Am. President Lines, Ltd. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union

• Decision Date: 18 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3:10–CV–00183 JWS.,3:10–CV–00183 JWS.
• Citation: 997 F.Supp.2d 1037
• Parties: AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, Alaska Longshore Division, Unit 60, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

997 F.Supp.2d 1037

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., Plaintiff,

v.INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, Alaska Longshore Division, Unit 60, Defendant.

No. 3:10–CV–00183 JWS.

United States District Court, D. Alaska.

Feb. 18, 2014.

Douglas S. Parker, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Portland, OR, Philip L. Ross, Littler Mendelson, San Francisco, CA, Sean Halloran, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff.

Raymond E. Goad, Jr., Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, Anchorage, AK, Eleanor I. Morton, Emily M. Maglio, Robert S. Remar, Leonard Carder, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER AND OPINION

[Re: Motion at docket 88]

JOHN W. SEDWICK, District Judge.

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 88, defendant International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Alaska Longshore Division, Unit 60 (“Defendant” or “ILWU”) moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment. Plaintiff American President Lines, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “APL”) opposes the motion at docket 94. Defendant's reply is at docket 100. Neither party requested oral argument, and it would not be of assistance to the court.

II. BACKGROUND

APL operates marine terminals in Alaska and ocean-going vessels that transport cargo. APL's primary port is in Dutch Harbor. APL is part of a multi-employer bargaining unit known as the Alaska Maritime Employers Association (“AMEA”). The only other current member of the AMEA is Horizon Lines. Prior to 2003, North Star Terminal and Stevedore Company (“North Star”) and Southeast Stevedoring Company (“SES”) were also part of the AMEA.

The ILWU is a labor union that represents all longshore workers in specified Alaska ports, including the Port of Seward. Unit 60 is a constituent unit of the ILWU that represents longshoremen in the port of Seward.

The AMEA and the ILWU are parties to a collective bargaining agreement known as the All–Alaska Longshore Agreement (“AALA”). North Star and SES are also parties to the AALA: prior to 2003 they were parties through their affiliation with AMEA and after 2003 they were individual signatory employers.

The AALA covers “[a]ll movement of cargo on vessels, or loading to and discharging from vessels of any type and on docks or to and from railroad cars.” ¹ Seward is identified in the agreement as an “ILWU Port.” The agreement also contains a work preservation provision, which states that the employer, which includes the AMEA and the individual signatory employers, “hereby assures [the ILWU] that it will use its best efforts to act in good faith in preserving as much as possible all of the work covered by [the AALA] for the registered work force.” ²

APL's large vessels cannot access many of Alaska's smaller ports, including the port in Seward. As a result, APL enters into connecting carrier agreements (“CCA”) with barge operators to move APL's export product from these smaller ports to Dutch Harbor. APL has a CCA with Samson Tug and Barge (“Samson”), pursuant to which Samson uses its barges to transport APL's shipping containers between Dutch Harbor and Seward. At Dutch Harbor, APL uses ILWU labor to load its empty containers onto Samson's barges. Once in Seward, Samson employees unload the empty containers on the docks for APL customers to fill with their export products, and then Samson employees reload filled containers on the barges to be transported back to Dutch Harbor. ILWU employees unload the containers from Samson's barges once they are back in Dutch Harbor.

Samson is not a member of AMEA, nor is it an individual party to the AALA. It does not employ ILWU labor in Seward but, rather, has its own workforce there. Its employees are represented by the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (“MEBA”) union. For some period of time prior to 2003, before it had its own workforce in Seward, Samson used North Star as a contractor to perform cargo handling in Seward. North Star, at that time a member of the AMEA and at all times a party to the AALA, used ILWU labor for that work. APL has never had any cargo-handling operations or employees of its own in Seward, and it is undisputed that ILWU labor never directly performed any cargo-handling operations for APL in Seward.³

In August of 2006, the ILWU filed a grievance against APL for APL's use of non-ILWU employees to offload APL containers in Seward and sought arbitration. The ILWU claimed that APL, through its CCA with Samson, had displaced ILWU workers in Seward with Samson's MEBA-represented workers in violation of the AALA's work preservation provision.

Arbitration was held based on written submissions in September 2006. The Alaska Arbitrator issued an award in the ILWU's favor, concluding that the AALA's work preservation provision required that APL assign the disputed work in Seward to the ILWU.⁴ Specifically, the Alaska Arbitrator found that the disputed loading work was previously done by the ILWU, and he found that APL controls who handles its cargo. He ordered APL to assign the work to the ILWU. APL made “in-lieu-of” payments with respect to the disputed work covered by the award and appealed. On appeal, the Coast Arbitrator remanded the case to the Alaska Arbitrator for a full evidentiary hearing.⁵

In the fall of 2008, after a full hearing, the Alaska Arbitrator concluded that there was no compelling evidence presented that would modify or change his original arbitration decision that the AALA required APL to assign its cargo-handling work in Seward to the ILWU.⁶ In a written decision, the Alaska Arbitrator found that ILWU workers had performed cargo-handling work in Seward through North Star, a signatory to the AALA.⁷ As a result of these findings, the arbitrator ordered APL to assign the cargo-handling work to ILWU's Unit 60. He also suggested ways in which APL could satisfy its obligation, but ultimately concluded that it was APL's decision as to how APL would comply.⁸

Rather than transition the work to the ILWU as ordered, APL continued to make “in-lieu-of” payments and appealed the renewed decision, arguing that implementation of the Alaska Arbitrator's award would require it to violate section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).⁹ The Coast Arbitrator determined that “as a precondition to appealing his decision in the case,” APL had to actually assign the work in question to the ILWU, consistent with the Alaska Arbitrator's award.¹⁰

APL filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). It alleged that the arbitrator's award violated section 8(e) of the NLRA and that the ILWU violated sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the NLRA ¹¹ by pursuing an unlawful interpretation of the AALA. The NLRB General Counsel's Division of Advice concluded that APL's allegations lacked merit because the ILWU's grievance and the resulting arbitration award were lawful.¹² The NLRB Regional Office dismissed APL's charges,¹³ and APL's appeal to the Central Office of Appeals was denied.¹⁴

APL then filed the current action under section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”),¹⁵ which permits an employer to sue for damages in federal court for any unfair labor practice defined in section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA. APL asserts in its complaint that the ILWU violated subsections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) when it advanced an interpretation of the work preservation provision that would force APL to enter into an illegal agreement with Samson or force it to cease doing business with Samson. The court dismissed the complaint after concluding that APL lacked the requisite standing. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back for determination on the merits. On remand, the ILWU filed its motion for summary judgment.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” ¹⁶ The materiality requirement ensures that “only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” ¹⁷ Ultimately, “summary judgment will not lie if the ... evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” ¹⁸ However, summary judgment is mandated under Rule 56(c) “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” ¹⁹

The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.²⁰ The moving party need not present evidence; it need only point out the lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact. ²¹ Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.²² All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of summary judgment and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.²³ However, the non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial. ²⁴

IV. DISCUSSION

APL brings suit against the ILWU pursuant to section 303 of the LMRA ²⁵ to recover damages stemming from the arbitration instigated by ILWU, which APL alleges was an illegal unfair labor practice under sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the NLRA.²⁶

Both subsections (A) and (B) prohibit union coercion. Subsection (A) prohibits coercing an employer to enter into an agreement which is prohibited by section 8(e) of the NLRA.²⁷ Section 8(e) prohibits “hot cargo” agreements, which are agreements where a union and an employer agree that the employer will not handle the goods of another or will cease doing business with another person and include “union signatory” agreements that prohibit...