International Longshoremen's Union Local 26

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 817 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S UNION LOCAL 26 817
International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's
Union Local 26 (Newton Security Patrol , Inc.) and
T. A. Newton and International Union of Guards
and Watchmen Local 1. Case 21-CD-229
October 17, 1967
ton Security is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
26 and Local 1 are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute:
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by T. A. Newton on November 9,
1966, alleging that International Longshoremen's
& Warehousemen's Union Local 26 (hereinafter
Local 26) has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activity, with an
object of forcing or requiring the assignment of
work guarding Immigration Service detainees on
vessels of the Ital-Pacific Line,' while berthed at
Matson Terminals, Inc., Los Angeles-Long Beach
Harbor, California, to individuals who are
represented by the Respondent rather than to the
employees of Newton Security Patrol, Inc.
(hereinafter Newton Security), who are represented
by International Union of Guards and
Watchmen Local I (hereinafter Local 1). A hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Louis A. Gor-
don, on February 27 and April 27, 1967. Pacific
Maritime Association (hereinafter PMA) and Mat-
son Terminals, Inc. (hereinafter Matson), were al-
lowed to intervene as parties in interest. All parties
appeared at the hearing, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. Newton Security is a California corporation,
which annually has received in excess of $50,000
for providing guard services to various steamship
companies or instrumentalities of interstate and
foreign commerce. Accordingly, we find that New-
' Local 26 would limit the issue to guarding detainees aboard one Ital-
Pacific vessel, the S S Goldstone
2 The only witness who testified to the events surrounding the dispute
was Captain Miller of Newton Security. The account here is derived from
his testimony on direct and cross-examination Although there were
several inconsistencies, some of which Captain Miller resolved by adding
to or adjusting his first version, we find it unnecessary to consider the
credibility of his testimony, since in any event- as discussed below- it
A. The Facts2
On November 3, 1966, Transmarine Navigation
Company (hereinafter Transmarine), agent for Ital-
Pacific Line, requested that Captain Miller, a super-
visor for Newton Security, place a guard aboard the
S.S. Goldstone, an Ital-Pacific ship which was
berthed at Matson's Wilmington dock. Newton
Security placed a guard as requested at or about 8
p.m. of that day. The next morning, Captain Miller
went to the Matson dock where the S.S. Goldstone
was berthed in response to a call from his office that
there was trouble. He found no sign of a problem at
that time. After speaking briefly with a Local 1
representative on the dock, Miller went to the office
of Transmarine representative Lynn. Lynn
received a telephone call in Miller's presence, and
Miller testified that Lynn told him the caller had
been a Local 26 agent who threatened a picket line
if the Newton Security guard were not removed.
Lynn asked Miller to fix the situation, and advised
him to talk with Eric,3 another Transmarine
representative who was at the Matson dock.
Returning to the Goldstone's berth, Miller met a
group of men, of whom he could identify only two,
Local 26 agent Ibarra and a man named A1.4 Al told
Miller that Newton Security had no jurisdiction on
the Matson docks, that Matson did all the work
there, and that Miller should remove his guard, or
there would be a picket line. Eric, of Transmarine,
then approached, and Miller asked him what to do.
Eric said to take the Newton Security guard off, and
Miller then agreed to do so, under protest. Miller
asked the Matson security chief for the dock, Fox,
whether Fox had a replacement guard available;
Fox said he did. The transfer was then made, with
a Matson guard (represented by Local 26) substitut-
ing for the Newton Security guard (represented by
Local 1).
B. The Contentions of the Parties
The Charging Party asserts that a jurisdictional
dispute exists within the meaning of the Act, and
that Local 26 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act. In the absence of briefs, it is not clear whether
lacks the factual elements required to give us reasonable cause to believe
that there was a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) here
3 No further identification was made, the record does not indicate this
individual's last name
4 Miller was unable to supply Al's last name, and could identify him
only as "the president or an official of the Checkers Union," which union
he asserted was a branch of the ILWU, like Local 26
167 NLRB No. 117
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
the violation is alleged on the basis of threats
directed at Transmarine or at Newton Security,
although we note that counsel for the Charging
Party stated at the hearing that the issue was
"whether or not the Employer , Transmarine, can
hire guards or security personnel to work its ves-
sels, regardless of what dock they go to."
Local 26 did not concede that there had been a
violation of Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act.
C. The Applicability of the Statute
The evidence discloses that Transmarine (as the
agent of Ital-Pacific Line) employed Newton
Security to provide detainee guard service for the
S.S. Goldstone at the Matson dock , and that it also
terminated that employment , through Eric's in-
structions to Miller to take the guard off. Ac-
cordingly , Transmarine is the employer that chose
to employ Newton Security guards represented by
Local 1 , and was allegedly subjected to unlawful
pressures by Local 26 to substitute guards
represented by Local 26 . The record contains only
one item of evidence that Local 26 exerted such
pressure on Transmarine , however, and that was
aptly characterized in the hearing as triple hearsay:
Miller ' s recreation of Lynn's report to him of
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threats made by an unidentified agent of Local 26
in a telephone call to Lynn . Lynn did not testify -
Transmarine was not represented at the hearing,
nor did it participate in any other manner in this
proceeding - and there was no evidence as to the
author of the alleged threat or his relationship to
Local 26. We are unable , therefore , to rely upon
this testimony as demonstrating that Local 26 ex-
erted unlawful pressure for the object prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(D). Similarly, there is insufficient
evidence in the record to establish that the in-
dividual indentified as Al was acting as an agent of
Local 26 when he threatened Miller with a picket
line if the Newton Security guard was not removed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing , we conclude that
there is insufficient evidence in the record to give
reasonable cause to believe that Local 26 violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The dispute herein is
not, therefore , a dispute within the meaning of Sec-
tion 10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notice
of hearing.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is-
sued in this case be , and it hereby is, quashed.