who do longshore work" it is
entitled to the work in dispute.
The Board's certification of 1938 resulted from a check of designa-
tion cards against employers' lists of longshoremen doing work in
each of the ports involved. Sailors were not included on these lists,
nor was their representative served with notice of hearing. Long-
shoremen at Reedsport, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, the ports
directly involved in this proceeding, were included in the check, and
the Company was listed in appendices to the decision as participating
in the proceeding.
As at least part of the I. L. W. U.'s argument is based on the lan-
guage used in the Board's certification, it is necessary to examine that
language. In the Shipowners' decision the "Conclusions of Law" con-
tain the statement "The workers who do the longshore work in the
Pacific Coast ports of the United States for the companies .. .
constitute a unit appropriate . . ." In like manner, the "Certifica-
tion of Representatives" certified that the I. L. W. U. "has been
designated . . . by a majority of the workers who do longshore
work. . . ."
This language might indicate that the I. L. W. U. certification
covered all employees when doing longshore work. Other circum-
stances indicate, however, that the certification covered only "long-
shoremen." Thus, in another part of the decision the Board found
that the I. L. W. U. "has been designated and selected by the majority
6 See footnote 3.
e Shipowners ' Association of The Pacific Coast , et al , 7 NLRB 1002
' Section 8 ( b) (4) (D) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organ-
ization to engage in certain activity,
. . where an object thereof . . . forcing or requiring any employer to assign par-
ticular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade,
ciatt, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another
trade, craft , or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or cer-
tification of the Board deternnninq the bargaining representative for employees per-
forming such work; ... [Emphasis supplied
:394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
of the -longshoremen in the appropriate unit" [Emphasis supplied] ;
,the lists, against which the designation cards were checked, contained
,only the names of the longshoremen; and-with the exception of one
port where "exclusively" was deleted on some of the cards-the cards
which were checked against the lists, besides designating the I. L. W. U.
as bargaining representative, contained the statement, "I am employed
exclusively as a longshoreman."
Furthermore, in concluding that the labor relations of members of
the Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, which represented
-steam schooner operators, were handled in the same manner as the
labor relations of the members of the other associations, the Board
noted that "The crews on these steam schooners usually do some of the
work ordinarily classified as longshore work and the steam schooner
operators did not want to be bound by the provisions of the agreement
with respect to that portion of the longshore work done by the crews."
This is precisely the work in dispute here, and, as noted in'the 1938
decision, it has been excluded from the basic off-shore contract with
the I. L. W. U., by supplementary agreements excepting steam
schooners from the provisions regarding the scope of work performed
by members of the I. L. W. U.
The I. L. W. U. urges that this acknowledgment by the Board that
crew members on steam schooners usually do some of the work "ordi-
narily classified as longshore work" lends conclusive support for its
position that the I. L. W. U. was certified as bargaining agent of all
workers who do longshore work, including the crews to the extent that
they perform such work. It asserts that despite the fact that the
Board was aware that crew members do some longshore work, it, never-
theless, certified the I. L. W. U. as representative of all workers who
do longshore work. The Company and S. U. P. contend that the
Board excepted the longshore work performed by sailors from the
certification when it recognized that crew members performed cargo
work aboard steam schooners, and that the definition of "longshore
work" in the basic longshore agreement was inapplicable to steam
schooners insofar as this cargo work of the crews was concerned.
The most reasonable interpretation of the certification from the
above facts appears to be that the Board used the term "longshore-
men" and "workers who do longshore work" interchangeably, that by
the term "longshoremen" was meant the workers working primarily,
if not exclusively, on loading and unloading cargo, and that sailors
-doing cargo work on steam schooners were intended to be excluded
in accordance with the steam schooner supplement to the basic long-
shore contract. Accordingly, we find no merit in the I. L. W. U.'s con-
tention that the certification includes sailors insofar as they do cargo
work aboard steam schooners.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN' SI AND WAREHOUSEMENYSi UNION 395
d. I. L. W. U. bargaining history
Both the I. L. W. U. and the S. U. P. contend that they are entitled
to the disputed work under bargaining contracts.
On October 12, 1934, the National Longshoremen's Board made an
arbitration award which "constituted a series of agreements" between
the predecessor of the I. L. W. U. and regional associations of em-
ployers.
On February 4, 1937, the first of several contracts between the
operators and the I. L. W. U. was executed. This contract, known as
the basic longshore contract, provided that, "The provisions of this
agreement shall apply to all handling of cargo in its transfer from
vessel to first place of rest, and vice versa, including sorting and piling
of cargo on the dock; and the direct transfer of cargo from vessel to
railroad car or barge, and vice versa, ..." Appended to this contract,
however, was a supplementary agreement, which became known as
the "steam schooner supplement." By this supplement the Ship-
owners' Association of the Pacific Coast (S. A. P. C.) adopted the
basic longshore contract, "provided, however, that members of crews
of steam schooners may perform cargo work properly within the scope
of their duties, but neither the International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation nor the Shipowners' Association shall be permitted [committed]
with reference to the scope or nature of the duties of longshoremen or
members of the crews of steam schooners, . .
Effective October 1, 1938, a new basic longshore contract was exe-
cuted, which was adopted in a "steam schooner supplement" by the
SAPC with the provision that "uniform coast rules relating to the
scope and nature of the duties of longshoremen on steam schooners
and other provisions relating to steam schooner practice" should be
negotiated. The contracts were later amended and modified on De-
cember 20, 1940, but the steam schooner supplement contained the
same provision as the supplement of February 4, 1937, with regard to
the cargo work of crew members. The basic longshore contract and
the steam schooner supplement of December 20, 1940, continued in
effect until July 16, 1946, when a new basic contract was executed and
the supplement of December 20, 1940, was renewed. These agree-
ments, however, expired on September 30, 1946, after which the Pacific
Coast Maritime Unions went on strike.
After the strike, negotiations for new contracts were conducted and
a new basic longshore contract was executed effective June 1&, 1947.
Agreement on a steam schooner contract, however, was not reached.
During discussion regarding work on steam schooners, controversy
arose concerning the question as to whether any steam schooner agree-
ment was in existence. The issue was submitted to the Pacific Coast
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arbitrator , who decided that an "implied " contract existed which
would expire June 15, 1948.
In October 1948, following another strike , negotiations on a basic
longshore contract and a steam schooner agreement were resumed.
Agreement was reached on the basic longshore contract ; but the parties
did not reach agreement on the steam schooner supplement . Little,
if any, negotiation took place between about December 31, 1948, and
about May 15, 1949. On September 30, 1949, the P. M. A. and the
I. L. W. U. negotiators reached agreement on a memorandum to be
submitted to the membership of each of the parties . This tentative
agreement , which would have limited the cargo work of the crew on
steam schooners to one hatch , was never ratified by the steam schooner
operators.
The record contains testimony that during the period of negotia-
tions a "status quo" agreement was in effect . An I. L . W. U. witness
understood the status quo to refer to conditions during the 1-year
period prior to July 15 , 1948. Testimony of company witnesses indi-
cated that they were not certain as to the "status quo" period. In any
event the last written steam schooner contract did not limit the cargo
work of the sailors to one hatch , nor did any prior agreement.
Moreover, on July 11, 1950, Harry Bridges wrote the P. M. A.:
In view of the Pacific Maritime Association 's continued failure
to ratify the steam schooner agreement , we are hereby notifying
you that the union is withdrawing any commitments or under-
standings relative to steam schooners . We suggest that nego-
tiations be held at your earliest convenience.
Negotiations on the steam schooner agreement were later resumed,
and in September 1950 two meetings between the I. L. W. U. and the
Steam Schooner Committee of P. M. A. took place. About October
18, 1950, a few days before the C-Trader was put into operation,
I. L. W. U. representatives met with representatives of the Company
for discussions on the method of loading and unloading the C-Trader.
Again no agreement was reached.
From the foregoing facts it is clear that there is no agreement, oral
or written, between the Company (and the P. M. A.) and the I. L.
W. U. under which the Company (or the P. M. A.) undertook to
allocate the shipside cargo work , and we so find .8
e. S. U. P. bargaining history
As did the I. L. W. U., the S. U. P. has customarily negotiated a
steam schooner agreement separate from the "intercoastal and off-
shore trade" contract.
On February 4, 1937, the S. U. P. executed a contract with S. A. P. C.
I It is not necessary here to determine the effect of such an agreement if one had existed.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S' UNION 397
for operators engaged in the steam schooner trade, which set forth,
among other things, the wages and conditions under which the sailors
were to perform cargo work. On October 24, 1939, the same parties
entered into another contract which established, wages for winch-
drivers "on ships that carry package lumber, piling, etc. and where
sailor crews are split." This agreement also provided that, "Crews
maybe split to handle package lumber, piling, etc." (Emphasis sup-
plied.) The contract of October 27, 1941, between these parties con-
tained the same provisions ; the agreements of July 27, 1946, and
October 15, 1947, between the S. U. P. and Pacific American Ship-
owners Association, which at those times represented the Company,
added the clause, "Crews shall work cargo in any and all hatches as
directed. . . ." In the agreement of Defember 13, 1949, between the
S. U. P. and the S. A. P. C. (which again represented the Company)
which runs until September 30, 1951, the provisions of the previous
contracts remain unchanged.
Despite the contention of the S. U. P., the provisions in its contracts
with the steam schooner operators do not give the S. U. P. or its mem-
bers any contract rights to the work involved. On the contrary, the
pertinent clauses of the contracts grant the employers the option of
requiring certain cargo work of the sailors who have agreed that they
"shall work cargo in any and all hatches as directed."
f. Applicability of the statute
The charges, which were duly investigated, allege violations of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D), and the record before the Board establishes that
there is reasonable cause to believe that the I. L. W. U. and the
S. U. P. induced and encouraged employees to cease work in order to
compel the Company to assign work to members of one of the labor
organizations rather than to members of the other union. We there-
fore find that the dispute in question is properly before the Board.
g. The merits of the dispute
The Company has assigned the work in dispute-the shipside cargo
work-to its employees, the crew members of the C-Trader. The
I. L. W. U. contends that it is entitled to that work for its members by
reason of certification, contract, and arbitration awards. As the
Board has found that the I. L. W. U. was not certified as the bargain-
ing representative of the sailors performing the work in dispute, and
that there is no existing contract by which the Company (or the
P. M. A.) undertook to allocate the shipside cargo work on steam
schooners, it is unnecessary to consider the custom or tradition alleged
with respect to the work.9 Furthermore, assuming that in some cir-
9 See Juneait Spi uce Coi po) atwn, 82 NLRB 650
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances an arbitration award might be significant, as the S. U. P.
was not a party to the awards limiting the sailors to work in one
hatch, we find no merit to the I. L. W. U.'s contention that such awards
iii its favor are determinative of the case."'
The S. U. P. has urged that it has a contractual right to the shipside
cargo work and that the work belongs historically to the sailors. As
the Board has found no merit to the S. U. P.'s contention that its con-
tract granted the work to S. U. P.'s members, it is unnecessary to,
consider the custom and tradition alleged by it to support its claim
to a "right" to the work in dispute.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the I. L. W. U. is not lawfully
entitled to require the Company to assign the work in dispute to mem-
bers of the I. L. W. U. rather than to members of the S. U. P.; nor is
the S. U. P. lawfully entitled to require the Company to assign the
work to members of the S. U. P. rather than to members of the
I. L. W. U.
Determination of Dispute
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of the dispute,
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the amended Act:
1. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
C. 1. 0., Local 13, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, and Local 48, International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union, and their agents are not, and have not been, lawfully
entitled to force or require W. R. Chamberlin and Company of San
Francisco, California, to assign work aboard ship of loading and
unloading cargo on its steam schooner, C-Trader, to its members
rather than to sailor employees of the Company who are members of
Sailors' Union of the Pacific, A. F. L.
2. Sailors ' Union of the Pacific and its agents are not, and have not
been, lawfully entitled to force or require W. R. Chamberlin and
Company of San Francisco, California, to assign work aboard ship
of loading and unloading cargo on its steam schooner, C-Trader, to its
members rather than to longshoremen who are members of Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C. I. O.
3. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and De-
termination of Dispute, each of the Respondents shall notify the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in writing, as to what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the terms of this
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLES took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Determination of Dispute.
11 Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, A. F. L., at al., 83 NLRB 477.