Pacific Maritime Association and the longshoremen’s union shook off claims that they entered into
an agreement that illegally prevented contractors from competing for crane work at west coast
ports.
There was no proof that the object of the agreement between the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union and PMA, which represents employers of the shipping industry on the Pacific
coast, was to pressure PMA members to stop working with non-ILWU contractors, the Ninth
Circuit said.
The court affirmed dismissal of claims filed by the International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers and contractors Surf City Steel Inc., and Sarens USA
Inc.
The contractors and the Iron Workers Union alleged that the agreement violated antitrust and
labor laws. Although the agreement, as interpreted through arbitration, resulted in PMA members no longer
working with Surf City and Sarens, that doesn’t prove that PMA and the longshoremen’s union had
a secondary, prohibited motive when drafting the agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit said July 5.
The claim that the agreement restrains trade failed as well, because the restraint primarily affected
the parties to the agreement and no one else; the agreement concerns wages, hours, or
conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining; and the agreement
was the result of bona fide, arm’s-length collective bargaining, the court said.
Judges Paul J. Watford, John B. Owens, and Jennifer G. Zipps, sitting by designation, issued the
opinion. Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld and Hartnett Gladney Hetterman LLC represented the plaintiffs.
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represented PMA. Leonard Carder LLP represented the ILWU.
The case is Surf City Steel, Inc. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union , 9th Cir., Nos. 17-55477,
17-55535, 17-55586, unpublished 7/5/19.
Reproduced with permission. Published 7/8/19. Copyright 2020 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bloombergindustry.com>