Longshoremen'S Ilwu Local 7 (Georgia-Pacific)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 363 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

LONGSHOREMEN iLWU' LOCAL 7 . (GEORGIA-PACIFIC)

363
Local Union No. 7, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union and Bellingham Di-
vision, Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Belling-
ham Stevedoring Co.- and Local, Union No. 194,
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work-
ers. Case 19-CD-415
14 December 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon a charge filed 16 December 1982 by Bel-
lingham Division, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (the
Employer), and duly served-on Local Union No :7,
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union (the Respondent or ILWU), the General
Counsel of the National -Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 19, issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing' dated 24 August 1983,.
an amended complaint and notice of hearing dated
28 December 1983, and a second amended com-
plaint and notice of hearing dated 10 January 1984
against the Respondent, alleging that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Copies of the charge, the complaint and notice of
hearing, and the amended complaints and notices
of hearing were duly served on the parties.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that since
about 8 August 1983 the Respondent has failed and
refused to comply with the BOard's Decision and
Determination of Dispute' in the underlying 10(k)
proceeding, which awarded the work to the Em-
ployer's employees who were represented by Local
Union No. 194, Association of Western Pulp and -
Paper Workers. The complaint also alleges that
since about 8 August 1983 the Respondent has
failed and refused to notify the Regional Director
that it will comply with the above-mentioned Deci-
sion and Determination of Dispute 'although it has'
been afforded a fair opportunity to do so. The
complaint further alleges that commenCing in Sep-
tember 1981, and for subsequent unloading oper-
ations since, the Respondent has filed grievances
under its collective-bargaining agreement with Bel-
lingham Stevedoring Co. (Bellingham Stevedor-
ing), claiming "in-lieu-Or • pay from Bellingham
Stevedoring for the work in dispute, and that sub-
sequent to the issuance of the above-mentioned
10(k) decision the Respondent has filed new griev-
ances claiming in-lieu-of pay for such work. The
267 NLRB 26 (1983)
complaint alleges that an object of the above acts
and conduct by the Respondent is, and has been, to
force or require the Employer to assign the work
described in the 10(k) award to employees of Bel-
lingham Stevedoring who are represented by the
Respondent rather than to the employ-
ees who are represented by AWPPW.
The Respondent filed an answer admitting in
part and denying in part the allegations of the
amended complaint and raising certain affirmative
defenses. The Respondent , admits the allegations
that it failed to notify the Regional Director that it
would comply with the Board's 10(k) decision, but
contends, that the Board lacked jurisdiction in the
underlying 10(k) proceeding because the facts did
not present a jurisdictional dispute within the
meaning of Section 10(k) and Section 8(b)(4)(D).
The Respondent also admits the allegation that it
filed grievances claiming in-lieu-of pay for the
work in dispute, but contends that its claims for in-
lieu-of pay do not have an object proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) and are not coercive within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The Respondent
further contends that the Board is without author-
ity to order the Respondent to cease and desist
from filing the in-lieu-of claims.
On 18 January 1984 the parties filed a stipulation
and ,' motion to transfer the proceeding to the
Board, , The parties agreed that the stipulation of
facts, the formal papers, the transcript and exhibits
from the hearing previously held in the underlying
10(k) proceeding, and the arbitrator's award in-
volving the work referred to in the stipulation Of
facts constitute the entire record in this case, and
that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by
any of the parties. The parties also waived a hear-
ing before an administrative law judge and the issu-
ance of an administrative law judge's decision, and
stated their desire to submit the case directly to the
Board for findings -of fact and conclusions of law.
On 9 March 1984 the Board approved the stipu-
lation, made it a part of the record, and transferred
the proceeding to and continued the proceeding
before the Board for the purpose of making find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law for the issuance
of a Decision and Order. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the Employer filed
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the stipulation, the
briefs, and the entire record, and makes the follow-
ing
273 NLRB No. 58
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
. The Employer, a Georgia corporation, manufac-
tures pulp, paper, and chemical products at its fa-
cility in Bellingham, Washington, where it annually
sells and ships goods and materials directly. to
points outside the State of Washington valued in
excess of $50,000, and purchases goods and materi-
als directly from points outside the State of Wash-
ington valued in excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce Within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that ILWU and AWPPW are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The Employer receives bulk shipments of salt
about 14 times a year at its dock facilities in Bel-
lingham, Washington. In a typical unloading oper-
ation prior to September 1981, cranes located in
the hold of the ship were used to scoop the salt out
and into a hopper on the dock, from where the salt
was transported on a series of conveyor belts to a
salt pad. At the salt pad, a shuttle conveyor was
used to distribute the salt evenly over the pad.
ILWU members employed by Bellingham Steve-
doring operated the cranes on the ship, while the
Employer's AWPPW-represented employees oper-
ated the conveyor belts, including the shuttle con-
veyor.
Around September 1981 the Employer decided
to cease using the shuttle conveyor and instead to
use bulldozers on top of the salt pad during unload-
ings. Following a meeting between the Employer
and AWPPW officials, the Employer agreed to use
its AWPPW-represented employees to operate the
bulldozers. During the first unloading in September
1981, ILWU protested to Bellingham Stevedoring
that under the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract
Document (PCLCD), to which Bellingham Steve-
doring was a party by virtue of being a member of
'the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), ILWU
members should have been ordered from the dis-
patch hall to operate the bulldozers used on top of
the salt pad. ILWU filed a grievance under the
PCLCD seeking monetary payments (in-lieu-of
pay) as compensation for not getting the assign-
ment of work. During all subsequent unloadings at
the dock, AWPPW-represented employees contin-
ued to operate the bulldozers used on top of the
salt pad, and ILWU continued to file grievances or
claims for in-lieu-of pay. At some point, Belling-
ham Stevedoring approached the Employer about
acting as a contractor for the work on top of the
salt pad,- but the Employer rejected the request.
Meanwhile, ILWU's grievances proceeded through
the various steps of the PCLCD grievance proce-
dure Until they were submitted for arbitration in
late 1982. When AWPPW learned that the ILWU
grievances had been referred to an arbitrator, it ad-
vised the Employer by letter dated 6 December
1982 that it would "take whatever action it deter-
mines is necessary—up to and including work stop-
page—to assure that [the bulldozer operator] jobs
remain covered by the AWPPW and its Local
Union as they have in the past."
On 16 December the Employer filed the instant
charge alleging that both ILWU and AWPPW vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A 10(k) hear-
ing was held on 8 February 1983, and on 8 August
1983 the Board issued its Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute in which it found reasonable cause
to believe that both AWPPW and ILWU violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D). Regarding ILWU, the Board
based its finding of reasonable cause on ILWU's
filing of grievances against Bellingham Stevedor-
ing. Relying on evidence that Bellingham Steve-
doring had no control over the work in dispute
and that ILWU members never had performed the
work in dispute, the Board rejected ILWU's "work
preservation" defense and found reasonable cause
to believe that ILWU's grievances had an object of
applying ' indirect pressure on the Employer to
assign the disputed work to ILWU-represented em-
ployees. On the merits, the Board concluded that
the Employer's AWPPW-represented employees
were entitled to perform the work in dispute based
on, inter aim: the Employer's practice, assignment,
and preference; relative ,skills and training; and
economy and efficiency of operations. The Board
also determined that ILWU was not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to force or
require the Employer to assign the disputed work
to employees represented by that labor organiza-
tion. The Board's decision further ordered ILWU
to notify within- 10 days the Regional Director, in
writing, whether it would refrain from engaging in
the proscribed conduct.
-The parties' stipulation of facts indicates, that
subsequent to the 10(k) hearing, but prior to the is-
suance of the Board's Decision and Determination
of Dispute, an arbitrator's opinion and decision
issued favorable . to ILWU's position under the
PCLCD. That decision, attached as an exhibit to
the stipulation,. indicates that on 10 February 1983,
after a hearing in which ILWU and PMA partici-
pated, Washington Area Arbitrator Forrester de-
cided that the dispute regarding ILWU's in-lieu-of
claims turned "on the determination of control of
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA-PACIFIC)

365
cargo." Although noting PMA's position that Bel-
lingham Stevedoring's control of the cargo ends
when the cargo is dumped into the hopper on the
dock, the arbitrator nevertheless found that the salt
discharge operation is a continuous movement of
cargo from the ship to the place of rest on the salt
pad, and held:
Regardless of the Agreement between Belling-
ham Stevedoring Company and Georgia Pacif-
ic, the [PMA] Employers are required to
maintain control of the cargo in the continuous
movement to sustain the integrity of the
Agreement between the ILWU and the PMA
as to the work to be performed by ILWU
members.
He therefore concluded that the "work opportunity
in contention is longshore work," but further held
that "time-in-lieu" 2 was not payable for ILWU's
claims made prior to the issuance of his decision.
The stipulation- of facts further indicates that pur-
suant to the arbitrator's decision Bellingham Steve-
doring and the PMA honored and paid ILWU's
claims for in-lieu-of pay dated subsequent to that
decision. Bellingham Stevedoring and the PMA re-
fused, however, to honor ILWU's claims for in-
lieu-of pay on or after the issuance date of the
Board's 10(k) decision.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Respondent contends, as a procedural
matter, that the Bbard's finding of reasonable cause
in the 10(k) proceeding is not binding in a subse-
quent unfair labor practice proceeding and there-
fore it is entitled to a de novo review of the com-
plaint allegation that its filing of in-lieu-of claim's
was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D).3 The Re-'
spondent reiterates its &intention from the 10(k)
proceeding that its resort to the contractual griev-
ance procedure on an issue involving work juris-
diction is the agreed-on method of 'resolving dis-
putes under the PCLCD and thus is not threaten-
ing or coercive within the meaning of the Act. In
this regard, the Respondent also reiterates that its
claims for in-lieu-of pay were directed solely to
Bellingham Stevedoring and the PMA, not to the
Employer, and that its - purpose in making the
claims was to preserve for its members a remedy
2 "Time-in-lieu" appears to be used interchangeably with "in-lieu-or
for monetary claims made under the PCLCD
3 The Respondent admits that it did not notify the Regional Director
that it would comply with the Board's 10(k) decision It contends, how-
ever, that because it has not engaged in any conduct proscribed by Sec
8(b)(4)(n)(D) there is no basis for requinng a written assurance of compli-
ance with the I0(k) decision, that there is nothing coercive or threatening
about failing to send a letter, and that, even assuming that its failure to
notify the Regional Director constitutes a technical violation, such con-
duct does not warrant a remedial order
for lost work opportunities caused by Bellingham
Stevedonng's violation of the PCLCD. Finally, the
Respondent contends that the Supreme Court's
opinion in Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 103
S.Ct. 2161 (1983), precludes the Board from hold-
ing that ILWU's filing of in-lieu-of claims under its
contractual grievance procedure constitutes an
unfair labor practice which may be enjoined.
The General Counsel contends that the Respond-
ent's argument that its claims for in-lieu-of pay do
not constitute unlawful pressure to obtain a juris-
dictional assignment was previously litigated and,
in the absence of newly discovered evidence or a
change in the law, should not be reconsidered in
this proceeding. The General Counsel also con-
tends that the instant case is controlled by Long-
shoremen ILWU Local 32 (Weyerhaeuser Co.), 271
NLRB 759 (1984), which was pending before the
Board at the time the instant case was transferred
to the Board. The General Counsel further con-
tends that the Respondent's demands for in-lieu-of
pay from Bellingham Stevedoring effectively con-
stitute a demand for the disputed work in violation
of the 10(k) award. Finally, the General Counsel
contends that the Respondent's admitted refusal to
commit itself in writing to comply with the Board's
10(k) order is inconsistent with the Respondent's
contention that it has not demanded the disputed
work and constitutes a separate Section 8(b)(4)(D)
violation. The Employer takes a position consistent
with that of the General Counsel.
C. Discussion
As indicated above, in the Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute we found reasonable cause to
believe that ILWU's filing of in-lieu-of grievances
against Bellingham Stevedoring had an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the dis-
puted work to employees represented by ILWU
and that ILWU thereby was engaging in conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D). We determined that
ILWU was not entitled to use proscribed means to
force or require the Employer to assign the disput-
ed work to members of ILWU, and we further di-
rected ILWU to advise the Regional Director in
writing whether or not it would abide by the 10(k)
determination.
In this proceeding it is undisputed that ILWU
has continued to file grievances against Bellingham
Stevedoring seeking in-lieu-of pay for the work at
issue herein. It also is undisputed that ILWU has
failed to notify the Regional Director in writing
that it would comply with the 10(k) determination
although, as indicated above, 4 ILWU has denied
4 See fn 3 above
366

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it did not comply with the 10(k) determina-
tion. The Board has held that engaging in the same
or similar conduct which constituted the basis for a
10(k) determination constitutes proof of noncompli-
ance with the 10(k) determination. 5 Moreover, the
Board has required actual performance of the writ-
ten notice requirement of the determination.6,
We therefore find, contrary to ILWU's denials,
that ILWU has not complied with the 10(k) deter-
mination.
Having determined that the Respondent has not
complied with the 10(k) 'determination, we turn
now to the merits of the complaint allegation that
ILWU, by not complying with the 10(k) determi-
nation and filing in-lieu-of grievances against Bel-
lingham Stevedoring, engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D).
In its first affirmative defense and in its brief, the
ILWU seeks to place in issue the existence of a ju-
risdictional dispute. A review of the record in the
10(k) proceeding indicates that this issue was raised
and litigated in the 10(k) proceeding. As the Board
stated in Plaza Glass, above, 7 "It is settled that
issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceeding
may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding, alleging violations of Section
8(b)(4)(D) which are based in part on factual deter-
minations made in the 10(k) Proceeding." There-
fore, we find no merit in the Respondent's first af-
firmative defense.
In its second affirmative defense and in its brie(
ILWU seeks to place in issue the Board's finding in
the 10(k) proceeding that an object of its filing of
in-lieu-of grievances against Bellingham Stevedor-
ing was to force or require the Employer to assign
the disputed work to members of ILWU. In sup-
port 'of its position, ILWU reiterates its argument'
from the 10(k) proceeding that its sole purpose in
making the in-lieu-of claims was to pi-eserve for its
members a remedy for Bellingham Stevedoring's
continued violations of the PCLCD. ILWU also
relies on Aibitrator Forrester's decision in its favor
is further evidence . that its filing of grievances was
based on a legitimate contractual claim.
As we found in the 10(k) proceeding, , however,
ILWU's in-lieu-of claims were for the amount'that
ILWU members would have earned if they, and
not the Employer's AWPPW-represented employ-
ees, had been assigned the work in dispute. We also
found, based on evidence that Bellingham , Steve-.
doring had no control over the disputed work and
5 Iron Workers Local 595 (Bechtel Corp), 112 NLRB 812, 815 (1955)
6 Bechtel, above' at 817 See also Plumbers Local 741 (Ashton Co.), 259
NLRB 944, 946 (1982), Plumbers Local 195 (Texas Oil); 231 NLRB 525,
527 (1977), Iron Workers Local 433 (Plaza Glass), 218 NLRB 848, 849
(1975), enfd 549 F 2d 634 (9th Cu. 1977)
7 See also Teamsters 'Local445 (Blount Bros), 197 NLRB 46, 51 (1972)
that ILWU members never had been assigned such
work, that ILWU's grievances did not have a
"work preservation" object but rather were de-
signed to induce Bellingham. Steyedoring to put
pressure on the Employer to reassign t,he disputed
work to ILWU members. The post-10(k) hearing
issuance of Arbitrator Forrester's decision does not,
warrant a different finding regarding ILWU's
object. Neither the Employer nor AWPPW.Partici-
pated in or was bound , by that arbitration proceed-
ing!' Furthermore, it is - well settled that a 10(k) de-
termination by the Board takes precedence over an
arbitrator's contrary .award.° Thus, although Arbi-
trator Forrester's award , upheld ILWI,J's contrac-
tual claims, it does not alter the facts that Belling-
ham Stevedoring had no control over the work in
dispute and that such work remained at all material
times under the sole control of the Employer.
The consequences of ILWU's conduct are also
relevant to our determination of its object. It is ob-
vious that Bellingham Stevedoring. will suffer eco-
nomically if it is compelled to pay wages for work
not performed by its employees every time a ship-
ment of salt is unloaded for the Employer at the
Bellingham dock. Inevitably, to avoid the continu-
ing imposition of such a wage liability, Bellingham
Stevedoring would cease doing business with the
Employer or otherwise exert pressure on the Em-
ployer to force or require the Employer to change
its assignment of work.1°
In these circumstances, we find , that ILWU , has
used the filing of in-lieu-of grievances under the
PCLCD as an economic device against Bellingham
Stevedoring with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign the disputed work to
ILWU members." We further find that ILWU's
conduct in filing the in-lieu-of grievances amounted
to prohibited economic coercion." Therefore, we
reject ILWU's second affirmative defense.
8 Thus, even if the arbitrator's , award had Issued prior to the 10(k)
hearing, or if It had been brought to the Board's attention while the 10(k)
decision was pending, the Board would have afforded it little or no
weight in determining the . dispute
9 Carey v Westinghouse Corp, 375 U S (1964) See also Auto Workers v.
Rockwell Intel:tuitional Cork, 619 f. 2d 580 (6th Or 1980), in which the
court stated r
Once the NLRB decides a work assignment dispute, its determina-
tion takes prCcêclence over a contrary arbitratOrs award Carey v
Westinghouse Carp, 375 t U S 261, 84 S Ct 401, 11 L Ed 2d 320
(1964), NLRB v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers, supra, New
Orleans Typographical Union No 17 v NLRB, 368 F 2d 755 (5th Cir
1966) This is true regardless of which action was initiated first Dock
Loaders and Unloaders, ILA Local No 854 v Richeson & Sons, Inc ,
280 F Supp 402 (ED La 1968) In Carey, the Court specifically noted
that where a NLRB determination, and an arbitrator's award conflict,
the formers ruling would take precedence Further, "Rifle superior
authority of the Board may be invoked at any time" 375 U S at 272,
84 S Ct at 409 Accord, New Orleans.Typographical, supra
9, See Weyerhaeuser, above
1•1
12 See Teamsters Local 85 (Pacific Maritime), 224 NLRB 801, 805-808
(1976) See also Weyerhaeuser, above
LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 7 (GEORGIA -PACIFIC)

367
Based on all of the foregoing, we conclude that,
by filing the in-lieu-of grievances, ILWU has en-
gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D).
We also conclude that, by filing new in-lieu-of
grievances after the issuance of the Board's 10(k)
determination and failing to notify the Regional Di-
rector in writing that it would comply with the
10(k) determination, ILWU has failed to comply
with the Decision and Determination of Dispute
and thereby has continued to engage in conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D).1 3
Finally, regarding ILWU's third affirmative de-
fense that, based on the Supreme Court's decision
in Bill Johnson's, above, the Board is without au-
thority to enjoin it from filing its in-lieu-of claims,
we find that the Board's recent decision in Weyer-
haeuser is controlling. In Weyerhaeuser, the Board
rejected the respondent's argument that Bill John-
son's compelled a stay of the 8(b)(4)(D) proceed-
ings until such time as the courts resolved the re-
spondent's Section 301 suit seeking time-in-lieu
payments pursuant to an arbitration award. 14 Rely-
ing on Carey v. Westinghouse, above, the Board
found that the Section 301 suit, "which seeks to en-
force an arbitration award contrary to the Board's
10(k) award and also seeks to achieve a prohibited
objective," lacked a reasonable basis in fact and
law and therefore did not require a stay of the
unfair labor practice proceedings. Based on the
same reasoning, we reject the Respondent's third
affirmative defense and shall order the appropriate
injunctive relief.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bellingham Division, Georgia-Pacific Corpo-
ration is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 7, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union and Local
Union No. 194, Association of Western Pulp and
Paper Workers are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the
Act by: filing in-lieu-of claims for work performed
by members of AWPPW with an object of forcing
13 Ashton Co, above, Texas Oil, above
14 In Weyerhaeuser, the Board's "reasonable cause" finding in the un-
derlying 10(k) proceeding was based on a work stoppage by the union, a
sister local of the Respondent in the instant case After the Board's 10(k)
decision, -f: ported at 256 NLRB 167 (1981), an arbitrator ruled in favor
of the union's claim that the work in dispute should have been assigned
to its members and that its claim for time-In-lieu payments under the
PCLCD should be sustained The union thereafter submitted time-in-lieu
claims against the employer, Jones, but none of these were paid The
union subsequently filed a Section 301 suit to enforce the arbitration
award and to require PMA to pay damages in an amount equal to the
time-in-lieu payments referred to in the arbitration award
or requiring the Employer to assign the work, de-
scribed below, to employees represented by ILWU
rather than to employees represented by AWPPW;
and by failing and refusing to comply with the
Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute re-
ported at 267 NLRB 26 (1983). The work consists
of:
The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of
piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ-
er and located on a pier leased to the Employ-
er, during times when ships and barges con-
taining salt to be deposited on that pad are
being unloaded at the pier by employees of
Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are
represented by ILWU.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
we shall order it to cease and desist and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act. We also shall order the Re-
spondent to reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring
Company and the Pacific Maritime Association for
any in-lieu-of claims paid to the Respondent pursu-
ant to Washington Area Arbitrator Forrester's
award of 10 February 1983, with interest computed
in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB
651 (1977).15
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Local Union No. 7, International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Bel : -
lingham, Washington, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Filing in-lieu-of claims for work performed
by members of Local Union No. 194, Association
of Western Pulp and Paper Workers with an object
of forcing or requiring Bellingham Division, Geor-
gia-Pacific Corporation to assign the work de-
scribed below to employees represented by Local
Union No. 7, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union rather than to employees
represented by Local Union No. 194, Association
of Western Pulp and Paper Workers. The work
consists of:
The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of
piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ-
15 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
368

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er and located on a pier leased to the Employ-
er, during times when ships and barges con-
taining salt to be deposited , on- that pad are
being unloaded at the pier by employees of
Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are
represented by ILWU. —
(b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci-
sion and Determination of Diiiiiite reported at 267
NLRB 26 (1983). _
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies - of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and cease filing in-lieu-of claims
for the above-described work performed by mem-
bers of Local Union No. 194, Association of West-
ern Pulp and Paper Workers. -
(b) Reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring Company
and the Pacific Maritime Association - for any in-
lieu-of claims paid to the Respondent pursuant to
Washington Area Arbitrator Forrester's award of
10 February 1983. .
(c) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 - consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice
to the Regional Director for posting by Bellingham
Division, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, if it is will-
ing, at all locations on the jobsite where notices to
its employees customarily are posted.
16 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board"
(e) Notify _ the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT file "in-lieu-of' claims for work
performed by members of Local Union No. 194,
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers
with an object of forcing or requiring Bellingham
Division, Georgia-Pacific Corporation to assign the
work described below to employees represented by
our labor organization rather than to employees
represented by Local Union No. 194, Association
of Western Pulp and Paper Workers. The work
consists of:
The operation of bulldozers for the purpose of
piling salt on a salt pad owned by the Employ-
er and located on a pier leased to the Employ-
er, during times when ships and barges con-
taining salt to be deposited on that pad are
being unloaded at the pier by employees of
Bellingham Stevedoring Company who are
represented by ILWU.
WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the Board's
Decision and Determination of Dispute reported at
267 NLRB 26 (1983).
WE WILL withdraw and cease filing in-lieu-of
claims for the above-described work performed by
Local Union No. 194, Association of Western Pulp
and Paper Workers.
WE WILL reimburse Bellingham Stevedoring
Company and the Pacific Maritime Association for
any in-lieu-of claims paid to our labor organization
pUrsuant to Washington Area Arbitrator Forres:
ter's award of 10 February 1983, with interest.
LOCAL UNION NO. 7, INTERNATION-
AL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE-
HOUSEMEN'S UNION