7435 Michigan Ave., Detroit, Michigan 48210 www.labornotes.org #304 July 2004

Longshore Union Contract Passes Narrowly; Opponents Claim Vote Unfair

by Marsha Niemeijer and Carl Biers

Opponents of a master contract covering 15,000 East and Gulf Coast longshore workers in the International Longshoremen's Association are protesting a June 8 contract vote. They are alleging serious misconduct, including charges of voter intimidation, and misinformation about the time and location of the balloting in various ports.

The contract opponents had a surprisingly strong showing-a showing they attribute to discontent running deeper than they thought. High turnout and a positive response from the rank and file to a member-led "vote no" campaign waged over a short eight-week period before the vote (see Labor Notes, June 2003) boosted the spirits of the opposition.

"This is the first time in ILA history that we have had such a narrow contract vote. We consider it a major victory," said Leonard Riley, a reform leader and member of ILA Local 1422 in Charleston, South Carolina. "That said, we don't see this as a done deal. This is part of a bigger fight to reform our union. We want a strong and democratic union, free from corruption."

Contract opponents objected to the continuation and deepening of a multi-tier wage scale; the introduction of a new three-tiered health care plan; and the six-year length of the contract.

In some ports members voted down the contract overwhelmingly. Before the vote, opponents from several locals organized caravans to tour ports up and down the coast campaigning against the contract and bolstering opposition.

One of their stops was Hampton Roads, Virginia, where members responded enthusiastically. They hadn't yet received the proposed contract and weren't aware that other members were campaigning against it. Members there rejected the contract by a margin of 1,225 to 218, with an 85 percent turnout.

IRREGULARITIES
The ILA, which refuses to release a local-by-local breakdown of the vote, claims that the contract passed 5,084-3,920, with 60 percent of the membership voting.

But opponents, who are informally organized as Concerned ILA Members, conducted their own tally of most of the locals and say that some of the largest ports rejected the contract. They question the validity of the results based on reported irregularities in at least six of approximately 36 locals. They believe they may have carried the vote if it weren't for the irregularities.

In New Jersey Local 1235, a union representative is alleged to have ripped ballots from contract opponents' hands while Albert Cernadas, a local president and an International Vice President, looked on. In Jacksonville, Florida, members were informed of a union meeting but not told that a vote would take place. Instead of the typical 12-hour balloting period they were given only two hours, preventing many from voting.

In Lake Charles, Louisiana--a local with a history of hiring-hall discrimination--members were not notified of the vote until the night before and the vote was reportedly held in a climate of intimidation. Similar reports are still coming in from Houston and other locals.

Most longshore workers get jobs out of a union controlled hiring hall. In some locals, union officials use their control over jobs to create a culture of fear and passivity.

The federal law (the Landrum-Griffin Act which safeguards certain individual member rights) requires that contract votes be "fair and meaningful," meaning that members have a right to be informed of the proposed contract, receive proper notification of the date, time and location of the vote, and vote in an atmosphere free intimidation. Opponents are exploring legal options to enforce these rights.

Rank-and-file members and officers from several locals in ports up and down the East Coast have written to the union demanding that it refrain from signing the contract, investigate their charges, and conduct a revote if necessary. They are requesting a breakdown of the voting by local and asking the International to inform the employers association that the voting is being questioned and that the referendum process has not been completed.

"We are appalled at the ILA's strategy of imposing an information blackout," said Rick Cephas, of ILA Local 1694 in Wilmington, Delaware. "The contract was forced through without real information or enough time for discussion-the current one doesn't even expire until September 30."

The International has not responded to the allegations.

STANDING UP
"We were sold out all down the coast," said Riley. "Our International officers play the bosses' game, trying to pit port against port. In 1996 they sold out workers in the New York/New Jersey locals by slashing pension benefits. Now they agreed to concessions on the national agreement, while trying to buy off angry members by doubling their pensions. But many members did not go for that foolishness and stood up for a stronger contract."

Observers were surprised by the breadth of the no-vote campaign. In the weeks leading up to the vote, the ILA repeatedly stated that the contract would be overwhelmingly ratified. Jim McNamara, the ILA spokesperson, said the vote "was unexpectedly close."

Members also voted on local contracts in their June 8 balloting. Several of these were defeated. Concerned ILA Members says it will be organizing solidarity committees for the ports where local contract negotiations will resume.

"We will continue to reach out to everyone who is dissatisfied with the contract and the voting process," said one ILA member who participated in the caravan to Hampton Roads. "This was not just a contract vote-it was a vote for real change in this union."