Shipping Firms Sue to Prevent Dock Strikes

Frustrated by more than 135 illegal union actions that have repeatedly idled West Coast ports since 1996, a powerful organization of shipping companies is seeking a court order to prevent dock workers from violating contract provisions designed to prohibit strikes and work slowdowns.

The Pacific Maritime Assn., which has about 110 member firms, sued in federal court this week to halt what it considers to be an alarming trend of improper walkouts, demonstrations and work stoppages that have cost shippers and consumers tens of millions of dollars.

“Illegal slowdowns, gimmicks and games have become daily fare for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union,” the lawsuit states. “As a result, productivity is poor at best and millions of dollars are lost each week by the ILWU’s contemptuous behavior.”

Named as defendants along with the union are Locals 13 and 63, which represent stevedores and marine clerks in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. About 10,000 West Coast dock workers belong to the union.

The union’s counterpart is the Pacific Maritime Assn., which negotiates and administers labor contracts on behalf of shipping lines, stevedore companies and terminal operators that hire dock workers.

Since the current contract went into effect in July 1996, the association has become increasingly aggressive about challenging work stoppages by dockworkers. So far, the association says, at least 135 slowdowns, walkouts and demonstrations staged by union members have been deemed illegal by arbitrators, according to the association’s research department.

Union officials said Friday that they cannot discuss specifics of pending lawsuits. Through a spokesman, however, union International President Brian McWilliams disputed the arbitration totals, calling them greatly exaggerated.

Downplaying the findings, McWilliams said that in many of the cases, union members were within their contractual rights to take action pending the decision of an arbitrator. In other cases, it was not clear at the outset of the work stoppage that union members were acting in violation of their contract.

Some waterfront observers contend that the association’s recent efforts against the union are an attempt to bolster the association’s position before contract talks begin next year.

Association President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph N. Miniace has repeatedly criticized the union for declining productivity and a lack of accountability. The problems, he says, could contribute to a decline in business at West Coast ports.

The lawsuit, which was filed at the U.S. District Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, does not seek any financial damages from the union. Instead, association attorneys want a permanent injunction to force the union to comply with its current labor contract with shippers.

At issue, they say, is a provision that states “there shall be no strike, lockout or work stoppage for the life” of the agreement. The contract also states that work shall continue during the processing of any grievance about an employer.

“The sense at [the association] is that over the last several years the no-strike clause has not been honored by the [union] and rendered almost useless,” said Dennis A. Gladwell, an attorney for the association.

*

Gladwell charges that dockworkers have flagrantly violated the current agreement and, in some cases, have refused to return to work when arbitrators determined that their actions were illegal.

The lawsuit specifically cites seven major work stoppages that were deemed illegal by either arbitrators or a committee of association and union members responsible for reviewing the legality of walkouts, slowdowns and the honoring of picket lines.

The most recent, and perhaps most egregious action, began on July 10, when a group of union members from Alaska set up roving pickets in the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to protest a dispute in Alaska.

Members of Local 13 and 63, who work in Long Beach and Los Angeles, honored the picket lines, shutting down some terminals for five hours. It was subsequently determined that the action was illegal because the Alaskan dockworkers had no dispute with shippers in Long Beach and Los Angeles.

Nevertheless, members of the two locals did not return to work until the picketers left the job site, the lawsuit states.

Three days later, the Alaskan dock workers set up picket lines in Portland, Ore., and Seattle, Wash. Union members in those ports honored the picket lines despite the earlier finding that such actions violated their contract. Arbitrators in both those ports determined that the work actions were illegal.

Then on July 27, the Alaskan dockworkers returned to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and picketed again. Ignoring the earlier ruling, members of Local 13 and 63 refused to cross the picket lines at several terminals.

The next day, union members in the Port of San Francisco disrupted terminal operations for 24 hours by refusing to cross picket lines set up by the Alaskan dockworkers. Again, an arbitrator ruled the action was illegal.

Association attorneys allege that the Alaskan case as well as other illegal work stoppages illustrate the union’s ability to thwart the grievance and arbitration process. By simply stalling an appeal of a decision, they say, the union can effectively delay enforcement of an arbitrator’s ruling.

In addition, the association charges that the union’s leadership has threatened the association with illegal 24-hour work stoppages if the union determines unilaterally that an employer is in violation of the contract.

According to the lawsuit, the union has indicated that it will make the determination and implement the strike without turning to the grievance or arbitration process to resolve the dispute.

“Repeating a pattern that is almost pathological, the unions continue to violate the no-strike clause with impunity, irrespective of arbitration awards that condemn the activity,” the lawsuit states.