Samson Tug & Barge, Co. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union
| Decision Date | 09 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:20-cv-00108-TMB,Case No. 3:20-cv-00248-TMB Consolidated |
| Parties | SAMSON TUG & BARGE, CO. INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION, ALASKA LONGSHORE DIVISION, and ILWU UNIT 222, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS & MOTION TO STRIKE
(DKT. 38)
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants International Longshore and Warehouse Union and ILWU Unit 222's (collectively, "ILWU") Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief and Motion to Strike Settlement Communication (the "Motion").1 The Motion (1) seeks to dismiss the Complaint2 filed by Plaintiff Samson Tug and Barge, Co., Inc. ("Samson") under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and (2) seeks to strike a confidential settlement communication under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(f).3 The Motion was fully briefed by the Parties,4 and the Court heard oral argument.5 For the reasons stated below, ILWU's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The background of this case is set forth in detail in the Court's Order at Docket 81 and will not be repeated here.6
ILWU is an unincorporated labor organization.7 ILWU is party to a multi-employer collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") called the All Alaska Longshore Agreement ("AALA")8 with employer Matson Navigation Company of Alaska ("Matson") and others.9 Matson purchased the terminal in Womens Bay in 2016 or 2017 from LASH Corporation ("LASH"), and Samson leases space from Matson at Womens Bay to conduct its operations there.10 After Matsonpurchased Womens Bay Terminal, it continued leasing the property to Samson under an amended month-to month lease.11
In its Complaint for damages, Samson argues ILWU has committed an unfair labor practice ("ULP") in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(D),12 and that as a result, Samson is entitled to damages and injunctive relief.13 Samson brings its Complaint under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 187, and 9 U.S.C. § 10.14
Samson states it has operated a fleet of tugs and barges, providing service among various Alaskan ports as well as ports in Seattle, Washington, and that it has operated at Womens Bay Terminal in Kodiak for approximately forty years.15 Samson has historically employed members of Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO ("MEBA") to work its docks, includingat Womens Bay.16 Samson acknowledges it is not a party to any agreements with ILWU.17 Samson states ILWU has "made a number of demands on Samson, a stranger to the Matson-ILWU collective bargaining agreement" including to "use ILWU represented employees to perform all of Samson's cargo operations at Womens Bay . . . rather than Samson's MEBA represented employees[.]"18 Samson alleges that "ILWU has also demanded that Matson apply the Coast Arbitrator's [D]ecision by terminating Samsons' Womens Bay lease thereby canceling Samson's occupancy of its terminal at Womens Bay if Samson does not use ILWU" members for Samson's Womens Bay operations or "pay ILWU's time in lieu charges."19 Further, Samson alleges, ILWU has used the Coast Arbitrator's Decision "to demand Samson use ILWU" members in its cargo operations at other ports, "including the waterside operations at Pier II, a separate Kodiak terminal."20
Samson alleges "ILWU's time in lieu charges are improper and part of a campaign to pressure Samson to use ILWU represented labor instead of its own MEBA labor," which Samson argues is an unfair labor practice in violation of 29 U.SC. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the LMRA.21
Samson states that an April 28, 2020 decision by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued pursuant to § 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(k), determined the jurisdiction of the two unions, ILWU and MEBA, for work at Pier II in Kodiak ("NLRB Decision" or "§ 10(k) Award").22 Samson notes that the NLRB Decision "grants Samson's MEBA employees the waterside cargo handling work at Pier II[.]"23 The NLRB Decision further recognizes the "decades long history of MEBA represented employees performing cargo operations at Womens Bay" and the issues that could result from replacing MEBA members with ILWU members in Samson's ocean-going cargo handling operations.24
Samson alleges that using ILWU labor for Samson's cargo handling operations at Womens Bay will disrupt Samson's "operations in other ports and affect Samson's ability to safely configure, load, and stow cargo, thereby affecting the safety of Samson's ocean-going cargo operations."25
Samson seeks damages of at least $200,683, which represents the amount Samson has paid so far to Matson in "time in lieu" charges, and that Matson has passed on to ILWU.26 Samson also states its remedy at law is inadequate because Samson is unable to continue paying these time in lieu charges and therefore seeks injunctive relief requiring ILWU "to cease demanding payment of these time in lieu charges."27 Samson alleges ILWU has submitted additional time card chargesfor cargo handling work performed by Samson's MEBA employees at Womens Bay.28 Samson alleges that the "time card sums claimed by ILWU are 290% of Samsons' actual labor expenses with its own employees."29 Samson alleges that continuing to pay ILWU's time in lieu charges is not financially sustainable and will cripple Samson's ability to continue existing service to its main hub port at Womens Bay."30
ILWU moves to dismiss Samson's Complaint for Damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief.31 ILWU argues Samson fails to allege any cognizable theory for relief under Section 303 because the Coast Arbitrator's Decision and the NLRB Decision do not conflict.32 ILWU argues that the NLRB Decision "merely resolved a jurisdictional dispute between ILWU and another union," MEBA, "at a different, publicly-owned dock, and [the NLRB Decision] is inapplicable to the work performed at Womens Bay Terminal."33 Even if the arbitration Decision and the NLRB Decision did conflict, "Samson fails to allege a claim against ILWU as the arbitration [Decision] applies only to Matson, who can choose to comply or pay contractualpenalties."34 ILWU argues Samson has no contractual obligations under the Coast Arbitrator's Decision.35
Further, ILWU argues that Samson fails to allege ILWU engaged in any "coercive" conduct necessary to state a claim under Section 303.36 Nevertheless, ILWU alleges, Samson attempts to rely on a confidential settlement communication between ILWU and MEBA, which must be stricken from the record.37
ILWU contends that Samson improperly attached to its Complaint an email from Dennis Young of ILWU to MEBA members, which constitutes "a confidential settlement communication" in an attempt to show coercion by ILWU in violation of the NLRA, § 8(b)(4)(ii)(D).38 ILWU argues that the attached communication "reveals an attempt to reach a resolution with MEBA in the face of [the Coast Arbitrator's] Order."39 ILWU argues this "settlement communication" is "inadmissible under [Federal Rule of Evidence] 408" and "should be stricken and not considered."40
Samson opposes ILWU's Motion, arguing that its Complaint states a properly pleaded claim for relief under Section 303 and should not be dismissed.41 Samson argues that its Complaint is not premised on a conflict between the Coast Arbitrator's Decision and the NLRB Decision regarding the operations at Pier II in Kodiak.42 Instead, Samson states, the NLRB Decision has been provided "only to show that Samson's claims that it needs to use its MEBA personnel for safe and efficient cargo handling on Samson's barges were established as correct after a contested 10k hearing."43
Samson argues its interests are affected in a "very substantial and concrete manner" because ILWU is using the arbitration Decision to pressure Matson to force Samson to pay time in lieu charges or to substitute ILWU members for Samson's MEBA employees.44
Samson argues it successfully states a plausible claim that ILWU is using the Coast Arbitrator's Decision "to coerce and force Samson to assign work to ILWU" and breach its obligations to MEBA.45 Samson argues this behavior, "when coupled with a wrongful intent or objective" constitutes a ULP in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii), which "makes it an unfair labor practice . . . 'to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object there is[]' to force an employer to deal with a particular labor organization" that does not represent its employees.46 Here, Samson argues,ILWU's intent is evinced by ILWU's conduct in attempting to obtain the work historically performed by MEBA employees through coercion.47 Samson also points to the March 5, 2020 email from Dennis Young, in which Young notes that Samson is in a "precarious month-to-month lease at Womens Bay" and "lists the options ILWU has discussed with Matson as various ways to leverage" the Coast Arbitrator's Decision to coerce Samson.48 Samson argues this email "may reasonably interpreted as evidence of intent by ILWU to use coercion to force Samson to give in to ILWU jurisdiction in other Alaska ports and give up the then undecided Pier II NLRB 10k claim - under threat of forced use of ILWU workers at Womens Bay or termination of Samson's lease."49
Samson also argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 408, evidence of settlement communications is inadmissible only to provide or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement.50 Here, Samson argues, the evidence of settlement is sought for another propose: "to show intent or 'an object of'...
To continue reading
Request your trial