DOCK LOAD. & UNLOAD., LOC. U. NO. 854 v. WL Richeson & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1968
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 66-767.
• Parties: DOCK LOADERS AND UNLOADERS OF FREIGHT CARS AND BARGES, ILA LOCAL UNION NO. 854, as an entity and as the representative of all of its members affected herein, and Leonard Steib, Mack Hunt, John Dunbar and Ernest Dede, Plaintiffs, v. W. L. RICHESON & SONS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

280 F. Supp. 402

DOCK LOADERS AND UNLOADERS OF FREIGHT CARS AND BARGES, ILA LOCAL UNION NO. 854, as an entity and as the representative of all of its members affected herein, and Leonard Steib, Mack Hunt, John Dunbar and Ernest Dede, Plaintiffs, v. W. L. RICHESON & SONS, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 66-767.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division.

February 13, 1968.

Alvin B. Jones, Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Michael J. Molony, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant.

John W. Ormond, New Orleans, La., for General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 270.

RUBIN, District Judge:

The defendant, W. L. Richeson & Sons, Inc. (Richeson), is engaged in the business of ocean freight forwarding. It handles shipments both for import and export. It employs members of both the General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 270 (The Teamsters) and the Dock Loaders and Unloaders of Freight Cars and Barges, ILA Local Union No. 854 (The ILA), and it has maintained a collective bargaining relationship with both unions for over ten years.

In addition to the many other phases of its business, Richeson handles the shipment of large rolls of newsprint paper. In this operation, the newsprint rolls are imported into this country from Canada and Finland and discharged directly from ships onto the top floor of the Poydras Street Wharf on the river front in the City of New Orleans. This work is handled by members of the ILA employed by a stevedoring company. The paper is stored in the Poydras Street Wharf and delivered in small quantities as it is called for by the customers of the paper companies. The rolls of newsprint are shipped to customers of the companies for whom they are stored either by truck or rail car.

The work assignment in dispute in this case involves the movement of the rolls from the top floor of the Poydras Street Wharf to the trucks. Essentially, there are four separate operations involved in the movement of these paper rolls. Because of the size and weight of the rolls, they must be moved from their location on the second floor to the edge of an opening on the second floor by a forklift truck. The rolls are then hooked onto a crane and lowered by the crane operator onto the bed of the truck or rail car.¹ After the rolls are placed on the rail car or truck, they are unhooked from the crane by a Richeson employee. The basic dispute precipitating this litigation is whether the employees represented by the Teamsters or by the ILA should operate the forklift and hook and unhook the rolls of newsprint.

Prior to October, 1965, there was a ramp leading to the second floor of the defendant's facility and the rolls of newsprint were transported by forklift from the second floor storage area directly to the bed of the trucks. However, in October 1965, the ramp was removed and the present method of loading was put into effect. Under both the old and the new systems of loading, the work in dispute has been performed principally by employees represented by the Teamsters.

After the change in operation, the ILA informed the defendant that it claimed the work of operating the forklift and hooking and unhooking the rolls.

When the ILA claim was rejected, it filed a grievance pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement with the defendant.² This resulted in a determination by the grievance committee awarding the operation of the forklift and the hooking operation to the ILA.³

After the award was made, the ILA filed suit in State court alleging that the defendant had violated its collective bargaining agreement with the ILA by refusing to assign the disputed work to its members. Then plaintiffs⁴ filed this action under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947⁵ alleging that the defendant had breached its collective bargaining agreement with the ILA by assigning these jobs to members of the Teamsters, and by refusing to remove members of that union from the disputed jobs and to replace them with members of the ILA pursuant to the grievance committee decision. The plaintiffs sought damages and a preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to assign the disputed work to the ILA.

On February 28, 1967, the defendant advised the Teamsters that in order to protect itself from any liability arising out of the suit pending in this Court, the defendant would not employ Teamsters members to perform the disputed work after March 10, 1967. On March 2, 1967, the Teamsters replied by notifying the defendant that they continued to claim the disputed work and that, in support of this claim, the union had filed a grievance under its contract with the defendant. On March 6, 1967, the Teamsters sent a telegram to the defendant stating that if the Teamsters members were not permitted to continue performing the disputed work, the union would strike and picket as of March 13, 1967. Thereafter a Section 10(l)⁶ injunction proceeding was instituted in this Court; this resulted in a stipulation by the parties not to engage in acts of picketing pending the outcome of the litigation.

In the meantime, on March 7, 1967, the defendant filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.) alleging that there was a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act. A Section 10(k)⁷ hearing was held, and, on August 1, 1967, the N.L.R.B. issued its decision awarding the work to the Teamsters. The defendant then brought the present motion "to dismiss and/or for summary judgment." It contends that (1) the N.L.R.B. decision takes precedence over the result reached by the grievance committee, and (2) since the defendant's work assignment was in accordance with the N.L.R.B. decision, it is not liable for damages under Section 301.

The defendant asserts, and the plaintiffs concede, that the N.L.R.B. determination of the work assignment dispute is a final decision for purposes of determining whether the defendant's motion is premature. The Court agrees. Any other conclusion would lead to the anomalous result of allowing the losing party in the 10(k) proceeding to prevent the employer from reaping the full benefit of that proceeding, since review of the 10(k) decision can be had only if the losing union commits an unfair labor practice⁸ — an event entirely within the control of the losing union. Therefore, I turn now to a consideration of whether the action of the N.L.R.B. in awarding the disputed work to employees of the defendant represented by the Teamsters bars an award of damages to the plaintiffs.⁹

There would seem to be no question that, as between a grievance committee award...