Pacific Maritime Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 2055 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2055
Pacific Maritime Association and Ira D. Henderson
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union , Local No. 13 (Pacific Maritime Associa-
tion ) and Ira D . Henderson . Cases 21-CA-7480
and 21-CB-2858
September 17, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On February 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Howard
Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting
briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief
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 these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent
consistent herewith.
The complaint alleges in substance that Respon-
dent Pacific Maritime Association has engaged in
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act and Respondent International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 13,
in conduct violative of Section 8(b)( I )(A) and (2)
by giving preference in job referrals to "strikers"
and "unemployed" over longshoremen using the
casual dispatch hall operated by Respondents.
Briefly, Respondent Association and Respondent
Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment which provides for a jointly administered hir-
ing hall system. Under this system, preference in
hiring goes first to registered longshoremen, who
are dispatched from a central dispatching hall.
After the registered men are dispatched jobs
are given to "strikers," the "unemployed," and
"casuals," 1 the first two groups through so-called
"runners" outside the registered longshoremen's
hall, the latter through the casual hall dispatcher. In
most instances, "strikers" and the "unemployed"
have been dispatched ahead of "casuals"; in a few
instances , the dispatch of available jobs has been
divided between "casuals" and "strikers." In no in-
stance, however, was the casual hall list exhausted
before jobs were given to "strikers" or the "unem-
ployed." There is no claim of any different treat-
ment as between "strikers" and "unemployed."
The Trial Examiner found that by giving
preference in hiring to "strikers" and "unem-
ployed" over "casuals," Respondents were giving
preference to union members over nonmembers
thereby encouraging union membership in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. We find merit in the exceptions taken
by Respondents to these findings.
There is no evidence in the record to support the
Trial Examiner's finding that the "strikers" and
"unemployed" were members of unions or that
"casuals" were not union members. The record only
indicates that "strikers" were engaged in strikes
sponsored by unions and that the "unemployed"
were employees locked out or temporarily unem-
ployed because of a labor dispute. In fact, except in
one instance, the unions sponsoring the strikes were
not affiliated with Respondent Union. There is no
evidence of the union membership status of indi-
vidual "strikers" or "unemployed." The only
evidence regarding the union membership of "cas-
uals" is that 300 or 400 of approximately 9,000
"casuals" are members of sister locals of Respon-
dent Union. Thus, the priority of referral involved
herein has "strikers" and "unemployed" being
referred before members of sister locals.
We conclude that no Section 7 right has been
violated. While preferential treatment has been
given "strikers" over "casuals," the record also dis-
closes that locked-out employees and others tem-
porarily unemployed because of a labor dispute
were also given such preference. Thus, Respon-
dents have not given preferential hiring rights to
"strikers" because of their concerted activity, for
referral is not dependent upon participation in such
activities. Rather, it appears from this record that
preferential treatment was given, as Respondents
contend, only because "strikers" and "unem-
' The "strikers" are defined as employees engaged in strikes sponsored ployees and others temporarily unemployed because of a labor dispute are
by labor organizations against non-Association employers Locked-out em- referred to as "unemployed "
172 NLRB No. 234
2056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployed" are, on the whole, more dependable and
better workers than "casuals." For example, the
record shows that 60 percent to 70 percent of the
"casuals" who sign up for work are not present
when their number is called. In addition, even when
the "casuals" are present and the dispatched from
the casual hall, there frequently remains the
problem of their not showing up or arriving late to
work. Also, "casuals" sometimes sell the jobs they
receive through the casual dispatch hall. In con-
trast, these problems experienced with "casuals"
are virtually nonexistent in the dispatch of workers
temporarily umemployed by reason of labor
disputes. Reliability is an important consideration,
for, with the fluctuation in available work caused
by the timing of the arrival of ships, it is necessary
for Respondents to provide reliable longshore wor-
kers to supplement the registered longshoremen
during the peak manpower demand periods.
Further, once employed "casuals" had poorer
safety records than the "strikers" or the "unem-
ployed." During the first 9 months of 1967,
"casuals" had an average of 5.39 injuries per 1,000
man-days of work. In contrast, the "strikers" and
"unemployed" had an accident rate of only 3.24
accidents per 1,000 man-days. In this connection,
the record shows that there is no preference in the
type of work assigned to "strikers," "unemployed,"
or "casuals." Finally, the record shows that more
employer complaints are filed against "casuals"
than against the "strikers" or the "unemployed."
During the first 9 months of 1967, employers filed
an average of 2.46 complaints against "casuals" per
1,000 man-days, whereas, employers filed an
average of only 0.75 complaints against "strikers"
and "unemployed."
In short, Respondents have given preference to
employees affected by labor disputes, regardless of
the nature of such disputes, over union and non-
union "casuals." The reasons for this preference are
grounded in legitimate business considerations
relating to the hiring of dependable employees.
Thus, on this record, we do not find conduct which
is either "inherently destructive of employee in-
terests" or is motivated bye considerations
proscribed by the Act. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
P Compare N L R B v Great Dane Trailers, Inc , 388 U S 26 at 33, 34
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HOWARD MYERS, Trial Examiner: This proceed-
ing, with the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called the General
Counsel'), Pacific Maritime Association (herein
called PMA), and International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 13 (herein
called Local No. 13), represented by counsel,2
came on to be heard before me on October 17, 18,
19, and 20, 1967, at Los Angeles, California, on the
issues raised by the consolidated complaint of the
General Counsel, dated June 9, 1967, and the an-
swers of the Respondents.
The consolidated complaint, based upon two
separate charges duly filed by Ira D. Henderson on
February 7, 1967, alleged, in substance, that, by
giving preference in job referrals to persons en-
gaged in strikes sponsored by labor organizations at
non-PMA members' places of business over
longshoremen using the casual dispatch hall jointly
maintained and operated by the Respondents, PMA
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended from
time to time, herein called the Act, and that Local
13 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case4 and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF PACIFIC MARITIME
ASSOCIATION
PMA, a nonprofit California corporation, main-
tains offices and places of business at, among other
places, San Francisco and Wilmington, California,
and acts as the collective-bargaining representative
' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appear-
ing at the hearing
Y Local No 13 was also represented by Jerry Plante, its president, and by
John T Godfrey, its secretary-treasurer
3 On the same day, June 9, 1967, the Regional Director for Region 21,
who, for and on behalf of the General Counsel, also issued an order, by vir-
tue of Sections 102 17 and 102 33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, consolidating for the purpose of hearing Case
2I-CA-7480 and Case 21-CB-2858
'On December 4, 1967, the General Counsel, PMA, and Local No 13
each filed a brief Said briefs have been carefully considered Appended to
PMA's brief were proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which
are disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations hereinafter set forth.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2057
on a multiemployer basis for various concerns, en-
gaged in longshore and stevedoring operations in
the vicinity of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
California, herein called the Harbor Area, as well
as at other Pacific coast ports. PMA also functions
as the wage paying agent for its employer-members,
who are employers of interchangeable employees,
among whom are:
Argonaut Terminal
Consolidated Marine, Inc.
Cresent City Marine Ways & Drydock Co.,
Inc.
Crescent Warf & Warehouse Company
Crown Terminals
Dan Hoge Crane Service
Indies Terminals Company
J. J. Tennant
Jones Stevedoring Company
Marine Terminals Corp. of Los Angeles
Matson Terminals, Inc.
Metropolitan Stevedore Company
Ocean Terminals
Outer Harbor Dock & Warf, Inc.
Overseas Shipping Company
Pacific Ports Service Company
Seaboard Stevedoring Corp.
Sierra Harbor Terminals Company
Star Terminal Inc.
States Steamship Company
Westfal-Larsen Company Inc.
Williams, Dimond & Company
The employer-members of PMA do a combined
annual business amounting in excess of $1 million
in transporting goods and passengers between the
State of California and other States of the United
States and foreign countries.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is found,
in line with established Board authority, that PMA
is an employer within the meaning of the Act and is
engaged in , and during all times material was en-
gaged in , a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6)and (7) of the Act and that
its business operations meet the standards fixed by
the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 13 is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the employer-members
of PMA doing business in the Harbor Areas.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Pertinent Facts
For many years, Local No. 13 has been the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the
workers performing longshore labor in the Harbor
Area.
Likewise for many years, PMA has acted as the
collective-bargaining representative for its em-
ployer-members located in, among other places, the
Harbor Area.
For many years past Local 13 (through its Inter-
national) and PMA (or its predecessors) have en-
tered into a series of collective-bargaining contracts
covering the wages, hours, and working conditions
for the longshoremen here involved. The contract
now under consideration is known as the 1961-66
Pacific Coast Longshore Agreement together with
the Memorandum of Agreement, dated June 8,
1965, and the Memorandum of Understanding,
dated July 6, 1966 (herein cojointly called the
Agreement).
Pursuant to said Agreement, PMA and Local No.
13 have established and maintained a Joint Port
Labor Relations Committee (herein called the
Committee) for the Harbor Area.
The aforesaid Committee is comprised of three
or more representatives designated by Local No. 13
and three or more representatives designated by
PMA. Each side of the Committee has an equal
vote and its duties are, among other things, (a) to
maintain and operate the dispatching halls; (b) to
exercise control of the registered list at the port;
and (c) to decide questions regarding rotation of
work gangs and extra men.'
At all times material, the Committee has main-
tained and operated, and still maintains and
operates, at Wilmington, California, a central
dispatching hall from which full registered (Class
"A") and limited registered (Class "B")
longshoremen are dispatched (herein these persons
are sometimes referred to as fully registered
longshoremen and limited registered longshoremen,
respectively, and collectively as registered
longshoremen).
All longshoremen using the central dispatching
hall are assigned permanent individual registration
numbers.
At all times material, the Committee has main-
tained and operated, and still maintains and
operates, at Wilmington, California, a dispatch hall
known as the casual dispatch hall for the
dispatching of casual longshoremen (herein
referred to as " casuals ").6 In connection with the
maintenance and operation of such casual dispatch
hall, the Committee has promulgated and published
rules governing the dispatch and employment of
"casuals." 7
The hiring and dispatching of all longshoremen
from the two halls referred to immediately above,
at all times material, has been done, and is still
being done, in accordance with the provisions of
' In order to facilitate the carrying out of its duties , the Committee main- dispatching hall
tains a list of registered Harbor Area longshoremen showing their registra - ' Neither Class " B" longshoremen nor "casual" longshoremen are Local
tion status under the Agreement No 13 members
6 No "casual " is permitted to use the dispatching facilities of the central
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 58
2058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Agreement, which also provides: "All personnel
of the dispatching hall, [sic] including Dispatchers,
shall be governed by [the] rules and regulations of
the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee, and
shall be removable for cause by" said Committee.
The expenses of maintaining and operating said
dispatch halls are shared equally by Local No. 13
and PMA.
Each applicant for casual work in the Harbor
Area is required to prepare and file with the Com-
mittee a written application for extra (casual) work
as a condition of receiving an identification card
entitling such applicant to utilize the facilities and
services of the casual dispatch hall ahead of persons
who do not have such an identification card. Said
applicant must also file with PMA authorizations
for payroll deductions as his pro rata share of the
expenses incurred for operating the casual dispatch
hall.
Most longshoremen using the casual dispatch hall
are assigned permanent individual identification
numbers in series "G." Some others are assigned
different identification letter prefixes. At all times
material herein, a worker was permitted to prepare
and file the application and authorization only after
he had been dispatched from said hall, if he desired
to obtain a "G" identification number.'
The work performed by all harbor area workers
doing longshore work as defined in the Agreement
and the terms and conditions of their employment
are governed by the Agreement and by the rules
and regulations of the Committee. Officials of
Local No. 13 have represented, and still represent,
all such workers in grievance matters.
No Harbor Area longshoreman is or may be em-
ployed by any member of the Association without
first having received a dispatch slip specifying,
among other things, the date, time, and place of the
job opening, or having otherwise been dispatched
by a dispatch hall (as by dispatch of a gang of
longshoremen).' The longshore work under the
Agreement is distributed in work assignments,
herein referred to as jobs. Jobs of registered
longshoremen last from a part of a day to several
days, and average about 2-1/2 days. "Casuals" or
men who are not registered longshoremen are
dispatched on a 1-day-or-less basis only.
Employees engaged in strikes sponsored by labor
organizations against non-Association employers
and dispatched in the manner set forth below are
referred to herein as "strikers." Locked-out em-
ployees and others temporarily unemployed
because of a labor dispute at establishments of non-
Association employers are referred to herein as
"unemployed" and are dispatched in the manner
set forth below.
Since at least January 9, 1967, waterfront work
in the Harbor Area has been assigned in the follow-
ing manner:
(a) Employer-members of the Association notify
the central dispatch hall of their daily requirements
of workers.
(b) Fully registered longshoremen are
dispatched first and then, if any work is available,
the limited registered longshoremen are dispatched.
(c) After the registered men are dispatched, jobs
are then given to "strikers," the "unemployed,"
and "casuals." "Strikers" refers to employees en-
gaged in strikes sponsored by labor organizations,
other than Local No. 13, against non-Association
employers. "Unemployed" refers to locked-out em-
ployees and other employees temporarily unem-
ployed because of a labor dispute in which Local
No. 13 was not involved. Jobs to be filled by
"strikers" are given, at the central dispatching hall,
to representatives, in most instances, of labor or-
ganizations other than Local No. 13 and in some in-
stances to groups of "strikers," for distribution out-
side the dispatching hall to "strikers." The
representative or individual receiving such dispatch
slips for distribution to the "strikers" is referred to
as the "runner." In most instances, "strikers" and
"unemployed" have been dispatched ahead of
"casuals"; in a few instances the dispatch of avail-
able jobs has been divided between "strikers" and
"casuals." In no instances was a casual hall list ex-
hausted before jobs were given to "strikers" or to
the "unemployed."
(d) Jobs, if any, which have not been filled by
dispatch of registered longshoremen or "strikers"
are then given to the casual hall dispatcher at the
casual dispatch hall. At the casual dispatch hall,
dispatch slips are issued, if any jobs are available, to
the "casuals" holding identification cards in the
"G" series.
As noted above, "strikers" are not permitted to
go into or use the facilities of the central dispatch
hall. Neither are they permitted inside of or use of
the facilities of the casual dispatch hall unless they
apply for and receive "G" identification cards.
Each "striker," upon receiving his initial dispatch
slip from the "runner" outside the central dispatch
hall, writes his own name and social security
number on the reverse side of said slip. He also
prepares and files with PMA a written payroll
deduction authorization as his pro rata share of the
casual dispatch hall expenses. Likewise, the
"striker," if he desires further longshore work in the
Harbor Area, is required to prepare and file with
the Committee an application for such work. Upon
receipt of said application the Committee issues to
the "striker" an identification number in series "Z"
which is thereafter placed on his dispatch slip and
used in the payroll procedure.
In the written application for casual work in the
Harbor Area, the "casual" applying for a job agrees
e Before an applicant can obtain a "G" classification number, the appli-
cant must have been dispatched from the Harbor Area casual hall on at
least one previous occasion
The Agreement also covers clerical dock employees
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
that such application is not a request for registra-
tion as a permanent or as a probationary employee
leading to permanent employment, but only for
extra ( casual ) work; that is, such work as may be
available after work had been assigned to all availa-
ble registered longshoremen.
Furthermore, applicants for casual work are ad-
vised that they will not obtain welfare, vacation,
pension , or any type of mechanization or any other
so-called "fringe benefits" of any type under the
Agreement.
"Casuals" desiring to work on a particular day or
night shift must be checked in before 7 a.m. Each
"casual " checking in must work under the number
assigned to him. If a "casual" refuses a job or
"flops" 10 a job, he can not check in again until 3
p.m.
During the first 9 months of 1967, 28,090 jobs
were filled by "strikers" and "unemployed" while
only 18,724 jobs were filled by " casuals ." On many
days throughout said 9-month period large numbers
of "strikers" and "unemployed" were dispatched
while, on the other hand, no "casuals" were
dispatched. Likewise, on many occasions when
"strikers" and "unemployed" were dispatched at
least 200 "casuals" were present in the casual
dispatch hall waiting for jobs, but none of said 200
"casuals " were called for dispatch by the casual
hall dispatcher prior to dispatching "strikers" or
"unemployed" to jobs.
Since about January 1, 1967, a substantial
number of dispatch slips were issued to "runners"
for labor organizations engaged in strikes or labor
disputes in various industries in southern California
and in Arizona. Among such labor organizations
receiving such slips , through their respective "run-
ners" or other representatives, together with the
names of the employers against whom or the indus-
try in which such strikes took place or are taking
place, are:
United Automobile Workers-Ford Motor
Company
United Rubber Workers-The B. F. Goodrich
Co.
United Rubber Workers-The Goodyear
Rubber Co.
United Steel Workers-American Smelting
and Refining Company
Sheetmetal Workers Intl. Assn.-Neon sign in-
dustry
Teamsters-L. B. Foster
International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor-
kers-Brewing industry
Intl. Chemical Workers-Copper industry in
Arizona
International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local 26-Barth &
Dreyfuss
Other such labor organizations are:
2059
Retail Clerks Union Local 905
General Truck Drivers (Teamsters) Local 692
International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor-
kers, Local No. 1
International Brotherhood of Electrical Wor-
kers, Local No. 1710
Construction & Shipyard Laborers' Local 802
International Association of Machinists, Lodge
1484
United Furniture Workers
Teamsters Local 196
Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific
B. Concluding Findings
The credited evidence, as epitomized above,
clearly establishes that PMA violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and Local No. 13 vio-
lated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) thereof by
giving employment preference to union members
(the "strikers" and those other union members
idled by reason of labor disputes at their respective
employers' establishments) over "casuals." This
conclusion is founded mainly on the fact that the
"strikers" and the "unemployed" receiving
preference in job assignments were members of
labor organizations engaged in labor disputes with
the employers of the "strikers" and the "unem-
ployed," whereas the "casuals," as far as here per-
tinent, were nonunion members. It thus becomes
crystal clear that a labor organization's ability to
provide jobs for its members who become tem-
porarily unemployed because of a labor dispute
which is sponsored, or in which it was engaged,
over nonunion persons through means, as here, of a
hiring hall of another union, encourages member-
ship in unions in the eyes of those preferred. In
fact, such preferential treatment enables a union to
risk a strike if it can demonstrate to its members
that there is a good chance that the members would
obtain employment before nonunion employees are
hired through the hiring hall of another labor or-
ganization . Likewise, such action of a labor or-
ganization in securing preferential job assignments
for its members to the detriment of the unorganized
clearly indicates to the latter that union member-
ship is prerequisite to preferential consideration for
job referrals.
While the Agreement is not under attack in this
proceeding, PMA and Local No. 13 have adopted
and carried into effect a practice and policy of
favoring union-sponsored striking employees in as-
signing jobs. Such a practice is clearly violative of
the Act regardless of the contract language or the
various reasons advanced by Respondents for
adopting and carrying out such practices.
Each Respondent contended at the hearing and
in its respective brief argued that the complaint
herein should be dismissed not only because it lacks
10 Meaning , losing the job for failure to respond when his assigned
number is called by the dispatcher.
2060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merit but also on the ground that certain named
Board agents connected with Region 21 had ad-
vised counsel for each Respondent herein in con-
nection with settlement discussions in cases previ-
ously filed against Respondents that Respondents'
conduct would not be deemed unlawful , although
an attempt to obtain agreement to refrain from
such conduct was made . The record herein does
not support such contentions nor arguments.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of PMA and of Local No. 13 set
forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the operations of employer -members of PMA
as described in section I, above , have a close, inti-
mate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and , such of
them as has been found to constitute unfair labor
practices , tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that PMA has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices violative of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act and that Local No.
13 has engaged in, and is engaged in, unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)( I )(A) thereof, it is recommended that each of
them be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Having found that each Respondent has dis-
criminated in the hire and tenure of employment
and the terms and conditions of employment of the
"casuals ," it is recommended that PMA be ordered
to cease and desist from ( 1) discriminating against
casual dispatch applicants for dispatch, or any
other individuals using the casual dispatch hall
seeking employment , by giving preference of em-
ployment to persons engaged in strikes or who are
temporarily unemployed due to union-sponsored
strikes against the employers of said " strikers" or
"unemployed "; ( 2) discriminating against any em-
ployee or applicant for employment because of
membership or activity in behalf of any labor or-
ganization; and (3 ) in any other manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing employees including
casual dispatch hall applicants for dispatch, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act . It is further recommended that PMA be
ordered to establish new lawful nondiscriminatory
standards by which " casuals" are dispatched to jobs
with PMA members.
Having found that Local No . 13 has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(b)(2) and 8 ( b)( I )(A) of the Act, it is
recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist
from : ( 1) discriminating against casual dispatch hall
applicants for dispatch , or against other individuals
using the casual dispatch hall seeking employment,
by giving preference of employment to employees
who are engaged in union -sponsored strikes against
their employers or who are temporarily unem-
ployed because of union -management disputes; (2)
from causing or attempting to cause members of
PMA, or any other employer , to discriminate
against employees or applicants for employment in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; and (3) in
any other manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees , including casual dispatch hall applicants
for dispatch , in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act. It is further recom-
mended that Local 13 be ordered tp establish new
lawful nondiscriminatory standards by which
"casuals" are dispatched to jobs from the casual
dispatch hall to PMA members.
It is further recommended that PMA and Local
No. 13, jointly and severally , be ordered to make
each casual dispatch hall applicant for dispatch
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
as a result of Respondents ' discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
the amount he normally would have earned as
wages , less his net earnings during the period of the
discrimination. Loss of earnings and interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be
computed and paid in accordance with and in the
manner set forth in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the record as a whole , I make the follow-
ing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. PMA is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the
Act.
2. Local No . 13 is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment or the terms and conditions
of employment of the " casuals, " PMA has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By giving preference of employment to em-
ployees who were engaged in union -sponsored
strikes against their employers and/or temporarily
unemployed because their unions were engaged in
labor disputes with their employers, over casual
dispatch hall applicants for dispatch, PMA has en-
gaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment or the terms and conditions
of employment of the " casuals ," Local No. 13 has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 2061
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the
Act.
6. By giving preference of employment to em-
ployees who were engaged in union -sponsored
strikes against their employers and/or temporarily
unemployed because their unions were engaged in
a labor dispute with their employers , over casual
dispatch hall applicants for dispatch , Local No. 13
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2).
7. By causing , or attempting to cause , members
of PMA to discriminate against employees or appli-
cants for employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3), Local No. 13 has engaged in, and is engag-
ing in , unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publica-
tion.]