George R. Williams v. Pacific Maritime Association

384 F.2d 935 George R. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees. No. 20719. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. August 28, 1967. Rehearings Denied October 30, 1967. Irving A. Thau, New York City, Francis Heisler, Carmel, Cal., Arthur Brunwasser, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Richard Ernst, Mary C. Fisher, Dennis T. Daniels, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Pacific Maritime Ass'n. Gladstein, Anderson, Leonard & Sibbett, Norman Leonard, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union et al. Before POPE, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from an order dismissing the fourth amended complaint. This complaint alleges that the defendant Pacific Maritime Association represents all the employers who bargain with employee members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) and its affiliated local union, Local No. 10, ILWU and Local 10, also defendants, are labor unions, and ILWU is the certified collective bargaining representative for all employees of the employer members of Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) on the…

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the fourth amended complaint. This complaint alleges that the defendant Pacific Maritiine Association represents all the employers who bargain with employee members of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (ILWU) and its affiliated local union, Local No. 10, ILWU and Local 10, also defendants, are labor unions, and ILWU is the certified collective bargaining representative for all employees of the employer members of Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) on the Pacific Coast engaged in loading and unloading vessels and operations incidental thereto including warehousing. ILWU and Local 10 are the exclusive bargaining representatives for all such employees.

*936 Heretofore PMA signed a succession of collective bargaining agreements with ILWU and Local 10. At the time here in question an agreement was in effect covering the period June 16, 1961 to July 1, 1966. Rules relating to registration and deregistration of longshoremen in the Port of San Francisco, adopted about March 18, 1958, were a part of that agreement, and remained in effect until new rules relating thereto were adopted about June 17,1963.

The complaint then…

(concurring) :

What we hold here is that plaintiffs’ claims are not defeated by either primary jurisdiction of the NLRB over the claim against the union or failure of plaintiffs to press their grievances against the employers to arbitration. Remand is thus called for. For the guidance of the District Court on remand we also point out the insufficiency of the present record to support summary disposition of the ease, and point up complexities with which the District Court, rather than this court, should struggle in the first instance.

I should like to add to the complexities with which Judge Pope has dealt one further aspect of the case which seems relevant to me, and with which I would hope the District Court, with aid of counsel, might concern itself. This, in general, is the scope and source of the collective bargaining agreement — the self-imposed body of law binding upon the association and the union in their dealings with each other. Specifically, I am in doubt as to the nature and function of the joint committees. Is their function purely adjudicatory — the resolution of grievance disputes? Or have they rule-making powers which invest them with authority to take action…

On Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing.