Reply from ILWU agent, Richard Olson, the.one.and.ole@xxxxxxxxx:
Jim D asks:
"So what is going on with the ILWU Longshoremen members crossing a
Strike Picket line in Los Angeles?"
and "What happened to UNITY and SOLIDARITY?"
I would just refer you to our collective bargaining agreement, the Pacific
Coast Longshore Contract Document, Jim, but the history of the thing is so
very interesting.
The Harry Bridges legend doesn't include him getting his ears pinned back
too often but in 1939 another legendary figure just that.
In 1939 there was a lingering fear of an encore of the bloody occurrences of
the "Big Strike" which ended when the parties agreed to adhere to the
decision of a federal arbitration board only 4 years earlier. (So Harry's
legend has already begun.) The arbitration that settled the '34 strike was
actually our first contract. Our agreement has followed that document's
format ever since. Much of its language has remained verbatim in our
PCLCD to this day. In those early days, it wasn't a matter of enforcing a
contract. The first Coast-wise contract was just beginning to be negotiated
at the time this story takes place. It was a matter of enforcing a Federal
Arbitration.
Enter Legend Number 2:
Wayne Morse was already well known as the youngest law school dean in the
nation. He had also recently developed a sterling reputation at settling
labor disputes. There's so much more to say about this boy that it would
take a book or two. However, VERY briefly: Later, as SENATOR Wayne Morse,
he would fight Joe McCarthy and his band of witch-hunting thugs. He
would vehemently oppose the passage of the Taft-Hartley Bill as an illegal
infringement on worker's rights and eventually be one of the only two
legislators in the country to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In
the process of doing such things he also became the only Republican US
Senator to return the next term as a Democrat, An interesting guy, is an
understatement.
Oh yeah, there's yet another legend with a major part here:
That would be Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins, the first woman to hold a
cabinet post. Always a champion of working folk, she had talk FDR into
disregarding the shipping nabobs and California's Governor pleading with him
to send Federal troops to stop the '34 strike. Also in 1939, she became
the only woman OR Secretary of Labor ever to be impeached. The House
Un-American Activities Committee filed an impeachment resolution against
her for refusing to deport Harry Bridges as an undesirable alien. That
rounds out the cast. Lets get to the plot:
Ms. Perkins gets wind of young Dean Morse's reputation and appoints him to
arbitrate disputes between the ILWU and our West Coast employers.
Morse accepts the job, moves to San Francisco, and starts arbitrating.
Early October, 1939, the vessel CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, docks in San Francisco
Bay, Marine Clerks picket the ship, Harry Bridges tells longshoremen not to
cross the picket line and, not surprisingly, the employers have a problem
with that.
Wayne Morse arbitrates the matter--(3 days of proceedings/208 page
transcript)--and orders the Longshoremen back to work.
Harry has Longshoremen respect the picket anyway.
Morse quits, packs his bags, goes home to his nice little home at the
University of Oregon and flat out won't come back unless Harry agrees to
honor arbitration awards instantly and unconditionally.
Not without a strong measure of guidance from Secretary Perkins (presumably
including sharp reminders of how very ugly the alternatives to Wayne Morse
might be) Harry agrees to Wayne's terms. Not without a strong measure of
convincing from Secretary Perkins (that Harry was on the level), Morse
agrees to be reappointed to the job, In short, Morse went out on strike
against Harry Bridges--and he won!
Here's a link to photos of the telegrams that settled the matter:
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/exhibits/morse/assets/Panel3/Telegraphs.htm
Now, you have to admit that is a cute story .... but what does it have to do
with the issue in Long Beach this week?
The day that Wayne Morse wrote that arbitration in October of 1939 was the
birthday of the picket language in our contract today. (Sam Kagel once
stopped a Coast Arbitration in the middle of the hearing to explain this to
me.) That language, crafted by Coast Arbitrator Morse in 1939, sets down the
criteria, still unchanged in today's contract, by which we can LEGALLY honor
a picket line. That contractual right to honor other union's pickets was a
landmark achievement. Even today, how many contracts include such
provisions? Imagine how many did 60-70 years ago.
Now, in order to bargain that right into being, we had to agree on a
definition of exactly what it was that we had the right to honor. We needed
such details as what the picket sign says, who is is carrying it and why
they are there in the first place. Nobody was going to agree that we would
stop work whenever we saw a picket sign, including us!
I believe it was Thoreau that wrote "all paths lead to water." We work where
the paths meet the water. Think about the implications. Once, after a Coast
Arbitration over a picket line, Rich Austin made the point very well. He
observed that, if we didn't have any limits to what pickets we could honor,
that if just anybody could show up with a sign and stop shipping, we would
never be able to work at all. We'd be honoring picket lines all the time.
That's so true, WE need those details spelled out too.
So what are those details? Well, in his landmark January 10,1966 decision
Coast Arbitrator Sam Kagel succinctly summarized:
(That's probably a redundant statement--Sam was never anything but
succinct.)
------------------------------------
*This provision specifically defines a bonafide and legitimate picket line.
This definition is in detail and is clearly stated. In order for a picket
line to be legitimate and bonafide so that it can be observed by
longshoremen and clerks without violating the Agreement it must, according
to Section 11.51 of the Agreement, fit the following description:
1. That it is a picket line established and maintained by a union acting
independently of the ILWU longshore locals;
2. That the picket line that longshoremen and clerks may observe is about
the premises of an employer with whom the picketing union is engaged
in a bonafide
dispute over wages, hours or working conditions of the employees which it
represents;
3. That the picketing union must represent a majority of the employees as
the collective bargaining agency for whom it is engaged in a bonafide dispute
over wages, hours or working conditions.
Unless the picket line meets all of these criteria it is not a legitimate
and bonafide picket line as defined in the Agreement.*
------------------------------------
We lost that arbitration. Kagel, as always, in no uncertain terms, explained
why-:
------------------------------------
*It was the responsibility of the Union to establish that the picket lines
involved met the criteria which the Union and the Employers set forth in
Section 11.51 as defining a legitimate and bonafide picket line. A picket
line which could be observed by longshoremen and clerks without being in
violation of the Agreement. This was not established.*
------------------------------------
That's a lot of background, but remember, some folks, without considering
any of this, have already decided that there must be something wrong with
the longies in "Los Angeles." A little more reading BEFORE writing and the
picket location might even have been correctly identified as Long Beach
rather than LA, but who has that kind of time to waste when you are in such
a rush to bad-mouth your brothers and sisters? (Thank you, Kristi, for being
the voice of reason in that respect.)
When all else fails, refer to the contract! <-- Venerable motto for Business
Agents.
So, let's try to establish what we have agreed it is our obligation to
establish about the picket being discussed here.
Criterion 1.
Is this a picket line established and maintained by a union acting
independently of the ILWU longshore locals?
No. There was no Union whatsoever involved with establishing or maintaining
this picket.
Criterion 2.
Is this a picket about the premises (a) of an employer with whom the
picketing union (b) is engaged in a bonafide dispute over wages, hours or
working conditions of the employees which it represents?
(a) Re the premises: Arguably Yes, arguably No.
The picketers work for New Bridge Logistics, a company that they maintain is
owned by Hyundai. (So far, I haven't been able to document that.)
The company that occupies the premises (and holds the Port of Long Beach
leases for the terminal) is California United Terminals (CUT).
CUT's "parent company" is Hyundai Merchant Marine (America), Inc. (That is
well documented.)
Our controlling language on the matter of one company owning another comes
from the Coast Arbitration Award of October 9, 1975.
In that decision, Kagel states:
------------------------------------
*In short the fact of ownership by itself is not sufficient to claim an
extension of a Company's premises. There must be shown an extension of the
struck Company's strike activities to a location other than the primary
situs of the strike as to provide a clear and logical basis for holding that
the Company, by its actions, extended or enlarged the situs of the strike;*
*The claim of so-called "decisive influence", based solely on "ownership" by
a parent corporation, is not enough to nullify Section 11.51. There must be
an affirmative showing that the conduct of the struck Employer has extended
the arena of the strike to premises other than its primary situs.*
------------------------------------
In this case, one can't even make the "ownership" claim directly. At best,
it could only be shown that the site is occupied by a company that is owned
by the same company that owns the company that employs the strikers. As to
the "affirmative showning" Kagel insists is mandatory, I don't see anything
that would convince.
(b) No. There was no picketing union representing anyone.
Criterion 3.
Does the picketing union (a) represent a majority of the employees as the
collective bargaining agency (b) for whom it is engaged in a bonafide dispute
over wages, hours or working conditions (c)?
(a) No. There is no picketing union.
(b) No. There is no collective bargaining agency representing a majority of
the employees.
(c) Maybe . The dispute may not even be over wages, hours or working
conditions. I give this a *week* maybe because the action, as explained to
me *by one of the picketers*, was mostly due to a broken promise about some
sort of a fuel subsidy. Which would seem to indicate that at least *some* of
the picketers are subcontracting owner-operators,
Remember that Sam Kagel has told us,*"Unless the picket line meets all of
these criteria it is not a legitimate and bonafide picket line..."*
**
That means that we need no less than three (3) unqualified YES answers to
those questions in order to honor that particular picket line.
Unless someone in Florida is counting, what we have here is four (4)
absolute NOs and one and a half (1 1/2) MAYBEs.
No honest person knowing these facts would claim this to be a valid picket
under the provisions of the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document. Of
course, that needn't stop us. We all have sympathy with the strikers here.
We COULD honor the picket simply on that basis, knowing all the while
that the arbitration to
follow would immediately and inevitibly find us to be in violation of the
agreement.
However, we are negotiating our contract at this very moment. I can't see
what benefit might be derived from proving to the employer OR to the world
at large that we won't adhere to provisions in that contract that we agreed
to two generations ago...
,,,,but then again, why would anyone care about my thoughts on the matter?
This whole discussion started out with my concept of unity and solidarity
being questioned by someone that doesn't know me from Adam.
frats,
ole