By Lisa Baertlein, David Shepardson and Daniel Wiessner
LOS ANGELES/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Employers negotiating a labor contract at U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports on Thursday filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the union, saying those leaders refuse to resume talks ahead of the threatened Oct. 1 strike.
The United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) said it filed the complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, due to the repeated refusal of the International Longshoremen’s Association to return to the bargaining table.
The six-year master contract between USMX and the ILA expires on Sept. 30 and the two sides appear to be deadlocked on wage issues.
The employer group said it requested immediate injunctive relief – requiring the union to resume bargaining – so that a deal could be finalized.
It is uncommon, but not unheard of, for employers to make such complaints to the NLRB – an independent agency of the federal government that enforces U.S. labor law, particularly with regard to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices.
In rare cases, the NLRB will go to court and ask for an injunction pending the outcome of a board case, but that can take weeks to play out.
The ILA on Thursday responded, calling the USMX a poor negotiating partner.
“If it wasn’t for the ILA engaging in serious and productive negotiations, most of the local agreements would not have been settled over the past year,” the union said in a statement.
Earlier this week, ILA leader and chief negotiator Harold Daggett said he had rebuffed USMX approaches.
“They call me several times each week trying to get the ILA to accept a low-ball wage package,” Daggett said.
Sources close to the talks said the ILA asked for a wage increase of 77% – a percentage the union called exaggerated. Industry experts predict that the increase will be higher than the 32% rise won by the West Coast longshore union last year.
Companies that rely on ocean shipping are increasingly worried that the ILA’s 45,000 members will strike and close 36 ports that handle more than half of U.S. ocean trade of products such as bananas, meat, prescription drugs, auto parts, construction materials and apparel.
If that happens, delays and costs could quickly cascade, threatening the U.S. economy in the weeks ahead of the U.S. presidential election, burdening already taxed global ocean shipping networks and over time foisting higher prices on consumers.
Economists at Oxford Economics estimated that the impending strike would reduce U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by $4.5 to $7.5 billion, or 0.1% annualized, for every week it continues.
A strike has the potential to weigh on the October employment report at a time when the Federal Reserve is highly attuned to signs of weakness in the labor market, they added.
The timing is politically sensitive since Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing former Republican President Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5.
A White House official on Thursday reiterated that President Joe Biden does not intend to invoke a federal law known as the Taft-Hartley Act to prevent a strike.
“We encourage all parties to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith,” the official said.
“Senior officials from the White House, Labor Department, and Department of Transportation are in touch with the parties and delivering the message to them directly.”
Read the full article here
