Hiring Plan to Settle Bias Suit Assailed

A proposed settlement to hire more female longshore workers in the county’s ports encountered strong criticism in federal court Thursday, as opponents called the agreement inadequate for women and biased against men.

The settlement would require the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to increase the proportion of women in its ranks from 20% to 25% over the next six years in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

But in court, male longshore workers contended that the pact would continue an alleged pattern of reverse discrimination, while a group of female dockworkers argued that the agreement failed to address millions of dollars in lost wages they claim to have suffered.

“There has been no discrimination,” said Dan Imbagliazzo, a longshoreman and member of the union’s executive board. “The court is about to put the ILWU between a rock and a hard place. Men who want to get into the union will likely sue us.”

Opponents and proponents of the settlement appeared in court during a fairness hearing before District Judge Robert M. Takasugi, who must decide whether to approve the controversial settlement. He said he will issue his ruling Jan. 22.

More than 100 longshore workers, union officials, attorneys and shipping officials packed Takasugi’s courtroom.

If approved by the court, the proposed settlement will end a civil contempt action against the dockworkers union and the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents more than 100 terminal operators, stevedore companies and shipping lines on the West Coast.

The maritime association, which negotiates and administers labor contracts for members, is the counterpart of the longshore union.

Last year, a group of female dockworkers accused both institutions of failing to meet a 20% hiring goal for women established by a 1983 federal consent decree. The decree resulted from the settlement of a sexual discrimination case filed in 1980.

Since then, female union members have steadily increased from seven in 1983 to more than 700 today, changing an industry that was traditionally male. Union locals now have about 5,400 members.

In the current contempt action, attorney Michelle A. Reinglass, who represents a class of female dockworkers, argued that the proportion of women registered in the union never exceeded 17% of the total membership--a violation of the consent decree.

She contended that the union and association ignored several categories of longshore work when determining compliance with the decree. As a result, Reinglass contends that Locals 13 and 63 are short 166 women.

“The settlement is imminently fair to all parties,” she told Takasugi. “Three of four union registrations will still go to males. Their rights will not be trampled on.”

Challenging Reinglass was a group of casual longshoremen who contend that the settlement is illegal and will continue a pattern of reverse discrimination that began with the original consent decree.

To gain entry into the longshore union, dockworkers must serve apprenticeships as so-called casuals. Those who have compiled the most hours in that capacity are generally eligible for union registration when positions open up.

They charged in court that they had to work two to four shifts for every one shift a woman worked to enter the union, which they described as unfair.

“My clients are being force-fed an agreement that will greatly affect them,” said Carmen Trutanich, an attorney representing more than 20 casual longshoremen. “They are not asking for a preference. They are asking for equality.”

Trutanich has asked Takasugi to let the casual longshoremen intervene in the case so the court can address their allegations of reverse discrimination. Trutanich says his group will consider a lawsuit if their request is denied.

In another challenge, a group of female longshore workers, led by attorney Walter Cochran-Bond, urged Takasugi not to approve the contempt settlement because it does not go far enough.

The women said the settlement fails to address the enormous wage losses they have suffered because the union and maritime association have been slow to convey union status on female casuals in their attempt to comply with the consent decree.

Cochran-Bond estimates that more than 600 women have lost at least $70 million in pay--an amount that will not be recovered by the settlement. The women have asked Takasugi to let them intervene as plaintiffs in the case so they can pursue their damages’ claim.

Dennis Gladwell, an attorney for the maritime association, said that by elevating hundreds of women into the union under the settlement, substantial economic benefits that outweigh the alleged loss of wages will go to the plaintiffs.