USMX Animated PDFs

64 2 0 1 7 A N N U A L R E P O R T THE LAMBOS FIRM, LLP The a orneys of The Lambos Firm, LLP, are pictured front row, le to right: Ann Marie Flynn, Esq., Carol No as Lambos, Esq. Back row, le to right: Ian A. Weinberger, Esq., William M. Spelman, Esq., Donato Caruso, Esq., Richard J. Ciampi, Jr., Esq., and James R. Campbell, Esq. 2017 REPORT OF COUNSEL MASTER CONTRACT ISSUES Interna onal Longshore & Warehouse Union v. Na onal Labor Rela ons Board, Nos. 15-1344 and 15-1428 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015) There is a secondary-boycott case under review by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that may affect the parties to the USMX-ILA Master Contract. The case stems from a jurisdictional dispute between two West Coast unions, the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) over the performance of "reefer" work (that is, the plugging, unplugging, and monitoring of refrigerated shipping containers) at a marine terminal in Portland, Oregon. The IBEW has per- formed the reefer work since 1974. The ILWU claimed the work after a new employer took over the terminal and joined the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The ILWU filed grievances over the issue and engaged in repeated slowdowns and work stoppages against the employer and the carriers whose ships called at the ter- minal. The employer filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which found that the IBEW-represented members properly per- formed the reefer work and that the actions of the ILWU and its locals in Portland constituted secondary-boycott activities in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act. The labor strife caused service at the terminal to deteriorate to such an extent that the carriers ceased call- ing at the terminal altogether. In November 2017, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals denied the ILWU's petition for review and affirmed and enforced the NLRB's finding of unlawful secondary boycott activity because the terminal owner, not the PMA employer, had the right to control the as- signment of the work in dispute. The ILWU's petition for rehearing en banc was before the Court of Appeals at year-end.

• Cover