Local 16, Longshoremen, 889 (1969)

National Labor Relations Board

Docket Number: 19-CC-00389

Linked as:

Extract

Local 16, Longshoremen, 889 (1969)

LOCAL 16, LONGSHOREMEN 889

Local No. 16, International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union and City of Juneau. Case 19-CC-389

June 20, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND BROWN

provisions of the Act.'2 Thus it is apparent, as Congress intended, that Section 8(b)(4)(B) can apply to a particular dispute even though Sections 8(a) or 9 are inapplicable to the underlying controversy between an exempt person and its employees. ^ For these reasons, and because the operations of the City of Juneau and the State of Alaska have an impact on commerce, we agree with the Trial Examiner that it effectuates the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.

On December 18, 1968, Trial Examiner George H. O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

We agree with the Trial Examiner' s conclusion that Respondent's conduct constituted lawful primary activity and we therefore adopt his recommendation that the instant complaint be dismissed in its entirety. We also agree, essentially for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, that the Board has jurisdiction over the instant proceeding. Further comment is necessary, however, in view of the dissent's contention that Section 8(bx4)(B) may not be invoked where, as here, the primary and secondary employers are political subdivisions which do ...

See the full content of this document