# Appendix — National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1534%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 444 U.S. 1042 ## Text APPENDIX VOLUME I—(pp. 1-234) Iu the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1979 No. 79-1082 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner —vV.— INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO AND CoUNCIL OF NoRTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ASSOCIATIONS, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 10, 1980 CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 21, 1980 he “Siicnaneen Iu the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1979 No. 79-1082 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner — a INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO AND COUNCIL OF NoRTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ASSOCIATIONS, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT INDEX Page Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries in Case Nos. a i emandntinnes ; 1 Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries in Case Nos. PISSED RIE AE ee eC COR 3 Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings in Case Nos. 8 REESITSER EAS SIRE Sp Sided “a ae 6 Witnesses: Jack W. Mace GREETS ESOT NR SCLC OF SRE aE ACLS ON 8 RCSD RAISES Si Se RC AA 17 aR FET OR fe AIRE 27 ea ae 17 EE RE eT SES ay SEN ER nan aE 19 Cletus E. Houff AE Se SUBIR ce lO TERS eR 22 Ee TSR wi SOS Ce ak ROT Se Ee IS 33 ii INDEX Page Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings in Case Nos. 5-CC-791, et al—Continued Witnesses :—Continued a Myles E. Billups ae eR Nee PP Rela rl 36 Sp aS NISHA SIT ARCS ore Neer DEE eR Pee 39 A Stal ie ee 41 Otis Landis REA AS RIN Redeem D ON UR! Oa Me CANO 42 Arthur Baker aa ntainccisltichisareienge eee t aka eo! abate 46 PI cielliiia Sheila Neiiectlapbe ee ek cue i" Ae MR SW) 48 oi LE ERED SEDI AOS Ye SAMA ETT 49 TRIER eC LAT RAEN Se SE RON VETS 50 John Everett EES RB RESIS RS Ne rte a Nerd eRe 50 ae RRS EES a DME Ne Bathe Ue ae Cae 54 ei. SER A See ER OER MS eC 56 Edward G. Bochert A AERETIEENL CM SR oe eR i A Te 56 SSCS SSSR RE a SN EE 65 ah CS SEI CORRS a a ne A 65 Robert W. McCleskey BAS a ES an te cms ZN 67 es EE AED ERG PORES OO ME TENG Tee 72 M. L. Chadwick ERS SS RT EY aptamer? LaPeer S 72 hs BIER A ARC IR CAR aA SRS ch seg CoO RaRy 74 FASE Saeed gee ne De tae WA ERE CS Ae AA 75 Allie S. McNeil ATES REET ER TRON SS Meee Gab Law PY ee Ly ban ee 76 ns UT CST A on ae eras AE a ae ee 86 ES ee RE OOP IT TORE eS 87 George L. Maier FUREY AEP ee Sk ET Ae AR 88 ete MDA NIE ROS. EAE IEEE CT; DN SLES 91 ARTETA TREN ee SOENSIORE et 28 eae ROEN TTA SORE 106 INDEX iii Page Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings in Case Nos. 5-CC-791, et al—Continued Witnesses :—Continued Capt. John M. Haynes aca NE ONT PAD AROR EEE 108 SII ithcheeeinotitnniesnpakdnieteeusenalozaas aera is neem aaa 125 tire sucess Me Ce 126 TY iiSihara séihasinutnuiwedacndaciaciai eae ae 132 I aictiiciacndscsletetventedonaeadaga eens nee ee 133 James J. Dickman SPINY cxsssscasitiorninmigshidepinaiupiedigsiituase cee aa ee 134 RAID ncn siensssndiolindcschesdvoiendimasliciaseidienncia daa: eae ele 142 Thomas W. Gleason, Sr. acca EDR II LI SARE RY, 149 NY. ostinssscnssisiehiaGcilicekwneakencdatekaion ce Caen 152 Richard Hughes SPOR Shi phcoiniesmebacabndidincclicbieaale ks men eae _ 159 A sass ccnp dati enichinhllipnidaepnanasgantd ad at en 161 FONE SB iii ccc ee ee 164 Alvah J. Merritt hae Ee EL NLR TAS SD OT 168 RAPID sac sscecionesestioaisacsonblstia scseekas tide sata aie 171 PT OUI sis csimcisaroipata bist ig ak ee ines 173 Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings in Joint Exhibit 1 in Case Nos. 5-CC-791, et al. Witnesses : Jack W. Mace a NT OTRO AR AEF eR 176 dag ERROR ENOL: Tine ee 179 vpitsiciig RMR GET, 181 Cletus E. Houff cian ETE pe, 182 CE Te NOMA EEE e 188 Edward G. Bochert sata NE LEI OO) oy 190 al ee NT MON RAS ate Se 199 iv INDEX Page INDEX Vv Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings in Joint Exhibit 1 Page in Case Nos. 5-CC-79, et al.—Continued ; General Counsel’s Exhibits—Continued Witnesses :—Continued Ee a eaiecedndiss taedbetalaaitiebn ae hidtkan is sheinae bids Gace 0 Reino aaa eh 344 A. 8S. McNeil ID * * * [81] Q The question reflects, on page 65, is there any provision in number one, two and three which specifically states that ILA has the right to strip full shippers loads at the pier area. : A It states that containers which are destined to a beneficial owner, full shippers loads need not be stripped at the pier area. Q Allright. Now, you talked about full shippers loads being exempt from being stripped at the pier area, is that correct? A Yes, sir. [82] Q All right. Now, let’s first start out in 1965 when containers first came into the Hampton Roads area. Is it not a fact that containers which were destined to a point beyond a 50-mile radius of the port area were not stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? A Well, first, the containers that moved through the port in 1965 probably could be counted on your hands. There were a few containers, and there were no set rules in the port at that time. The numbers were just insignificant. Most of them were so-called Conex boxes. Q But you said that containers did come in in 1965, is that correct? A There were a few that passed through the port. Q All right. If they were a full shippers load destined to a beneficial owner more than 50 miles from the port area, is it not a fact that they were not stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? A Unless they were ordered to be stripped. Q Okay. Now, let’s get into that. When you say, unless they were ordered to be stripped, is it not a fact that this would occur when the container was in transit and the container was changed from a house to house movement to a house to pier movement? A This could be a true example, yes. Q So if the container remained a full shippers load, house [83] to house movement, is it not a fact in 1965 13 that it was not stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? A That’s correct. * * * * [90] Q Now, let’s go back to review 1965, 1966 and 1967. If you had containers similar to the containers within this case, is it not a fact they would not be stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? A We did not have any rules on the handling of con- tainers during those years. Q To your knowledge, if you had those types of con- tainers, is it not a fact that they would not be stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? If you know. A It would be only an assumption. I don’t know. Q_ In other words, you’re not sure because there wasn’t rules on containers. A That’s right. Q And you don’t know from your own personal knowledge? A That’s correct. Q Okay. Let’s go to ine 1968 contract, again, if you would. Keeping in mind the definition that you have given as [91] to the types of containers involved in this case, tell me if the rules on containers in 1968 specifically state that the ILA would strip those types of containers which you have just defined to the Court. A I think the contract is pretty clear stating which containers are to be stuffed and stripped at the pier and which would move on. Q Is there anything that you see in the rules which specifically gave the right of the ILA to strip full ship- pers loads destined to a beneficial owner more than 50 miles—excuse me, going to the beneficial owner beyond the 50-mile radius? A No. Q_ Now, turn to General Counsel’s Exhibit 3, the 1971 contract. Turn to page 66. Now, is it not a fact that those rules in the 1971 contract are identical to the rules on containers in the 1968 contract? A That is correct. 14 Q Once again I ask you, keeping in mind the defini- tion that you have told us with respect to the containers involved in this case, is it not a fact there is nothing in the rules on containers which state that the ILA can ship full shippers loads going to a point more than 50 miles from the port area? A No, there’s nothing in the rules. * * * * [92] Q Now, is it not a fact that ILA used Rule 1(a) (3) and 2(b) (2) as the rules which they alleged were the violations against the employer members of the Hamp- ton Roads Shipping Association? A That is correct. Q And that was negotiated for the first time in June of 1974 to be inserted in the October 1, 1974, contract? A Rule 1(a) (3) in the ’74 contract is new wording; however, the concept did not change. It says, “for con- tainers going [93] to a point outside of the 50-mile radius not be stripped.” Q Okay. So the concept you’re saying is that when a full shippers load comes-into the pier that it is not stripped by deepsea ILA labor when it is going to a point more than 50 miles beyond the port area. A That’s correct. * * * * [96] Q Now, within those rules, there is a 30-day warehousing clause rule known as 2(b) (4), is that correct? A That’s correct. Q And that’s in the October, 1974, contract? A That’s correct. Q Would you for the Court describe what that 30- day warehousing clause was? A Basically, it says on inbound cargo in the normal course of movement of such cargo, it may be warehoused for a period not less than 30 days on which normal ware- housing charges are paid; and the container then would be exempt from being stripped at the pier and may be stripped at the warehouse. 15 MR. ROSENSTEIN: Rule 2(b) (4), Your Honor, in the 1974 contract. Q (By Mr. Rosenstein) Now, during the period of time of the suspension on the rules on containers with respect to the 30-day warehousing clause, is it not a fact that the containers that would normally go into the ware- house were being stripped at the pier by deepsea ILA labor? [97] A Well, they were not going to the warehouse. Whether they, in fact, were being stripped at the pier, I don’t know; but that operation was suspended. * * & * [98] Q All right. Next, you mentioned that, upon order, full shipper loads might be stripped at the pier prior to 1968. If you know, what circumstances would call for that stripping? A I guess if the cargo changed ownership during ocean transfer oy any number of reasons. Q Would there be any possible reason, other than the fact that all of the cargo in that container was not going to the same place? A You could say anything is possible, I guess. Q Well, can you identify another reason that that container would have been stripped? A I can’t think of any particular reason right off- hand. [99] MR. AUTEN: I have no other questions, Your Honor. JUDGE WAGMAN: Mr. Bohannon? MR. BOHANNON: Yes, sir, I do have one or two. Q (By Mr. Bohannon) Mr. Mace, up until the 1974 contract, couldn’t it be said that any full shipper load containers coming into Hampton Roads went to their destination without being stripped? A Yes, sir. Q All right. Regardless of their destination, if it were a full shipper load, it was not stripped at the piers? A That’s correct. Q Up until ’74? A Even— 16 Q Even now? A Even now, yes. Right. Q That’s my next question. Even now, the bill of lading or the shipping documents showed it to be a full shippers load, it is not stripped at the piers, is it? A Right. Q So along that line in the history of containers, have full shipper loads ever been stripped at the piers unless upon direct orders of the owner or someone else? A Ido not know of any cases. Q Now, you testified in answer to Mr. Rosenstein’s questions about a meeting you had with Mr. McNeil that [100] represented the Tidewater Motor Transport As- sociation. Why was there a meeting? A I did not personally attend the meeting. The Steamship Trade Committee had a meeting, and they discussed the problems that they had with the various motor carriers over the years. A new contract had just been negotiated; and, again, the steamship agents felt like they ought to advise the motor carriers of the terms and conditions of the new contract. So, therefore, an in- formal meeting of subcommittee level was set up with Mr. McNeil and several of his members. I did not at- tend the meeting; but that was the purpose of the meet- ing, to apprise them of this new contract. Q And that was the first such meeting, was it not? And the only such meeting? A To my knowledge, yes, a meeting as such, per se. Q And it could be fairly said that it was occasioned by your new ’74 contract? A Yes. Q And that did have the container rules completely rewritten? | A _ I wouldn’t say completely rewritten. Similar. Q Well, the language is different in every paragraph? A Right. * * * * CROSS EXAMINATION [102] Q This case is about containers that are short- stopped at a trucking station where the cargo is removed 17 not by the consignee’s employees but by the truckers’ employees, is that correct? A That’s why the violation was imposed, yes. * * * * [106] Q (By Mr. Lambos) Mr. Mace, would you please tell the Court in your own words what the prac- tice was before the Dublin rules with respect to a con- tainer destined to go to a warehouse within the port of Hampton Roads? A If such container did not go to a consignee’s fa- cility within a 50-mile radius—a beneficial owner’s fa- cility within a 50-mile radius, then, it was termed a stripper. It had to be stripped. [107] But if the container was destined to go to the beneficial owner’s facility within a 50-mile radius, then, it was not a stripper. It did not have to be stripped. But if the container were to go to a consolidator or a broker or a forwarder’s facility or what-have-you, then, the container had to be stripped at the pier by ILA labor. — * * * [115] Q (By Mr. Lambos) Mr. Mace, the Hampton Roads Shipping Association is one of the constituent members of CONASA, is it not? A That is correct. * © * % REDIRECT EXAMINATION [122] Q (By Mr. Rosenstein) Mr. Mace, with re- spect to a full shippers load, is it not a fact that by the fact that ILA does not strip those containers at the pier, that they receive a royalty for those containers? A That is correct. Q All right. Now, what was the reason for inserting that royalty and why does ILA get that royalty? A The royalty was because it was negotiated in the contract because containerization was a form of automa- tion and, thereby, reducing the amount of hours in which, say, a ton of cargo would be handled via containeriza- tion as opposed to break bulk handling. 18 Q Now, would ILA on a 20-foot full shippers load going to a beneficial owner at its manifested destination obtain a royalty? A They would. Q And would that be so much per ton? A That is correct. Q And would it be between 40 and 50 dollars pos- sibly per container? A It’s conceivable. * & = * [133] Q That’s my point. If they were stripped within the 50-mile radius, they would have been charged under Rule 1(a) (3) and 2(b) (2). If they were stripped out- side the 50-mile radius, they would have been charged under the evasion principles, is that correct? A Yes. a . : : [187] Q But now, I’m talking specifically about a full shippers load which is going to a single consignee and the union charges that there is false documentation. Now, which document did they say was false? A Well, if the argument was presented in defense of the container being stripped, that it was stripped at a proper geographic point; and that geographic point was different than its manifested destination. Q All right. But if it was stripped in Richmond, that was not a proper geographic point, was it? A If it wasn’t in agreement with the manifest and delivery order. Q In fact, the ILA’s contention wasn’t that it was stripped at an improper geographic point but that it was stripped by the wrong people? A It thereby wouldn’t be a true house to house movement, if it wasn’t stripped by the proper people, yes. It was stripped at a place, as the contract states, a freight [138] forwarder, or a consolidator or a ware- house or broker. These particular points or these par- ticular operations are not acceptable points where con- tainers may be stuffed or stripped. Q All right. In any case where a violation was al- leged, would the shipping companies necessarily have 19 known that the motor carrier intended to pull the con- tainer to his terminal in Baltimore or within the 50- mile area and strip it? A I'd say that in 99 percent of the cases the ocean carrier would have no knowledge of this. Once that con- tainer leaves the terminal, he really doesn’t have any knowledge of any— Q All right. In 99 percent of those cases, how can it be that the shipping company falsified any document? A It’s not always the case. I haven’t seen these docu- ments, but I don’t think it’s always the case that the shipping company or ocean carrier, that is, would be falsifying any documents. It’s a relationship .f where the container is stripped and where the documents state that the container should be stripped. * * * * [140] All I want to know is what was the practice with respect to containerized freight and the stripping of those containers where the cargo was supposed to go beyond the 50-mile radius; and I want to know what paragraph 2 on page 65 and its apparent successor in this subsequent contract, you know, where did they all start. It’s a question of palentology. MR. LAMBOS: We intend to present some paleon- tology. JUDGE WAGMAN: I want to know where did it all come from. MR. GLEASON: Your Honor, may I ask the witness a couple of questions? JUDGE WAGMAN: Certainly. Mr. Mace is a patient man. RECROSS EXAMINATION Q (By Mr. Gleason) Mr. Mace, I’m a little confused on this shippers load and the 50-mile radius. Now, can you tell me the difference between a shippers load inside the 50-mile radius and inside the 50-mile radius? A There is none, basically. Q So the same rules apply to the shippers load, if it’s in the 50-mile radius or its outside the 50-mile radius? A That’s correct. 20 Q And if a container that’s destined across the street from the pier and is a shippers load going to the shipper and [141] it goes to a truckman who ships it, is that a violation? A If it goes to the trucker, yes. Q Okay. The same thing. Has it been the practice in this port that if a container went outside the 50-mile radius—was destined to go outside the 50-mile radius and went to the trucker, whether it was inside the 50-mile radius or outside the 50-mile radius, was that a violation? A If it went to the trucker, it was a violation. Q Regardless of where it went? A That’s correct. * * * * [148] MR. BOHANNON: I thought we were ap- proaching this from a different viewpoint, Your Honor. I’m trying to show that the documentation is what con- trols who strips. Not what happens to it after it leaves the pier. JUDGE WAGMAN: What’s been the practice? MR. BOHANNON: That’s been the practice. Q (By Mr. Bohannon) Mr. Mace, let me ask you again. If the documentation on a container shows that it is to go to the beneficial owner directly or the bill of lading says this goes to the J.C. Penney Company in Greensboro, North Carolina, it’s a full container load. Now, that’s a full shippers load. That’s what we are talking about here today? A Right. Q Such a container has never been stripped by ILA labor, has it? A Going back to your question, you said, “If this.” What are you talking about, the container in tact?- “If this goes to.” [149] Q No,I didn’t say that, sir. A If the container in tact goes to— Q No, let me ask the question again. A Okay. Q I’m talking about the documentation. We are not talking about what happens to it after it leaves; we are 21 talking about as it comes to the pier what the document shows. It shows it’s going to J.C. Penney in Charlotte or Greensboro, wherever their warehouse is down there; and that container goes to the truck line that picks it up, invariably, does it not? A Yes. [152] Q (By Mr. Auten) Mr. Mace, let me ask you one thing. I’m not talking about who is entitled to the work according to the [153] rules. I’m not talking about who should do it. I’m not talking about who may be in violation of the rules. I want to know if anyone other than these motor carriers stripped full container loads destined to a single consignee. A I’m sure that the ILA from time to time has stripped a full container load. Q Do you know that as a fact? A If they were ordered to do so, yes. Q Now, why would they have done so, sir? A Well, for any number of reasons. The option of the consignee. Maybe the goods were going to Georgia and he found a local consumer for the goods and he wanted the goods stripped at the pier for local distribu- tion rather than distribution in Georgia. * * * * _Q (By Mr. Lambos) Mr. Mace, assuming the ques- tion just asked of you, assuming that a carrier of the Hampton Roads Shipping Association had a so-called full shippers load destined for Cincinnati and the trucker came up to the pier and told your carrier member that he was going to take it down the street to a trucking station and do it, would not your carrier member in- [694] Q What was the reason that ILA consentend to: allow manufacturer label and shipper loads to go through without being stripped at the pier? A They always did. ea ee eo Oo 2 oe oh: a. ae oe eee 142 Q So they’ve always done it? A Oh, yes. Q Since the first time the containers came in? A Since 1959, there was a manufacturer’s label that was outside the 50-mile radius and there was no problem. Q So, historically, this was always the policy of the International Longshoremen’s Association? A That’s right. Q When did discussions first appear with respect to royalty payments on shipper’s loads? [605] A That was the Stein award in 1960. _-. Q So commencing in 1960, did the ILA get a per diem or an amount of money based on the tonnage as a result of shipper’s loads going through and not being stripped at the pier? A No, the ILA got a—— I suppose the ultimate rea- son for it was that they made some concessions not only on shipper’s loads but on manufacturer’s label or cargo outside the 50-mile radius; but the award was based on the type of vessel in those days and still remains the same; and it was 35 cents on a break bulk ship and 70 cents on a semi-automated ship and $1.00 on a fully con- tainerized ship. That’s per gross ton. Q Per ton? A Per ton. Q So on a full shipper’s load that was going through to a consignee outside the 50-mile radius, they would re- ceive a dollar a ton? A That’s correct. * * * * CROSS EXAMINATION [700] Q Has any employer member of CONASA not adopted the rules on containers? A Their bound by the majority to all of it. I don’t remember us having a dissent; but the CONASA bylaws state that the majority will rule, and all ports will adopt - it on an equal basis. Q Now, have there been different interpretations with respect to the rules on containers in each of the port areas who have adopted these rules? 143 A Well, there may be misinterpretations; and there’s misinterpretations within the same port the day after we think what we know what we are talking about. But it’s merely a language problem and not a practical problem. Q Well, with respect to the public warehouse, is it not a fact that New York, that you allow employees of a pub- lic warehouse to strip containers destined to a consignee? A If it remains in the warehouse over 30 days. Q What if it doesn’t remain in the warehouse for 30 days? A Well, prior to our dispute in 1974, if it was a mat- ter of inventory taken out and it was a bona fide ware- houseman, then, we allowed that cargo to move. But, in most cases, a [701] bona fide warehouseman, his cargo would remain in the warehouse over 30 days. I know that there has been some disagreement on some of the other ports; but, until it was explained to them not by us but what the intent of the warehouse rule was by the ILA, then, it was changed. But I think that there was a misunderstanding, and that’s why we had a dif- ference of opinion. But now, those are part of the items that the various ports may have minor misunderstandings about; but the contract was exactly the same. Q Would you say if HRSA wants to follow the lead set in New York with respect to stripping in warehouses, that they should be allowed to—— A It’s not want the lead says; it’s what the contract says. Q Well, if New York interprets the contract in one way, should not the contract be applied the same in all ports? A That’s why we have CONASA-ILA meetings. If there is a misunderstanding, that is placed on the agenda, whether it be warehousing or anything else; and it is dis- cussed at the next joint CONASA-ILA meeting and then we try to put to right if there has been any misunder- standing. * * * * 144 (7038& Q On a bill of lading, there is no restriction with respect to a motor transport carrier stripping a shipper’s load at his facility, is there? A There probably isn’t. Q There probably isn’t? A Isn't. * _ * * [705] Q So you have no control or no business rela- tionship with motor transport carriers? A Absolutely none. * * * * [707] Q (By Mr. Rosenstein) You told me that con- solidation is putting cargo into a container, is that cor- rect? | A That’s correct. Q All right. And, at the pier, you could put cargo into an employer signatory’s container, is that possible? A With deepsea ILA labor, right. Q Okay. So when you talk about consolidation, are you talking about utilizing employer signatory con- tainers? A Yes, with deepsea ILA labor. Q If employer signatory containers are not used, isn’t it a fact that they couldn’t come under your rules un containers? A That’s correct. Q Following that question, isn’t it a fact that a trucker would put cargo onto his own 45-foot containers; and those containers are not employer signatory con- tainers? A That’s correct. a * * * [709] Q Now, at that meeting, the rules on ware- houses with respect to 2(b) (4) was negotiated? A The original warehousing was discussed in the ’74 contract; and it was codified at Dublin. Q_ Well, Dublin was in 1973, right? A Dublin was 1973, right. And then, it was put in in 1974. * * * * 145 [711] Q Prior to the negotiations in 1973 of 2(b) (4) of the 30-day warehousing, was it not the practice of the deepsea ILA labor to strip cargo as they did during the 30-day suspension? A No. Q What was the practice, then? A The practice was and the practice in the Port of New York, going back 75 years, now, was New York is predominantly a warehouse port going back to the days of break bulk when you couldn’t get all the cargo on the pier—— And I hope I’m not making a speech. I’m just trying to give you the history. ——that warehouses were used. They were bona fide warehousemen [712] in the Port of New York. The ILA has always worked with the bona fide warehousemen; and, in 1978, and in 1974, many many new warehousemen came in and claimed that they were abiding by what the steamship carriers agreed to on the warehousing rule but they couldn’t possibly physically get the cargo in the warehouse. So, therefore, it was a violation. Q Do you know the procedure in the Hampton Roads area between 1968 and 1973, with respect to loads that were going to a warehouse? A I believe that it was stripped during that period. Q Okay. So, in Hampton Roads, then, the same pro- cedure that took place during the suspension of the rules took place between 1968 and 1973 before the Dublin Rules were negotiated? A Yes, I do; and I believe that there was claimed a misunderstanding; and it was finally straightened out by the ILA. Q So by the cancellation of the rules on containers, the ILA went back and accomplished the work in a man- po ggg previously did in Hampton Roads in 1968 and 1 A I guess that’s a fact. * * * * [713] Q Mr. Dickman, let me give you an example, . hypothetical. | Let’s say you had a container that was destined for | Louisville, Kentucky, picked up in Hampton Roads; and / 146 the container went approximately 290 miles and, all of a sudden the cargo shifted and the trucker couldn’t go on because of safety [714] precautions. And this happened 290 miles and he had another 190 miles to go to Louis- ville. And he had to open up the containers. At this point, he is outside the 50-mile radius of the port area, cor- rect? Is that a violation of the contract? A The cargo shifted and it was damaged, no, there would be no violation. That’s an exception. Q That would be an exception. Are you sure? A Iamsure. * * * * [719] Q And the employer members such as U. S. Lines would then notify the broker that that container is there and it can be picked up for delivery to the con- signee? A I would assume that’s so. Q So the procedure just flows normally based on the fact that the documentation indicates that it’s a shipper’s load, correct? A Right. Q So the first time that the container is actually weighed would be when the motor transport carrier gets it to its facility? A That’s not a fact. Q When it’s weighed at the terminal? A But in most cases, at’ least the cases that I know about, it’s weighted at the gate of the terminal operator’s place or the steamship carrier’s place; and most people have scales on their pier. Q All right. So, at that point, then, the steamship carrier realeases a container or a shipper’s load after it has been weighed, is that correct? A That’s correct. Q He doesn’t make any determination as to whether it’s safe to pull it over the roads—the steamship carrier? A He has nothing to do with it. * * * * 147 [723] Q So that it was not until 1970 when the rules were negotiated? For the other ports. A 1971. [730] Q Mr. Dickman, on direct examination, you did testify as to the definition of a consolidated load that’s contained in the ’74 contract; and, that definition says that, in case of imports, that it’s a load with goods destined or going to more than one consignee? MR. LAMBOS: I don’t think the witness testified to that on direct examination. MR. AUTEN: Cross examination. Pardon me. JUDGE WAGMAN: Right. Thank you. Q (By Mr. Auten) You agreed with the definition that’s included A I read it. Q And you said that’s the same definition that had ge 953% been applied to consolidated loads? es. * * * * [734] Q All right. Do you recall two other documents that came out of both of those meetings? One was en- titled enforcement of rules on containers—— Well, do you recall that one? : Yes. All right. That document was actually drafted prior to the Dublin meeting, was it not? A It could have been. It was discussed there many times before. Q And, sir, did it not presume—did that document not presume that the definition contained in interpreta- tion one point one had already been agreed upon? A It could have been. Q I want to ask you just a moment, Mr. Dickman, about the Stein award. First of all, what is a gross ton? A Twenty-two hundred and forty pounds. Q And when you refer to the royalty being paid on a gross ton, gross ton of what? A Gross ton of the cargo. 148 Q The contents of the box? A Contents of the box. Q All right. Now, has the amount of royalty paid changed [735] since the Stein arbitration award? A Has the amount changed? Q Right. A Yes. The second dollar was negotiated in the 1968 negotiations. Q Well, that negotiation was between CONASA and ILA? A In 1968, it was New York and ILA. Q New York Shipping Association? A Right. What is an approximate labor cost for stripping a ton of freight from a container? A You will have to tell me the type of freight. Q Well, let’s say—— A The homogenous nature of it. Q All right. Let’s take an example palletized freight, say, 19 skids in a container that would be unloaded with a forklift. A I would say that that could be done in less than an hour. It would require, in most instances, a Hi-Lo driver plus the cost of the Hi-Lo, and a checker for a half an hour and maybe $30.00 to take out the link from the skids. * * * * [737] Mr. Dickman, we have established that there was a difference in the way that loads going to a warehouse © were treated in New York and Hampton Roads, is that correct? A Someone told it to me. Q Do you feel like the interpretation of the rules that existed in New York was the correct interpretation? A That was the CONASA contract; that is the correct interpretation. Q Your position is that the New York port handles that interpretation correctly. Now, on what basis did you feel that—— Let me get into a specific example. I’ve got a full shipper’s load which is consigned to or going to a warehouse in New 149 York, one shipper. Now, what happened in New York to that container when it hit the dock? A It went to that warehouse, and it was discharged and the container was stripped at that warehouse—at the bona fide warehouse with the warehouseman’s own employees. Q Where does the contract that was in effect at that time say anything about warehousing? A This was always the case in New York. We didn’t have to write anything; we kfew it. [738] But did the contract itself say anything about warehousing? A It didn’t have to. Q In fact, your interpretation was based on a move- ment of the full shipper’s load, wasn’t it, just the same as . movement to a single consignee in West Virginia some place? A Right. Q Now, did the ILA at the Dublin negotiations con- tend that that was an incorrect interpretation of the contract? A Contended it was incorrect? Q Right. A I believe that they contended that it was correct. Q That that was a correct interpretation of the con- tract? A Right. Q So would it have been their position and CONASA’s position that nothing was given up by the ILA in the new warehouse rule that came out of Dublin? . A They always have; they’ve always done it in New ork. * * * * [753] THOMAS W. GLEASON, SR. was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: a * a * DIRECT EXAMINATION * * a * 150 [754] Q Could you tell us briefly what was the tradi- tional work jurisdiction of the ILA up until containeri- zation prior 1959? A All the freight to the piers. The trucker drivers put it to the tail of the truck; and we took it off and placed it on the dock floor or dock or placed it on pallets. On the reverse coming in, we had what we called pallet loaders or loaders, where the truck would come down and we loaded the trucks. They would pick it up and take it right. to the consignee’s place of business. Q Now, prior to 1959, was there such a container used in the handling of cargo? A Yes. Q Could you tell us the type of containers that were handled? A Well, there were wooden containers. Some was Bowling Green that was testified here today which was household goods. There were small containers—wooden containers, that we used to carry special cargo in. And then, there was Dravo type containers that were brought down to the piers to store valuable * * *. * * * * [760] Q Well, now, in 19 Well, before we get there, can you give usa comparison between the loading of a conventional ship and a container ship, with ref- erence to manhours? A All right. If you take a 100,000-ton ship, a con- ventional ship, in and out, it’s in the neighborhood of 12,000 manhours. You take a container ship 10,000 tons in and out, you’ve got 2200 manhours. So your produc- tivity has increased 500 percent. + * * * [767] Q Going back to the 1959 negotiations when you had that contract, was there an arbitration with reference to a royalty fund? ‘ A There was. I sat in with McCarty and Professor tein. ; Q And do you recall what that amount was? A Yes. It was 35 cents for a conventional ship, 70 cents for a conventional ship that had two hatches auto- 151 mated and $1.00 for a conventional ship or a full con- tainer ship and anything over three hatches automated in a conventional ship was a dollar. Q Now, from that time up until 1968, was that money used for the various welfare pension funds i the Port of New York? . ny A It was. Q Now, in. 1971, was that amount increased? A It was increased—— The recommendation came, and when we talked about our funds to make sure our funds would be solvent, because of the increased produc- tivity and the decrease in the manhours worked in the port, that something be paid on tonnage; and the opera- tors would not agree to this, but «hey came up. The rec- ommendation came from the operators or the steamship people that another dollar royaity be placed on it to be used for welfare, pensions, clinics, and what-have-you. [768] Q So it was used for the fringe benefit funds— to maintain those benefit funds? A Right. * * * * [774] Q Now, did you reach an agree ? A We did. . pains Q And could you tell us the charges, if there were any, with reference to warehousing with those changes? A As far as my memory serves me, there were no changes except a reaffirmation of what the intent of the contract had been over a period from 1959 on, the same See was made. as it a question of the 30- isi my, Bide odestey 0-day provision of a bona A That was discussed. That was. Because it was going in one door and out the other, in 24 hours: 30 hours was the maximum it was staying there. Q Now, you have testified as far as manufacturer’s load. Now, has the—— And I will give you an example If a container load destined for delivery to a consignee outside [775] the 50-mile radius is sent to a trucker’s terminal and there either stripped and put into a truck or two 20-foot containers stripped and put into a 40- 152 foot truck for delivery, would that be a violation of the contract? That’s a violation. Was that a violation in 1959? It was a violation 1959. Has it been a violation from—— And it’s still a violation today. * * * * CROSS EXAMINATION [785] Q All right. So going back to 1959, didn’t the International Longshoremen’s Association agree to allow manufacturer’s labels and shipper loads to go through to the consignee without being stripped at the pier? A Right. Q And, in return for that right, you negotiated a roy- alty payment on each of those containers? A No, we got an award by an arbitrator. Q In 1959. perl A Right. sf Q So for each manufacturer’s label or shipper load that was not stripped at the pier, the International Long- shoremen’s Association received $1.00 per gross ton, is that correct? A Ona full container ship. Q Right. A On a conventional ship with two hatches auto- mated, 35 cents, three hatches automated or more $1.00. * * * * CROSS EXAMINATION [789] Q Well, all right. Let’s talk about just what it says in your contract. It says a consolidated full con- tainer load. Now, does that mean that you have either goods of two or more shippers in one container that is going to one consignee or you have goods of one shipper that is going to two or more consignees? A In reading this, in my opinion, it would mean more than one shipper, or one consignee. Q Okay. So that is different, that number one, LTL and consolidated full container loads, that’s different from manufacturer label or shipper load? A That necessarily wouldn’t be so. PO PO 153 Q Well, but didn’t you just tell me that a manufac- turer’s label was going from one manufacturer to an- other? A That’s right. : Q And a shipper’s load is going from one shipper with goods to one consignee? A Right. Q Okay. So aren’t those terms different? A Than a consolidated—— Q Right. [790] A Right. They are, yes. Q That was my question. So they are different? A Right. Q Okay. Now, the 1968 rules speak of only LTL loads and consolidated full container loads, is that correct? A That’s what this book says, that’s right. * * * * [801] Q And, besides that, Mr. Gleason, you carefully consulted with your counsel as to what the legal effect of peas rules that you were negotiating was, did you not A No, I didn’t have to consult with the counsel. And the counsel that was at the ’68 meeting was not Thomas Gleason, Jr. He was a participant; but Mr. Waldman was the general counsel for the ILA. But I did not have to consult with him. Q But you did have legal advice and consultation as to what the language of the rules meant? A I thought we all knew what they meant. Well, the contracts, Mr. Gleason, and we have stipu- lated that in all material respects the additions of the con- tract that were entered into in ’68, whether they are on the CONASA page or whether they are in these booklets, are the same rules in the ’68 and ’71 contracts. Now, both of those contain the following language: “If the purpose of protecting and preserving the pres- ent work jurisdiction of Longshoremen and all other deep- sea ILA crafts over any containers loaded with LTL cargo or consolidated full container loads as defined herein is not accomplished by the provisions of these rules on 154 containers, then either party shall have the right to renegotiate these provisions or any part thereof by giving notice to the other [802] party.” Now, you and your counsel very carefully considered what that language meant, did you not? A Right. Q Now, did it never occur to either of you or any of you that when you were talking about your work juris- diction in that paragraph and you were talking only about LTL and consolidated full container loads, that it might be necessary if you still claimed the right to strip manufacturer’s label, that you ought to say that you still considered that your work jurisdiction? A Well, I think we gave a lot of consideration to a lot of things at that time and especially the violations that was going on where there were supposed to be ship- per’s loads, as my friend wanted me to say and which I call manufacturer’s label, that there were some violations of these where they would take and billed, the documenta- tion was phony documentation and they were billed as full manufacturer’s label but we found out in an investi- gation that they weren’t always that way. And we con- sidered that. Q Yes, sir. And I understand that you considered that, because you put it in the contracts that false docu- mentation was a violation. A Right. Q That covered that. [803] A That covers the manufacturer’s labels, that they are phonies. Q Right. Now, there is a document in evidence— and whether you have seen it or not, it is your testimony that the number of longshore employees and the number of manhours that they have worked have gone down very drastically over the last several years? A Right. Q Now, the reason for that, is it not, sir, is because there is a vastly increased amount of container business coming through the port? A Right. 155 Q Now, that is why the work has diminished. It’s not because Mr. Houff for reasons sufficient to himself strips a container, is it? It’s the fact that there are more containers? A I don’t know about Mr. Houff’s business, so I can’t. answer about Mr. Houff. All I am saying to you is and to the operators is that I have insisted continually upon what we agreed in the 1958 contract and we have never deviated from that. Now, I have no interest in what Mr. Houff or any other truckman does. Q But, Mr. Gleason, it is true that you were recon- ciled, were you not, to the fact that these containers were going to move from the dock on out to the consignee without any ILA labor? [804] A Yes, I guess I did. Q You are reconciled to that fact and you were going to get a royalty on those containers that moved that way? A Right. Q Now, you have also referred to what used to be known as customs and practices. A Right. Now, those have always been or have since 1959, at least until 1968, customs and practices were exceptions to the rules on containers? A This is what we understood, what the customs and practices were, what we talked about in 1958 and the 59 contract was whatever the practices were as far as the LTL and consolidated containers, we would carry that out. And we are still doing that to this day. Q Well now, it was the custom and practice, was it not, and didn’t members of the shipping association so contend that it was the custom and practice for a motor carrier to strip and reload if a container was overloaded? A I have nothing to do with that. That’s their busi- ness. I had nothing to do with that. The ILA has nothing to do with that. I think that the testimony Do you want me to go ahead? * * * * [809] Q And it’s also come to your attention as presi- dent of the International that some of these shipping 156 employers with whom you contract, when Mr. Houff says, “i’m not going to pay your fine,” they say, “You’re not going to get our containers”? A Well, I’ve heard that, but that’s none of my busi- ness. I’m not involved in it. When these things come to your attention, doesn’t it have to follow that this is going to result in more stripping work at the dock? . A No, because we had this in our original agreement in 1959. JUDGE WAGMAN: Mr. Gleason, Jr., I notice that when questions are asked, your head either goes in a horizontal motion back and forth or vertical. Now, I don’t know whether you’re answering: MR. GLEASON: Absolutely not, Your Honor. JUDGE WAGMAN: /Yovr rhythm is too good. Your rhythm is too good. I think that you should stop moving your head. THE WITNESS: I don’t—— JUDGE WAGMAN: I didn’t ask you. THE WITNESS: I get it out of here in a minute. JUDGE WAGMAN: I didn’t ask you. * * * * [824] JUDGE WAGMAN: What was the longshore- man’s job with respect to unloading the ship and the stringpiece. What did the longshoremen do in 1925, how far did he go towards West Street? THE WITNESS: Well, he went all way to the gate. JUDGE WAGMAN: To the gate of the truck? THE WITNESS: To the gate of the dock. JUDGE WAGMAN: To the gate of the dock. And then, wasn’t there a trade in New York known as Public Loader? THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. JUDGE WAGMAN: And the public loader would take it from a little pile at the end of the stringpiece? THE WITNESS: That was on import cargo. JUDGE WAGMAN: Yeah. That’s what we are talk- ing about in this case. THE WITNESS: Yes. 157 JUDGE WAGMAN: Now, wasn’t that public loader peculiar [825] to New York? THE WITNESS: It was. JUDGE WAGMAN: There was a whole big business about that, wasn’t it? THE WITNESS: There was a big investigation. JUDGE WAGMAN: But the point is that I’m trying to make is that the Longshoremen carried it to the end of the stringpiece, and another guy picked it up? THE WITNESS: No, no. JUDGE WAGMAN: Where did the public loader come in? THE WITNESS: The public loader come in, Your Honor, when the truckmen come down to pick up the cargo for the consignee. JUDGE WAGMAN: Okay. So somebody else put it on the truck, then? THE WITNESS: No, the public loader put it on the truck. JUDGE WAGMAN: But the Longshoremen didn’t put it on the truck. THE WITNESS: Oh, he was the—he was a Long- shoreman; the public loader was a member of the Long- shoremen’s Union. JUDGE WAGMAN: Oh, was he? THE WITNESS: Oh, sure. JUDGE WAGMAN: It was a different trade, but he didn’t work on the stringpiece? [826] THE WITNESS: No. Nobody worked on the stringpiece except the guy that made up the—— JUDGE WAGMAN: But the public loader was also a member— THE WITNESS: Of the Longshoremen’s Union. se WAGMAN: But he was a member of that craft! THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. JUDGE WAGMAN: Gee. I didn’t know that. I thought he was a member of another craft. THE WITNESS: No. 158 JUDGE WAGMAN: Now, none of the harbors around here like in Hampton Roads, they don’t have a public loader? THE WITNESS: No, they didn’t have them. They had freight handler outfits which were ILA, also. JUDGE WAGMAN: So, in other words, the ILA used to take it from the hold of the ship to the back of the truck, right? THE WITNESS: No, the ILA longshoremen took it from the hold of the ship and put it to a place of rest on the dock, wherever that may be. And it stayed there until it was cleared for customs, possibly five days or so; and then, the consignee would come down with his delivery orders and bill of lading, the same as he does today, with a container load and pick—and ask for his freight. Then, the company or the dock boss would turn this over and get public loaders who the consignee paid to load the truck and the public loaders would load that. And the funny thing about this, Your Honor, [827] was that they loaded it for three cents a hundred; and they were making money on it. « * * * JUDGE WAGMAN: How about in Hampton Roads and Baltimore? THE WITNESS: In Hampton Roads and Baltimore I guess it’s done by freighthandlers. JUDGE WAGMAN: It’s still done by freight han- dlers. : THE WITNESS: Right. JUDGE WAGMAN: That’s on a bulk—— THE WITNESS: On a bulk ship. JUDGE WAGMAN: That’s all I want to know. MR. KELSEY: Those are ILA freight handlers you’re speaking of in Hampton Roads. THE WITNESS: Right. [829] RICHARD PATRICK HUGHES was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 159 DIRECT EXAMINATION * * * * [830] Q Now, prior to 1959, did you handle containers in the port of Baltimore? A Containers? The only containers I seen were con- tainers that were used in conjunction with break bulk operations that were aluminum containers for Alcoa Steamship Line and some metal containers for Bull Line. Q Could you give us the sizes of these containers? A Well, the ones from Alcoa were small containers, maybe four by six by eight foot long. And they were aluminum containers made up apparently of Alcoa alu- minum. And the ones for Bull Line were metal and they were just a little larger than the ones that I remember for Alcoa. Q If those containers came and were discharged in the Port of Baltimore, how were the containers handled, did they go—were they free-wheeling and delivered di- rectly to the consignee or were they —— A Yov’re talking about in 1959? Q Prior to 1959. A Well, the only ones I seen as far as discharging was [831] concerned, all the containers were, you know, un- loaded at the pier. In 99 percent of the cases, that cargo normally went into a locker on the pier because it had special cargoes in it; and, conversely, when the containers were being loaded aboard a vessel, you know 99 percent of the time, the cargo came out of a locker that was on a pier and there were special cargoes that were put into these small metal containers. Q Now, when a consignee sent the truckman down with the delivery order prior to 1959, how was that cargo delivered? A It was delivered by the ILA to the tailgate of the truck; and the truck driver actually loaded it into his truck and took it away. Q Now, could you tell us when was the first time that there was a container ship operation in Baltimore? A In April of 1963, the steamship line, Sea-Land, brought a ship in, the Mobile, which was a semi-auto- 160 mated ship. It had three hatches, self-sustaining; but I mean it had a crane aboard the ship itself. In other words, it could unload itself, you know, as today they’ve got the cranes on the pier. But this ship had its own crane on there and you had two hatches, number one and five, I believe, that were break bulk hatches that handle general cargo. - * * ” [882] A Well, the contract that was in force in the Port of Baltimore was the end result of the Stein award that was awarded in New York; and it was actually started in ’59 and I think we got it in the first part of 1960, you know, the first few months in 1960. Q Were you present at the negotiations in 1959? A Yes, in a limited capacity, though, as a recording secretary to the local only to the extent of my local’s negotiation locally; not in the negotiations that took place in New York. Q Now, after the Stein Award in Baltimore, was there an increase of containerization? A Yes. It has progressively grown up until this year, which is the exception; and I attribute that possibly to the recession. Q And with reference to the Stein award, then, there was a container royalty paid on the movement of certain types of containers? A Yes, as testified, 35 cents on conventional ships, 70 cents on semi-automated ships and $1.00 on the fully automated ships. * * * * [883] Q Now, could you tell us the amount of money that was paid by the employer members of the association under the Stein award with reference to those types of containers that moved through the port from, say, 1963 up to the present date? A I could. I have a piece of paper that I acquired this information the day before yesterday. Because be- tween the years 1960 and 1971, up until the formation of the container royalty fund that is in existence today, the money went directly into the pension fund. 161 Q Could you givé us a breakdown on each year? A Yes, I have in parenthesis 1960 through 1963 $3,000.00 or $3,044.96. . * * * * [841] Q Did you make any investigation with refer- ence to his statements? A Yes. His contention was that it was possible that other people in the ILA and the Shipping Associations in the North Atlantic did not concur with our position there. I personally called Mr. Thomas W. Gleason and asked him; and he said they were violations to the agreement. I called a man by the name of Jolin Resta in Philadel- phia. He told me they were in violation there. And I called Merritt in Norfolk, Virginia and he told me they were held in violation here. And I so reported back to the committee that I had talked to these people and that they say they are violations all over and that it was uniform. Q _Now, could you tell us with reference to rules on containers up until 1968 what the practice was in- thé Port Baltimore with reference to the warehousing of cargo A There was no warehousing of cargo in the Port of Baltimore. Q Was there a change made after 1968? A Yes. I don’t know the exact date. It was not too long before we went to Ireland. Again, there was a situa- tion brought up where someone says that they permit them to warehouse cargo for 30 days in New York. And I subsequently * * * * ft * * CROSS EXAMINATION [845] Q So you mentioned that containers started in Baltimore in 1963. A The first container ships, you know, that resembled fully automated ships we know today. Q All right. And so there was a period of five years from 1963 until 1968 where you were not operating under a contract with respect to rules on containers, is that correct? A Written rules is correct. 162 Q And, during that period of time, you had loads such as manufacturer’s label which were coming in those con- tainers, is that correct? A Correct. Q And now, you said on direct that you never heard the word, shipper’s loaa, until the hearing today? A Yes, sir. Q All right. But to define a shipper’s load, if I told you that it was one shipper’s goods that were loaded overseas, came in on a steamship carrier that was going to a consignee would this not be a definition similar to a manufacturer’s label? A In that circumstances, yes. Q All right. So, therefore, the history with respect to [846] manufacturer’s label and the definition of a ship- per’s load that I just gave you would mean that his- torically ILA labor would not strip those loads at the pier area? A Correct. Now, from 1963 to 1968, shipper loads or manu- facturer’s label were going through the port area not being stripped by ILA labor? A Correct. Q All right. Truckers were coming down to the pier and picking up from 1963 to 1968 shipper’s loads or manufacturer’s label containers to get them to the con- signee, correct? A Correct. Q All right. Is it not a fact, Mr. Hughes, that you knew during that period of time that truckers for their own convenience were taking those containers—20-foot containers to their facilities within a 50-mile radius, opening the seal and putting the cargo into their own 45-foot containers? A No, sir. You didn’t know that? A I did not know that, sir. Q Is there any reason that would make you believe that you weren’t doing it? A I know they’re doing it, now. 163 Q You know they are doing it, now? A That’s right. We caught them. [847] Q Yeah. You sure did in 1968 through 1975 correct? 6 Correct. All right. So there is nothing for you to believe ni er —— doing it prior to that time? e only thing I can say they were doing it with- ~~ the ILA’s knowledge. stat h