From the Winter 2010 issue of the Coast Longshore Division Newsletter.
C-2-10 (appeal of SCAA-01-2010)
This case addressed the contractual limitations on superintendents at marine terminal facilities.
The Coast Arbitrator made the following important determinations: (1) the day-to-day interaction between superintendents and marine clerks is limited contractually as to how superintendents oversee the work of marine clerks; (2) while superintendents are permitted to observe an operation and relay what they observe to marine clerks, the “brain work” involved in directing the flow of cargo is to be performed by marine clerks; and (3) it is a violation of the PCCCD for superintendents to bypass marine clerks and give directions that are designed to resolve cargo flow problems – that is, the “brain work” involved in correcting irregularities in cargo flow is reserved for marine clerks. C-2-10 also establishes that union claims that superintendents are “micromanaging” marine clerk work to such an extent that marine clerks do not have the opportunity to perform their normal work of directing the flow of cargo should be grieved under Section 17 of the PCCCD after adequate evidence of the alleged violation has been collected.
C-5-10 (appeal of SCAA-51-2009)
This case dealt with the question of the proper assignment of the maintenance and repair of chassis tires under the PCLCD.
The Employers made the sweeping claim that they are free to make the business decision to have chassis tires maintained and repaired off dock by non-bargaining unit personnel and that when they make the decision to have this work performed off dock the work is not covered by the PCLCD. The Coast Arbitrator rejected this argument and made the following significant determinations: (1) the maintenance and repair of chassis tires must be assigned to ILWU-represented mechanics wherever the work is performed (i.e., on dock or off dock); and (2) Sections 1.7 and 1.71 have no geographic limitations with the exception of maintenance and repair work that is performed in a “red-circled” work area (see Letter of Understanding Clarifications and Exceptions to ILWU Maintenance and Repair Jurisdiction, 2008-2014 PCCCD, pages 218-223). This decision is one of the most important jurisdictional cases in the past two decades as it recognizes, as did C-5-88, that there is nothing in Section 1 of the PCL&CA that restricts the location that a bargaining-unit worker may be physically located to perform work so long as the work being performed is associated with the movement of cargo as described by Sections 1.1 and 1.11 of the PCL&CA.
C-6-10 (appeal of PSAA-41-2009)
This case addressed the implementation requirement established in Section 17.57 of the PCL&CA.
The Coast Arbitrator confirmed that Section 17.57 of the PCL&CA requires that a party “observe and/or implement” an area award before it can appeal that award to the CLRC or to the Coast Arbitrator and that the Employers’ unilateral use of escrow accounts to satisfy an award that requires the payment of money does not constitute implementation sufficient to perfect the right of appeal under Section 17.57.
C-7-10 (appeal of NCAA-27-2009)
This case dealt with Area Arbitrator Terry Lane’s error in determining that he had the authority to interpret, apply, and interject the terms of the Walking Bosses & Foremen’s Agreement (WB&FA) into proceedings arising under the PCL&CA.
The Coast Arbitrator confirmed that the WB&FA may not be applied in cases that arise under the PCL&CA and that arbitrators are bound by Sections 17.52 and 17.53 of the PCL&CA to interpret and apply the provisions of the PCL&CA only in rendering their decisions.