All the Hall men, and the night side steady men, stand to gain because of one Hall man who filed the following Section 13.3 grievance;
The Employers have been gimmicking the pay given to steady men for years by paying the dayside steady men $55 per day, under the table, thereby discriminating against me, and the rest of the hall men.
I requested documentation showing that the assessments were paid on the $55 bonus payments, and based on the response I received on October 31, 2015, from Victor Hudak, Local 13 Secretary/Treasurer, the Union is trying to cover up the fraud.
On November 2, 2015, Joint Records Clerk, Ray Pearson, told me that 1097 is the pay code used for paying the $55 bonus payments, and that no hours are being reported.
The $55 bonus payments are being paid the same way the Crane Training Agreement “make whole” payments are being paid.
Attached is a copy of my paycheck showing the “make whole” crane pay of $191.04 for May 25, 2015, was paid using occupation code 1184, with zero hours reported.
The under the table $55 bonus payments constitute discriminatory application of a contractual rule, based on the steady men’s activity for or against the union, or lack thereof.
Section 13.3 of the PCLCD states:
“Grievances and complaints alleging that a contractual provision or rule is discriminatory as written or as applied, … are to be filed and processed with the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee (JPLRC) under the grievance procedures in Section 17.4 of the PCLCA.”
Section 24.1 of the PCLCD states;
“No provision or term of this Agreement may be amended, modified, changed, altered or waived except by a written document executed by the parties hereto.”
Section 24.2 of the PCLCD states;
“All joint working and dispatching rules shall remain in effect unless changed pursuant to Section 15. All other restrictions on the employer or longshoremen that are in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement are null and void. There will be no unilateral “hip pocket” working or dispatching rules.”
Coast Arbitrator Sam Kagel on page 6 of Decision C-10-86 stated:
“Rule 6 on its face is, per se, discriminatory in view of the unambiguous language of Section 8.41” and, “Rule 6 in this case, is on its face in violation of Section 13. Section 13 is applicable to all provisions of the PCLCD;”
And on page 7 of C-10-86 found:
“The Coast Committee is directed to take joint action immediately for the purpose of eliminating that discrimination.”
Coast Arbitrator Sam Kagel on page 1 of his Decision C-11-86 noted:
“In Award C-10-86 dated August 25, 1986, Dispatch of Steady Crane Operators, the Parties to the PCLCD were directed to eliminate Rule 6 on page 246, and Rule 7 on page 241. The Parties have done so.”
Arbitrator Kagel then decided what rule should apply for the duration of the present PCLCD. He held:
“…it is concluded that the Rule that was in effect in the 1981-1984 PCLCD should be observed in the present PCLCD.”
Coast Arbitrator John Kagel in his Decision C-02-04 makes it clear that in order to claim conflict with the Agreement there must be a prima facie showing that the language in dispute conflicts with the PCLCD, and according to past practice have “coastwise significance.”
Decision C-02-04 is an Employer appeal of Award SCAA-0031-2003, which they lost, wherein the Union claimed, “compensation for winch operators should be equal to top-handler and crane operators listed in Section VII of the M.O.U. dated November 23, 2002.”
The Union wanted 10 hours for winch drivers based on the 1998 LA/LB JPLRC agreement that winch drivers would be equal in hours and skill pay to that of crane drivers, giving Winch Drivers 9 hours at 20% skill differential to; “bring consistency to crane operator pay, with all crane operators receiving nine hours per shift at the 20% skill differential.”
The Employers asserted that the 2002 MOU clearly defined the rates equipment operators are to be paid and, the 1998 JPLRC agreement from meeting No. 37A-98 was negated by the new MOU.
The Decision in C-02-04 states on page 6;
“Moreover, given the evidence before the Area Arbitrator provided here and his decision, his interpretation of the local agreement in question linking Winch Drivers to other designated equipment which is now paid Skill Level III is not inappropriate given how the language of that agreement was drafted in the minutes of the JLLRC Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor meeting 37A-98.”
The Union won, and the Employers were directed to pay winch drivers in LA/BA Harbors 10 hours at skill level III (30%), and to make whole all longshoremen who worked as winch drivers; “from November 23, 2002 as to skill III (30%) and from February 1, 2003, as to hours of pay.”
The Union won because of the documented JPLRC agreement.
In this case there is no documented JPLRC agreement and no CLRC agreement.
In this case the agreement to pay dayside steady crane drivers $55 per day, without reporting any hours, is a violation of Section 4.31, which states:
“Wages to be called Skill Rates shall be paid for types of work specified in Section 4.32”,
And the Addenda titled; Guarantees, Skilled Rates For All Longshoremen And Clerks which states:
“Employees shall be paid at the appropriate shift and skill rates of pay in accordance with Sections 2 and 4, PCL&CA, and the provisions herein. Individual side agreements, including paid hours in excess of the PCL&CA, as defined by Area Arbitration SC-29-94, between individual employees or local Union Officials and individual member companies shall be considered a Contract violation.”
Award SC-29-94 says, Employers must pay according to the contract:
The question was, “Does the Employer have the right to enter into agreement with individual clerks to pay them the skill rate of 20% for 10% skilled classified work?”
The answer was, “The PCCCD is clear and unambiguous in regard to the job description of supervisors (Section 1.252) and the wages to be paid for the work performed in that job classification (Section 4.32).
The issue in question is not negotiable, unless executed under Sections 24.1 and 24.2.”
However, according to C-02-04:
“…given the evidence before the Area Arbitrator provided here and his decision, his interpretation of the local agreement in question linking Winch Drivers to other designated equipment which is now paid Skill Level III is not inappropriate given how the language of that agreement was drafted in the minutes of the JLLRC Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor meeting 37A-98.”
Based on the fact that there is no JPLRC agreement to pay the day side steady crane drivers a daily bonus of $55, with no hours reported, the Employers are required to follow the agreement as written.
Therefore, paying the steady crane drivers the $55, with no hours associated, is a clear violation of Section 4.32 and pages 193-194 of the Addenda, and constitutes fraud against the benefit plans which rely on man-hour assessments.
In addition, the $55 payments are discriminatory in that Hall Crane Operators are disregarded when such payments are made to a select group of workers performing the same work functions, in the same category
No assessments being paid on the bonus crane hours has Coast wide significance as it relates to the low man out dispatch system, as well as qualifying for, and funding of, vacation, holiday, and medical benefits.
The Employers think because they have been getting away without paying assessments on the $55/day paid to steady dayside crane drivers, for the last 15 years, they can continue to get away with it.
The issue of assessments being paid is a CLRC matter, as evidenced by the minutes of CLRC meetings 2-03 and 2-04.
CLRC meeting #2-03, item 2, states;
“The Union raised concerns about the Union Negotiating Committee member’s not receiving proper credit for holiday, vacation and other benefits due to insufficient hours in payroll year 2002. The Union stated it would pay the portion of its assessments for pension and welfare eligibility as they have in the past. The Employers agreed to investigate this issue and stated these individuals would not be denied their vacation and holiday benefits in 2003 due to insufficient hours in 2002.”
CLRC meeting #2-04, item 2, Travel of Registered Longshoremen from Alaska to San Diego states;
“Subject to the condition that doing so will not result in ongoing obligation or withdrawal liabilities of any kind, the Committee agreed that a welfare assessment per man-hours worked will be made for the registered Alaska longshoremen, and the monies provided to the Alaska longshore welfare fund will be based on equivalent for welfare coverage in their home ports.”
I have provided the PMA payroll code used for the $55 bonus payments and according to Ray Pearson, no hours are reported for the payments.
I requested documentation showing that the assessments were paid on the $55 bonus payments, and based on the response from Victor Hudak, Local 13 Secretary/Treasurer, the Union is participating in the fraud.
Joint Records Clerk Ray Pearson told us that 1097 is the pay code used for paying the $55 bonus payments, and that no hours were being reported, but said he could not show us the payroll of the steady men receiving the daily bonus payments.
I believe the way the $55 bonus payments are being made is a very elaborate con designed to avoid paying assessments, to the tune of over 130 million dollars.
Additionally, the under the table payments are a blatant violation of the Master Contract and the Employers have knowingly committed discrimination.
The Employers need to stop the ongoing discrimination against me, and the rest of the hall men, and pay all crane drivers, dayside and night side, the $55 bonus, report the hours, and pay the assessments, including the assessments on all the payments made under the bonus program, since its inception.
The Employers also need to make whole all the Hall Crane Operators who have performed the work in the above described skill level, from the start of the $55 bonus payments to Steady Crane Operators.
The actions of the Employers constitute ongoing violations of Sections 4.31, 13.3, 18.1, 24.1, 24.2, and the Addenda: Guarantees, Skilled Rates for All Longshoremen and Clerks on page 193 of the PCLCD.
An injury to one is an injury to all.
The Employers are about to feel the power of one.
