Samson Tug and Barge Co., Inc v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, 3:20-cv-00108

Background

Samson Tug and Barge (not party to the ILWU All Alaska Longshore Agreement, “AALA”) leased space at Matson’s Womens Bay Terminal in Kodiak and historically used MEBA-represented labor; Samson never employed ILWU workers.
The AALA (with LOU No. 12) restricts non‑signatory employees from operating cargo‑handling equipment at signatory employers’ facilities without ILWU agreement and contemplates a statewide pool of ILWU longshore workers.
Matson acquired the terminal, eliminated a previously agreed neutral zone, and ILWU alleges it lost approximately 3,600 hours of work and casual driver opportunities at the terminal.
ILWU grieved; Coast Arbitrator Kagel issued a February 2020 Award requiring Matson to assign cargo‑handling at Womens Bay to ILWU, and an October 2021 Award enforcing that result; Matson later entered a Terminal Services Agreement with Samson requiring Samson to pay “time in lieu.”
Samson sued ILWU under LMRA § 303 (alleging violations of NLRA § 8(b)(4) and § 8(e) — "hot cargo" and coercion), claiming the arbitration/enforcement sought to force Matson (and indirectly Samson) to use ILWU labor; District Court granted ILWU summary judgment and dismissed Samson’s claims with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Samson)	Defendant's Argument (ILWU)	Held
Whether ILWU’s pursuit/enforcement of arbitration awards constituted coercion under NLRA § 8(b)(4) (and thus a § 303 violation)	ILWU used arbitration tactically to coerce Matson/Samson, effecting substantial economic pressure and seeking to force Samson to hire ILWU labor (an unlawful secondary objective).	ILWU’s grievance and enforcement were lawful primary work‑preservation activity; absent other coercive acts, pursuing arbitration is not unlawful coercion.	Court: Pursuit/enforcement presented a colorable work‑preservation claim and was not coercive; no § 303 liability.
Whether the work in dispute was "fairly claimable" and whether Matson had a "right to control" (work preservation defense)	Samson: The disputed, specialized cargo‑handling work had been performed by MEBA, not ILWU; Matson (landlord) lacked legal right to control Samson’s workforce, so ILWU seeks job acquisition not preservation.	ILWU: AALA covers Kodiak; ILWU longshoremen historically performed cargo‑handling in covered ports; Matson’s ownership/lease and exercised leverage gave it practical right to assign the work.	Court: Work was fairly claimable under multi‑employer longshore precedents and Matson had the right/practical control; work‑preservation defense applies and is a complete defense.
Whether the AALA / arbitration awards constituted an unlawful hot‑cargo agreement in violation of NLRA § 8(e)	Samson: The AALA interpretation and awards effectively prohibit Matson from doing business with Samson and therefore are hot‑cargo/secondary in purpose.	ILWU: The agreements and awards were aimed at preserving unit work (primary objective); effects on third parties are irrelevant absent evidence of a forbidden secondary motive.	Court: Because ILWU had a colorable work‑preservation objective and Matson had assignment power, the awards were lawful work‑preservation efforts and do not trigger § 8(e) liability.
Whether Samson was a neutral third party entitled to § 8(b)(4) protection (neutrality/ally doctrine) and whether ILWU caused Samson’s damages (causation)	Samson: It was a separate landlord/tenant tenant/operator, not an ally; mere economic interdependence does not forfeit neutrality; causation is a jury issue.	ILWU: Samson knowingly entangled itself with Matson—collaborating on litigation and agreements—so it forfeited neutrality; moreover, Samson and Matson’s agreements (and Matson’s conduct) were superseding causes of any damages.	Court: Samson materially assisted and coordinated with Matson and thus was not neutral; also, Samson fails to show ILWU materially caused its damages (Matson/Samson actions were superseding causes).

Key Cases Cited

NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, [citation="473 U.S. 61"] (1985) (ILA II) (work‑preservation agreements aimed at preserving unit work are primary activity and not inherently secondary coercion)
NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, [citation="447 U.S. 490"] (1980) (ILA I) (analytical focus on bargaining‑unit work and scope of fairly claimable longshore duties)
Nat'l Woodwork Mfrs. Ass'n v. NLRB, [citation="386 U.S. 612"] (1967) (neutrality/ally doctrine: no § 8(b)(4) protection where third party is entangled in primary dispute)
Am. President Lines, Ltd. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, [citation="721 F.3d 1147"] (9th Cir. 2013) (applying work‑preservation doctrine in AALA longshore context; arbitration to preserve unit work may be lawful)
California Cartage Co. v. NLRB, [citation="822 F.2d 1203"] (D.C. Cir. 1987) (longshore functional‑equivalent test for fairly claimable work)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, [citation="477 U.S. 317"] (1986) (summary judgment standard and movant/nonmovant burdens)
Bermuda Container Line Ltd. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, [citation="192 F.3d 250"] (2d Cir. 1999) (multi‑port bargaining unit analysis supporting work‑preservation claims)