For Immediate Release                                                

Tuesday, October 29, 2002                                                                             

 

 

ILWU TELLS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT

PMA IS DISTORTING THE FACTS AND MISLEADING THE GOVERNMENT

ILWU Says When Union and Management Work Together, Productivity Up

 

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) today told the Department of Justice that the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) is misleading the agency by distorting the facts at the heart of the backlog facing the West Coast ports.  In reality, it is management’s continued refusal to address personnel, congestion and safety issues that are affecting productivity on the docks.

 

The ILWU also announced that it will send a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him to support a fair and equitable resolution to the West Coast bargaining dispute by directing the White House to release the names of the individuals who attended meetings with the Administration regarding the Pacific Maritime Association’s (PMA) dispute with the union.

 

This past summer, members of the Bush Administration met with the PMA and other members of the West Coast Waterfront Coalition (WCWC) on several occasions.  The Administration did not invite the ILWU to participate in any meetings to offer an employee perspective, reinforcing the appearance that the Administration is only interested in hearing one side of the story.

 

“We are working around the clock to ease the backlog in our ports.  Instead of working in good faith to improve this situation, the PMA is trying to shift the blame,” said James Spinosa, President of the ILWU.  “Our workers are working hard on the docks, but the PMA is unwilling or unable to resolve the backlog.”

 

In a letter today to the Justice Department, the ILWU explained that the union has taken affirmative steps to ensure that its members are complying with the Taft-Hartley injunction.  The ILWU has also made proactive efforts to convene labor-management meetings to address the many production challenges created by the lockout. 

 

            The ILWU emphasized that the PMA has failed to identify any unlawful conduct by the union that would warrant a finding of non-compliance with the Taft-Hartley injunction.  Further, the PMA’s “productivity numbers” -- which they have not proven to be accurate -- do not establish noncompliance with the preliminary injunction. 

 

            The ILWU also disputed that the gross number of containers loaded or unloaded to or from vessels is an adequate measure of compliance.  Productivity following the lockout of workers by the PMA has been affected by several unique circumstances.  For example:

 

1.         Yard Space.  There is a massive shortage of yard space that is not being adequately corrected by the employers.  Yards are filled well beyond normal capacity, and frequent and uncertain ship arrivals have made yard planning very difficult.  Long delays result from the necessity to move several containers to find one that must be loaded, or to find a space for one that has been discharged, all while the cranes at the ship stand by.  This is just one example of work that is ignored by PMA's "productivity" measure.

 

2.         Increased Traffic on the Docks.  As a result of the lockout, truck and semi tractor traffic on the docks has greatly increased.  Many truckers who have never been to the terminals before arrive at the wrong gate, or come without any clearance from Customs, thus requiring directions and assistance.

 

3.         Skilled Labor Shortages.  After the lockout, the volume of work has increased so dramatically that there are simply not enough skilled workers in the workforce to fill the available jobs.  Compounding this problem is the fact that the PMA companies have underutilized their steady skilled workers to fill the need even though they have the contractual right to do so.

 

4.         Equipment Shortages and Breakdowns.  There is an acute shortage of chassis and other equipment in the aftermath of the lockout.  Furthermore, equipment breakdowns have been more frequent as a result of unusual volume and overuse. 

 

5.         Safety and Health Hazards.   Over the past several months, the work environment at West Coast ports has become increasingly hazardous, with five ILWU members killed on the job this year at California ports alone.  The congestion and increased traffic caused by the lockout has increased workers’ exposure to hazardous conditions.  As a result of the high level of concern over safety and health, state OSHA inspectors have increased their presence on the docks, identifying numerous safety problems, including, among others, deficient enforcement of traffic controls, the presence of pedestrians in traffic areas, and lack of personal safety gear.

 

###

 

For more information, contact Steve Stallone, ILWU Communications Director, at 415-775-0533 ext. 114 or 510-390-4748 (cell).

 

 

cwa39521

 

 

 

        320-24

 

 

October 29, 2002

 

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FACSIMILE (202) 514-8071

 

Shannen W. Coffin                                                                  

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs

Room 3137

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

 

Re:       United States v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al.

            No. C 02-04859 WHA                                                

 

Dear Mr. Coffin:

 

This is in response to your letter dated October 25, 2002.  While we provide below a response to the allegations advanced by Mr. O'Connor subject to the Union=s ongoing investigation, we must object at the outset to the tone of your letter which in our view demonstrates a lack of impartiality in this matter.^[1]

 

First, you have misunderstood our position with respect to the Court=s jurisdiction.  We agree that the Court would have jurisdiction to hear allegations of noncompliance brought before it by the United States.  However, we do not believe that the Court would have jurisdiction to hear and resolve claims brought by or on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association regarding matters which are subject to the mandatory and exclusive grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement which, under the terms of the October 8 injunction,  have been reinstated.  Thus, we doubt that it would have jurisdiction to hear such a claim by PMA, in light of the fact that PMA has failed to pursue its claim of alleged "slowdowns" under the grievance procedure mandated by the parties collective bargaining agreement, or to work jointly with the Union to address any claims of  Aslowdowns.@

 

Second, although you continue to press the Union to respond to PMA=s allegations that the Union has failed to comply with the Court=s order, we are struck by the fact that your office has not presented a similar request for information or even a response from PMA regarding the Union=s claims that PMA has violated the injunction by failing to resume Athe orderly continuance of work in the maritime industry@ under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, including joint labor management meetings to address the myriad production and operational problems that have been experienced in all Port areas in the wake of the lockout.  This omission on your part manifests a serious bias that we cannot ignore. 

 

Third, you express the premature and inappropriate conclusion that "while a certain amount of inefficiency might have been expected in those first few days [of the injunction], we would expect that they have been sorted out by now, nearly three weeks after entry of the temporary restraining order on October 8^th, 2002."  It is difficult to understand why you would choose to express such presumptions without having even reviewed the evidence.

 

Fourth, you state that you "take seriously any allegations that [the] ports are not operating at an appropriate level of productivity."   In this regard, we would remind you that the October 8 injunction did not require that any particular level of Aproductivity@ be achieved at any terminal, but instead requires the Union and the PMA to refrain from engaging in any conduct that would interfere with Athe orderly continuance of work in the maritime industry@.   We strenuously object that your letter, by adopting much of PMA's own jargon, reveals a bias that has no place in these or any other procedings.

 

1.         The ILWU Has Complied Fully with the Preliminary Injunction by Notifying All Locals and Members as to Its Terms and Directing Compliance, and By Making Good Faith Efforts to Convene Joint Labor-Management Meetings to Address the Many Production Problems Caused by the Lockout.

 

As noted in our letter of October 24, 2002, the ILWU has taken affirmative steps to secure compliance with the Taft-Hartley injunction, providing notices on October 8, 2002, and again on October 21, 2002, to its Local Union longshore and clerk affiliates of the requirements of the Court=s order and the International Union=s expectation of full compliance.  Copies of both notices are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B.  The Local Unions then distributed the notices to their membership by mail and postings.

 

To our knowledge, neither the ILWU nor any of its Local affiliates or members has participated in, condoned or ratified any violation of the preliminary injunction.  In fact, from October 10 forward, the officers and business agents of the various Locals have made repeated efforts to convene with the PMA employers and various port authorities meetings to address the severe problems created by the lockout, including efforts to increase manning, reduce congestion, and utilize OSHA inspectors to address safety and health matters, all in a good faith effort to resume work at a "normal and reasonable speed" and to enforce the terms of the preliminary injunction. 

 

PMA has steadfastly refused to cooperate with these initiatives, preferring to adopt a confrontational posture that appears to be aimed only at framing the Union to take the blame for the continuing effects of the lockout.  Significantly, a letter from ILWU President Jim Spinosa to PMA President Joseph Miniace dated October 24, 2002 (Exhibit C hereto,) requesting that PMA bring any claims of slowdowns or related matters to the parties= Joint Labor Relations Committees (JLRCs) for joint resolution, and a letter from ILWU counsel to counsel for PMA dated October 18, 2002 (Exhibit D hereto,) requesting similar labor-management cooperation and asking that PMA provide evidence to substantiate PMA=s claims of alleged slowdowns, have both gone unanswered.  It is also noteworthy that PMA's October 25, 2002, letter makes no mention whatever of its own efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction.

 

2.         PMA Has Not Identified Any Unlawful Conduct By the International, Its Locals or Members That Would Warrant A Finding of Non-Compliance.

 

PMA accuses the Union of Aengaging in a concerted systematic refusal to obey the court=s requirement@ (October 18 letter, page 1.)  It fails, however, to support this hyperbole by providing any evidence of conduct by the ILWU or any of its affiliated locals to support this broad claim and, in fact, no such evidence exists.  The only references to Union conduct are a series of largely unsubstantiated routine workplace problems described by PMA as "small skirmishes" at pages 3 through 5 of the October 18 letter, such as the allegation that six of eight crane operators in LA/LB chose not to show up for work one day, or that three of four gate clerks reported sick on October 14 somewhere in Southern California, etc., even if substantiated, are routine contract disputes that PMA could easily address at an JLRC meeting or through the grievance and arbitration procedure.  Such isolated incidents fail to suggest a deliberate or concerted action on the part of the Union or the workforce, or that the International or any Local initiated, supported, or ratified any such alleged actions.

 

3.         PMA's "Productivity Numbers," Even If Accurate, Do Not Establish Noncompliance With the Preliminary Injunction.

 

PMA's central tenet is that a purported reduction in productivity, measured by the gross number of containers loaded on or off a given vessel per hour, establish the ILWU's non-compliance with the preliminary injunction.  Setting aside the many obvious deficiencies in the generation, calculation and use of these self-styled Aproductivity numbers,@ PMA takes several quite breathtaking leaps of logic in jumping to the conclusion that gross container moves on or off a vessel "is one of the most direct, objective ways to measure to what extent the ILWU is complying with the courts order." (October 18, page 2.)  The issue is not, of course, whether "productivity" is down, but rather whether the Union and its members have complied with the preliminary injunction. 

 

We cannot agree that the gross number of containers loaded or unloaded to or from vessels is an adequate measure of compliance.  It should come as no surprise that Aproductivity@ after the end of the lockout has been affected by several unique circumstances, including but not limited to:

 

1.         Yard Congestion.  There is a massive shortage of yard space that is not being adequately corrected by the employers.  Yards are filled well beyond normal capacity, and frequent and uncertain ship arrivals have made yard planning very difficult.  Long delays result from the necessity to move several containers to find one that must be loaded, or to find a space for one that has been discharged, all while the cranes at the ship stand by.  This is just one example of work that is ignored by PMA's "productivity" measure.

 

2.         Increased Traffic on the Docks.  As a result of the lockout, truck and semi tractor traffic on the docks has greatly increased.  Many truckers who have never been to the terminals before arrive at the wrong gate, or come without any clearance from Customs, thus requiring directions and assistance.

 

3.         Skilled Labor Shortages.  After the lockout, the volume of work has increased so dramatically that there are simply not enough skilled workers in the workforce to fill the available jobs.  Compounding this problem is the fact that the PMA companies have underutilized their steady skilled workers to fill the need even though they have the contractual right to do so.

 

4.         Equipment Shortages and Breakdowns.  There is an acute shortage of chassis and other equipment in the aftermath of the lockout.  Furthermore, equipment breakdowns have been more frequent as a result of unusual volume and overuse. 

 

5.         Safety and Health Hazards.   Over the past several months, the work environment at West Coast ports has become increasingly hazardous, with five ILWU members killed on the job this year at California ports alone.  The congestion and increased traffic caused by the lockout has increased workers= exposure to hazardous conditions.  As a result of the high level of concern over safety and health, state OSHA inspectors have increased their presence on the docks, identifying numerous safety problems, including, among others, deficient enforcement of traffic controls, the presence of pedestrians in traffic areas, and lack of personal safety gear.

 

It is disingenuous in the extreme for PMA to assert that these and related post-lockout conditions

should be disregarded in gauging whether there has been compliance or non-compliance with the preliminary injunction. 

 

4.         PMA's Other "Evidence", Even If Substantiated, Likewise Fails to Establish Any Violation of the Preliminary Injunction.

 

As already noted, PMA's letters list a variety of largely unsubstantiated "small skirmishes" -- routine disputes that have always arisen under the collective bargaining agreement -- which PMA tries in vain to transform into full-fledged violations of the preliminary injunction.  In so doing, PMA petitions the Department of Justice not only to turn a blind eye to its repeated failures to work jointly with the Union to ameliorate the backlog of cargo on the docks, but also to take its side in each of the disputes, in effect handing it the victories it has been unable to achieve through the parties' grievance procedures.

 

For example, it is undisputed that the employers have complained for many years about the alleged tardiness of dispatching clerks to the work sites.  Indeed, the employers have specific contract proposals to address this long outstanding issue.  Accordingly, such issues are not new and do not in any way support any claims of slowdowns or violations of the order by the Union.  As another example, PMA alleges that ASSA has been subjected to an all-out campaign to shut down its operations.@  (October 18 letter, page 6; and see October 25 letter, page 4.)  This sweeping claim is supported by reference to particular dispatch problems at a single facility in Los Angeles.  This dispatch issue has been ongoing for several years as reflected in various arbitrations starting in 1997 and 1998 and continuing to date.  This dispute is therefore nothing new and therefore fails to constitute any evidence reflecting a concerted action or motive by the ILWU or the workforce to violate the Court order.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Should the Department of Justice proceed to court in this matter, the overwhelming weight of the evidence will, as we have indicated, show that neither the International Union, its affiliated Locals nor their members have initiated, engaged in, supported, or ratified any slowdown or other action in violation of the preliminary injunction.  Indeed, it is our considered opinion that PMA, not the Union, has violated the Court's order through its refusal to work with the Union to jointly address the tremendous logistical problems caused by the lockout.  Nevertheless, the Union continues in its attempt to secure PMA=s cooperation in Joint Labor Relations Committees to address the production problems in the wake of the lockout.

 

Very truly yours,

 

LEONARD, CARDER, NATHAN, ZUCKERMAN,

ROSS, CHIN & REMAR, LLP

 

 

 

    By:                                                                          

Richard Zuckerman

 

Encls.