LOS ANGELES -- A U.S. district court judge has sided with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and dismissed a lawsuit by waterfront employers that would have scrapped the traditional grievance process at West Coast ports.
This means that no matter how costly and troublesome waterfront employers find work stoppages to be, the job actions must continue to be settled through the arbitration process established under the West Coast waterfront contract.
The Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, wanted to make it more difficult for dockworkers to engage in what employers consider to be illegal work stoppages.
In the lawsuit it filed on Sept. 4, the PMA stated that dockworkers have abused the grievance procedure. Under that process, whenever dockworkers walk off the job, an arbitrator appointed jointly by the ILWU and PMA is called in to render a judgment.
Employers charged that the ILWU abused the system and the no-strike provision of the contract by engaging in more than 150 work stoppages the past two years. In its lawsuit, the PMA wanted the U.S. district court here to scrap the grievance procedure and appoint a "special master" who would be called in whenever there is a work stoppage.
If dockworkers violated the decision of the special master, the union would be held in contempt of court and subject to possible monetary damages under the proposal by the PMA.
U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder did not agree with the PMA's reasoning and granted a motion by the ILWU to dismiss the employers' lawsuit and preserve the traditional arbitration process.
The ILWU views Monday's court decision as a major victory that preserves a 60-year-old process by which waterfront employers and dockworkers handle their disputes internally rather than turning them over to the courts.
"The judge stated clearly, 'You have a contract and you have to live up to it,' " said Elizabeth Garfield, the attorney who represented the ILWU.
The ILWU, which has accused PMA President Joseph Miniace of attempting to settle waterfront disputes through litigation rather than negotiation, views the decision as upholding the collective bargaining process on the West Coast.
"Ignoring the long and successful tradition of working in partnership with the ILWU to build West Coast shipping, Miniace, a newcomer to the industry, has attempted to use the legal system to attack the ILWU," said Mike Mitre, a spokesman for ILWU Local 13 in Southern California.
The decision by Judge Snyder "is another example of the court telling Miniace that it will not be party to his tactics," Mr. Mitre said.
He was referring to two prior decisions in which the courts rejected requests by the PMA to prevent dockworkers from honoring picket lines, and to seek monetary damages when the ILWU engaged in walkouts. In all of these cases, Mr. Miniace said his intent was to make dockworkers accountable for illegal work stoppages. Every time longshoremen walk off their job, it costs a shipowner $15,000 to as much as $200,000 per eight-hour shift, the PMA said in its lawsuit.
The PMA charged in the lawsuit that the ILWU in recent years had created a "cultural attitude of lawlessness," and called job actions even when they knew in advance that the arbitrator would rule against the union.
The PMA sought relief from the court, saying its members lived with the constant possibility that the union would violate the no-strike provision of its contract. In seeking to have the PMA lawsuit dismissed, the ILWU stated that the employers' request would violate a law known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act. In her decision, Judge Snyder noted that only in rare cases have the courts granted injunctive relief to employers who sought to circumvent agreements reached through collective bargaining. When the issues can be arbitrated, that is the preferred action, the judge stated.
"Plaintiffs are essentially requesting a prophylactic injunction which will allow them to circumvent the arbitration procedure provided for in the collective bargaining agreement in the event of any work stoppages by defendants for any reason. This is clearly barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act," Judge Snyder said.
In her ruling, Judge Snyder gave the PMA 30 days to amend its complaint. This could give employers a chance to find an exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act that the court would consider acceptable.
"Clearly something must be done to stop these shenanigans," said Thomas A. Russell, an attorney with the Long Beach firm of Cogswell Woolley. "The PMA must see if there is an exception to Norris-Laguardia."
Mr. Miniace said the PMA, in some ways, achieved its objectives just by filing the lawsuit.
"The filing of the lawsuit was a wake-up call to the ILWU. We have seen a dramatic decrease in work stoppages and a remarkable increase in communication between our organizations since the suit was filed," he said.
For example, the PMA and ILWU have formed a committee to discuss ways that new technology can be introduced on the waterfront to improve productivity, Mr. Miniace said. The ILWU believes the decision could pave the way for smoother contract negotiations next spring. The current three-year contract expires on July 1, 1999.
The ILWU had stated all along that this lawsuit, and an earlier one involving the vessel Neptune Jade in Oakland, which the PMA recently dropped, were poisoning relations between the union and employers and would stand in the way of productive contract negotiations.
"This was all positioning for contract bargaining and designed to make the longshore division look bad -- based on nothing," ILWU President Brian McWilliams said.
Key employer-labor issues still remain, such as arbitration and dispatch procedures, but with both lawsuits out of the way, the ILWU and PMA can address the issues in the proper forum, which is contract negotiations, Mr. McWilliams said through a spokesman.
"There are still issues, but they are issues for negotiation, not litigation," he said.
