In These Times Containers

‘In a nutshell, the NLRB is attempting to financially cripple the ILWU for trying to uphold the ‘work jurisdiction’ clause of their coast-wide agreement.’ — Joe Burns, In These Times

Joe Burns, a former local union president active in strike solidarity, is a labor negotiator and attorney. He is the author of the book ‘Reviving the Strike: How Working People Can Regain Power and Transform America’ Below are excerpts from his article published in In These Times called ‘A Current Longshore Battle Shows that the NLRB Is Not a Friend of Organized Labor’:

The NLRB is a key part of the system of labor control which hamstrings labor and prevents effective trade unionism in this country.

To truly understand the role of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), we should be looking at its war against the kind of solidarity unionism practiced by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Unlike the partial pro-worker measures which negligibly impact labor’s prospect, the NLRB’s vigorous prosecution of the ILWU has the potential to cripple one of labor’s best unions.

In a recent ruling, the NLRB upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the ILWU violated the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in work slowdowns against their employer ICTSI. While the case is somewhat complicated, in a nutshell, the National Labor Relations Board is attempting to financially cripple the ILWU for trying to uphold the “work jurisdiction” clause of their coast-wide agreement.

Even worse, the NLRB is claiming that by pressuring the contractor which is running the port to give them work that they and the employer group the Pacific Maritime Association both believe belong to the ILWU, they are violating the secondary boycott provisions of Taft Hartley.

But here’s why this case is so important: The NLRB is saying that ICTSI is somehow not to be considered the primary employer but is a neutral employer, making the ILWU’s actions illegal secondary activity.

Seem complicated? That’s because the whole case is based on legal fictions which defy common sense.

Read the full article — and share it with your friends — at In These Times