{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-28","fingerprint":"ewai:us:4b7993","proof":"sha256:a62c5b949bcc86b0b7749bef23583df7a12fdee7111837970ee4fcfc4864a125","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"SUMMARY*","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"AND WAREHOUSE UNION;","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"AND WAREHOUSE UNION,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"LOCAL 19,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Petitioners,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"BOARD,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"OF MACHINISTS AND","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"AEROSPACE WORKERS,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"DISTRICT 160, LOCAL LODGE","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"289,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Intervenor.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"No. 23-632","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"NLRB No.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"19-CD-269637","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"PACIFIC MARITIME","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"ASSOCIATION,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Petitioner,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"No. 23-658","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"NLRB No.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"19-CD-269637","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"2 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"BOARD,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"OF MACHINISTS AND","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"AEROSPACE WORKERS,","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"DISTRICT 160, LOCAL LODGE","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"289,","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Intervenor.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"BOARD,","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Petitioner,","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"AND WAREHOUSE UNION;","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"AND WAREHOUSE UNION,","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"LOCAL 19,","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Respondents,","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"OF MACHINISTS AND","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"AEROSPACE WORKERS,","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"DISTRICT 160, LOCAL LODGE","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"289,","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Intervenor.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"No. 23-780","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"NLRB No.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"19-CD-269637","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 3","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"OF MACHINISTS AND","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"AEROSPACE WORKERS,","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"DISTRICT 160, LOCAL LODGE","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"289,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Petitioner,","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"BOARD,","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Respondent,","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"No. 23-793","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"NLRB No.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"19-CD-269637","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"On Petition for Review of an Order of the","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"National Labor Relations Board","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Argued and Submitted November 15, 2024","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"San Francisco, California","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Filed June 18, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Before: Sidney R. Thomas and Eric D. Miller, Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Judges, and Lee H. Rosenthal, District Judge.*","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Opinion by Judge Miller;","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Concurrence by Judge Miller","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"* The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"4 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"SUMMARY*","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"National Labor Relations Act","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"The panel (1) granted petitions for review by the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), (2) denied a","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"petition for review by the International Association of","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), (3) denied a","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"cross-petition for enforcement by the National Labor","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Relations Board, and (4) vacated the Board’s order directing","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing maintenance work","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"for SSA Terminals at Terminal 5 in the Port of Seattle.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"This case arose from a jurisdictional dispute between","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"ILWU and IAM, both of which claimed the right under","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"collective bargaining agreements to perform maintenance","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"work for SSA. Pursuant to section 10(k) of the National","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Labor Relations Act, SSA asked the Board to decide which","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"union should perform the work. The Board assigned the","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"work to IAM, prompting ILWU to pursue a grievance","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"against SSA under its collective bargaining agreement,","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"seeking the value of the work assigned to IAM.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"After an arbitrator found in ILWU's favor, SSA filed an","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"ILWU violated section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act because its","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"pursuit of the grievance was intended to coerce SSA into","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"assigning the work to ILWU. ILWU defended itself by","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"invoking the work-preservation defense, which protects","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"“primary” union activity—activity intended to accomplish","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 5","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"some goal within the confines of the employer-employee","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"relationship—as opposed to impermissible “secondary”","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"union activity—activity that has the goal of inducing an","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"employer to take action against a third party with which the","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"union has a dispute. See NLRB v. International","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Longshoremen’s Ass’n (ILA), 447 U.S. 490 (1980).","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"The Board determined that the work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"defense is not available in pure jurisdictional disputes, like","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"this one, where multiple unions have valid contractual","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"entitlements to the disputed work directly with the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"employer. The Board ordered ILWU to cease and desist","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"from pursuing the maintenance work at Terminal 5.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"The panel held that the Board’s position was foreclosed","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"by International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"(Kinder Morgan), 978 F.3d 625, 637 (9th Cir. 2020), which","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"held that “[a] valid work-preservation objective provides a","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"complete defense against alleged violations of section","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D), as well as against jurisdictional disputes under","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"section 10(k).” Pursuant to Kinder Morgan, a union charged","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"with an unfair labor practice under section 8(b)(4)(D) may","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"raise a work-preservation defense even when the union is not","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"alleged to have engaged in illegal secondary activity. The","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Board erred by refusing to entertain ILWU’s work-","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"preservation defense under Kinder Morgan. Accordingly,","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"the panel vacated the Board’s order and remanded for the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Board to evaluate the merits of the defense in the first","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"instance.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"Concurring, Judge Miller wrote separately to express his","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"view that Kinder Morgan was wrongly decided and should","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"be reconsidered en banc. Because the ILA work-","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"preservation defense allows a union to demonstrate that it","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"did not act with an illegal secondary objective, the Board has","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"6 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"historically entertained the defense only when a union is","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"alleged to have engaged in secondary activity in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"section 8(b)(4)(B). Kinder Morgan applied an affirmative","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"defense that the Supreme Court created to cabin the reach of","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"one statutory provision, section 8(b)(4)(B), to cases arising","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"under a separate statutory provision, section","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D). Grafting the ILA work-preservation defense","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"onto section 8(b)(4)(D), as Kinder Morgan did, undermines","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"the jurisdictional dispute-resolution scheme enacted by","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"Congress. It is not supported by precedent, creates a circuit","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"conflict, and undermines Congress’s decision to empower","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"the Board to resolve jurisdictional disputes.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Robert S. Remar (argued), Law Office of Robert Remar, San","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Francisco, California; Robert H. Lavitt, Travis Lavenski,","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"and Julian Gonzalez, Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, Seattle,","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Washington; Lindsay R. Nicholas, Leonard Carder LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Oakland, California; Michael E. Kenneally (argued) and","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Jonathan C. Fritts, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Washington, D.C.; Geoffrey J. Rosenthal, Morgan Lewis &","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Gregory Nelson,","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, New York; for","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"Petitioners.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Micah P.S. Jost (argued), Attorney; Kira D. Vol, Supervising","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Attorney; David Habrndtreit, Assistant General Counsel;","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel; Peter","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"S. Ohr, Associate General Counsel; Jennifer A. Abruzzo,","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"General Counsel; National Labor Relations Board,","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 7","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"David A. Rosenfeld (argued), Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld,","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Emeryville, California, for Intervenor.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"MILLER, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Sometimes multiple unions have irreconcilable","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"contractual rights to perform the same work for the same","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"employer. The resulting disputes—which the employer","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"cannot resolve without breaching its obligations to one of the","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"unions—are known as “jurisdictional disputes.” See USCP-","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"WESCO, Inc. v. NLRB, 827 F.2d 581, 583 (9th Cir. 1987).","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"This case arises out of a jurisdictional dispute between","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"and the International Association of Machinists and","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Aerospace Workers (IAM). Both claim the right under","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"collective bargaining agreements to perform certain work for","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"SSA Terminals. Unable to resolve the dispute itself, SSA","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"asked the National Labor Relations Board to decide which","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"union should perform the work. The Board assigned the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"work to IAM, prompting ILWU to pursue a grievance under","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"its collective bargaining agreement. The Board then filed an","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that its","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"pursuit of the grievance was illegal. ILWU defended itself","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"by invoking the work-preservation defense. That defense","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"protects “primary” union activity—that is, activity intended","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"to accomplish some goal within the confines of the","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"employer-employee relationship. See NLRB v. International","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Longshoremen’s Ass’n (ILA), 447 U.S. 490, 504 (1980). But","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"the Board determined that the defense does not apply in","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"disputes, like this one, where multiple unions have valid","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"8 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"contractual entitlements to the disputed work directly with","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"the employer.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Whatever the merits of the Board’s position as a matter","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"of first principles, it is foreclosed by our decision in","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"(Kinder Morgan), 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020). We","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"therefore grant the petitions challenging the Board’s order","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"and deny the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"ILWU represents longshore workers at ports along the","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Pacific Coast, including the Port of Seattle. It has a","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"longstanding collective-bargaining relationship with the","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), an association of","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"businesses that employ longshore workers. See Kinder","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"Morgan, 978 F.3d at 630. ILWU and PMA have negotiated","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"a master collective bargaining agreement, the Pacific Coast","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Longshore Contract Document (PCLCD), which is binding","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"on all PMA-member employers.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"For many decades, ILWU and PMA have quarreled over","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"the extent to which PMA-member employers may use","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"technology to replace the work traditionally performed by","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"union longshore workers. In 2008, ILWU and PMA","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"addressed that issue when they negotiated the current version","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"of the PCLCD. Section 1.72 allows PMA-member","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"employers to introduce automation at their marine terminals.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"In exchange, it expands ILWU’s jurisdiction to cover the","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"“installation, reinstallation, removal, maintenance and","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"repair, and associated cleaning of such new technologies”—","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"which we will refer to simply as “maintenance work”—at","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"certain qualifying ports.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 9","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"In 2018, SSA Terminals, a PMA-member employer,","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"began operating Terminal 5 of the Port of Seattle as a marine","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"terminal, making Terminal 5 subject to section 1.72. But that","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"presented a conflict. Although section 1.72 required SSA to","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"assign the maintenance work to mechanics represented by","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"ILWU, SSA had a separate bilateral collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"agreement with IAM, guaranteeing IAM-represented","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"mechanics the right to “perform all [maintenance] work","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":". . . at all Puget Sound Region Intermodal, Marine or","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Container Terminals,” including Terminal 5. SSA initially","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"assigned the maintenance work to mechanics represented by","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"ILWU. In response, IAM threatened “economic action” at","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Terminal 5. Caught in the middle of the jurisdictional dispute","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"between the two unions, SSA turned to the Board for help.","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"The National Labor Relations Act, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 449","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"(1935) (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), as amended by the Taft-","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"Hartley Act, ch. 120, 61 Stat. 136 (1947), establishes a two-","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"step mechanism to allow the Board to resolve jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"disputes. First, section 8(b)(4)(D) makes it an unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"practice to “threaten, coerce, or restrain” an employer with","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"the object of forcing that employer to “assign particular work","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"to employees in a particular labor organization . . . rather","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"than to employees in another labor organization.” 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"§ 158(b)(4)(D). Second, when the Board finds cause to","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"believe that section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, section","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"10(k) empowers it to hold a hearing and to award the","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"disputed work to one of the competing unions. 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"§160(k). The Board considers a variety of factors at a 10(k)","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"hearing, including the skills of the competing unions, the","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"unions’ history of performing the relevant work, the","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"employer’s preference, the different collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"agreements, and the economic efficiency of the employer’s","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"10 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"business. See International Ass’n of Machinists, Lodge","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"1743, 135 N.L.R.B. 1402, 1410–11 (1962).","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"SSA invoked that mechanism here. First, it filed an","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"unfair labor practice charge against IAM, alleging that its","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"threat of “economic action” violated section 8(b)(4)(D). That","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"triggered section 10(k), so the Board held a hearing to","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"determine if the disputed work should be awarded to","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"mechanics represented by ILWU or to those represented by","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"IAM. After considering the relevant factors, the Board","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"assigned the work to IAM-represented mechanics.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"ILWU refused to accept the Board’s decision, instead","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"pursuing a grievance under the PCLCD seeking the value of","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"the work assigned to IAM. ILWU alleged that SSA had","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"violated section 1.76—which requires SSA to “defend” the","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"assignment of work to ILWU-represented mechanics “in any","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"legal proceeding”—by failing to state a preference for","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"ILWU-represented mechanics at the section 10(k) hearing.","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"An arbitrator found that SSA had violated section 1.76 and","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"ordered it to pay ILWU for “lost work opportunity claims for","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"any future [Terminal 5 maintenance] work not performed by","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"ILWU-represented [m]echanics.”","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"From SSA’s perspective, the arbitration award made the","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"Board’s section 10(k) determination a nullity: SSA could","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"either reassign the work back to ILWU or else be forced to","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"pay twice. So SSA filed another unfair labor practice charge","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"with the Board. This time, SSA, joined by PMA, alleged that","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"ILWU had violated section 8(b)(4)(D) because pursuing the","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"grievance was intended to coerce SSA into assigning the","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"work to mechanics represented by ILWU rather than IAM.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"See 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(D).","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"The unfair labor practice charge proceeded to a hearing","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"before an ALJ. ILWU did not dispute that pursuing a","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 11","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"grievance in defiance of a section 10(k) award can violate","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"section 8(b)(4)(D). Rather, it argued that its conduct was","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"immunized by the work-preservation affirmative defense.","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Specifically, ILWU argued that pursuing the grievance was","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"“primary” activity because it sought to accomplish a goal","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"within the confines of its relationship with SSA—namely, to","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"get SSA to honor its contractual obligations to assign the","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"maintenance work to ILWU workers. The ALJ rejected","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"ILWU’s defense, and the Board affirmed. The Board held","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"that the work-preservation defense is unavailable in pure","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"jurisdictional disputes. Permitting a union to raise that","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"defense, it observed, would subvert Congress’s intention to","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"“afford employers protection when their actions conform to","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"a Board determination under section 10(k).” The Board","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"ordered ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing the","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"maintenance work at Terminal 5 and to notify its mechanics","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"of their obligation to do the same.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"Four petitions followed, all of which have been","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"consolidated here. ILWU and PMA each petition for review","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"of the Board’s order finding that ILWU violated section","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D). They argue that the Board erred in rejecting","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"ILWU’s work-preservation defense. In the alternative, they","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"contend that the Board’s section 10(k) work award was not","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"supported by substantial evidence. IAM also petitions for","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"review. Although it agrees with the Board’s legal and factual","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"conclusions, it argues that the Board’s remedy is inadequate","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"to prevent ILWU from illegally pursuing disputed work at","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Terminal 5 and other terminals along the Pacific Coast.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"Finally, the Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"order. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), (f).","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"12 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"II","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"The parties agree on several preliminary points. They","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"agree that this is a genuine jurisdictional dispute: ILWU and","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"IAM both had valid contracts with SSA (or in ILWU’s case,","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"with PMA, to which SSA was bound), and SSA could not","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"simultaneously comply with its obligations under both","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"contracts. They also agree that when both ILWU and IAM","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"pursued the maintenance work, it was appropriate for the","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"Board to resolve the dispute under section 10(k). They even","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"agree that ILWU’s pursuit of a grievance in arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"constituted a prima facie violation of section 8(b)(4)(D).","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"They disagree, however, on whether ILWU ought to","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"have been permitted to raise a work-preservation defense to","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"SSA’s section 8(b)(4)(D) charge against ILWU.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"Confusingly, two different doctrines both called the “work-","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"preservation defense” are potentially relevant here.","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"The first, which we have already discussed, is described","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"in the Supreme Court’s decision in ILA, 447 U.S. 490, and","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"typically applies to unfair labor practice charges under","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"section 8(b)(4)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B). That work-","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"preservation defense draws a line between primary union","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"activity, which is permissible, and secondary union activity,","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"which is not. See National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n v. NLRB,","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"386 U.S. 612, 622–26 (1967) (explaining that, in drafting the","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"Act, Congress was particularly concerned with the evils of","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"secondary activity). Primary activity is aimed at a dispute","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"between an employer and its employees (or the union that","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"represents those employees). See Kinder Morgan, 978 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"at 637. For example, a union engages in primary activity if","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"it pickets the premises of its members’ employer to induce","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"the employer to offer better terms to its members. Secondary","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"activity, by contrast, is directed at one employer but has the","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 13","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"goal of inducing that employer to take some action against a","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"third party with which the union has a dispute. See National","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"Woodwork, 386 U.S. at 622. For example, a union engages","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"in secondary activity if it pickets a construction site to","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"pressure the general contractor to fire its subcontractor","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"because that subcontractor has hired non-union workers. In","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"that scenario, the union exerts direct pressure on the general","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"contractor, who is presumably neutral in the dispute between","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"the union and the subcontractor, with the goal that the","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"general contractor will take some action against the","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"subcontractor.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"To show that its conduct was primary, not secondary, a","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"union invoking the work-preservation defense must satisfy a","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"two-part test. First, the union must show that its conduct","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"“ha[d] as its objective the preservation of work traditionally","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"performed by employees represented by the union.” ILA,","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"447 U.S. at 504. “Second, the contracting employer must","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"have the power to give the employees the work in question.”","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Id.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"The Board argues that because the ILA work-","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"preservation defense exists to separate permissible primary","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"activity from impermissible secondary activity, it can be","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"invoked only when a union is alleged to have engaged in","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"secondary activity—that is, when a union is accused of","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"conducting a secondary boycott in violation of section","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B). See 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B). As the Board","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"explains, a pure jurisdictional dispute—which involves an","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"alleged violation of section 8(b)(4)(D)—necessarily does","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"not involve such allegations. That is because a jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"dispute is really an aggregation of two or more primary","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"disputes: Each union vying for the work has a contract","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"directly with the employer, and each union is attempting to","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"get that employer to take some action within the confines of","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"14 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"the employer-employee relationship. See International","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. NLRB,","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"884 F.2d 1407, 1412–13 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Applying the ILA","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"work-preservation defense in that context would give every","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"union an automatic defense to section 8(b)(4)(D) charges,","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"gutting the Board’s section 10(k) authority to resolve","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"jurisdictional disputes.","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"Instead, the Board says, the only work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"defense that applies here is the one articulated in the Board’s","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"decision in Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"107 (Safeway), 134 N.L.R.B. 1320 (1961). Under that","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"doctrine, a union can compel the Board to drop section","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D) charges and quash notice of a section 10(k)","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"hearing if the union shows that the case is actually a “work","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"preservation dispute” between the employer and the union,","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"not a jurisdictional dispute between two unions. Id. at 1323.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"To demonstrate that such a dispute exists, the union must","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"show that it previously performed the work at issue for that","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"employer (and therefore is not seeking to expand its work","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"jurisdiction) and that the employer precipitated the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"by unilaterally taking some action adverse to the union","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"(usually, by reassigning the work). See, e.g., Recon","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"Refractory & Const. Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.3d 980, 990 (9th","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"Cir. 2005); Steel, Paper House, Chem. Drivers & Helpers","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"Loc. 578, 280 N.L.R.B. 818, 820 (1986). Unlike the ILA","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"work-preservation defense, the Safeway work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"defense is not an affirmative defense; it is a way of showing","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"that a putative jurisdictional dispute is not a jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"dispute at all.","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Because all parties to this case have conceded that it is a","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"classic jurisdictional dispute—and thus that it is not a work-","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"preservation dispute—they agree that the Safeway work-","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"preservation defense does not apply. The Board ascribes a","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 15","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"further consequence to that concession: The jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"nature of the dispute makes the ILA work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"defense inapplicable, too. If we were writing on a blank","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"slate, we might find the Board’s argument persuasive. But","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"the Board’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in Kinder","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"Morgan.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"Kinder Morgan involved a jurisdictional dispute","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"between ILWU and another union, the Electrical Workers,","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"over maintenance work at a marine terminal operated by","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"Kinder Morgan, a PMA-member employer. 978 F.3d at 628–","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"29. Kinder Morgan had historically subcontracted that work","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"“to a subcontractor which employed workers under its own","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"[collective-bargaining agreement] with the Electrical","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"Workers.” Id. at 631. When that arrangement persisted after","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"the PCLCD became effective and expanded the scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"longshoremen’s work, ILWU demanded the work for its","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"mechanics. See id. The Electrical Workers threatened to","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"picket the Kinder Morgan terminal, and Kinder Morgan","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"asked the Board to invoke section 10(k) to resolve the","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"dispute. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"The Board awarded the work to the Electrical Workers,","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"and ILWU continued to seek the work by pursuing grievance","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"procedures. See Kinder Morgan, 978 F.3d at 631–32. The","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"Board then filed an unfair labor practice charge against","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"ILWU under section 8(b)(4)(D) based on the grievance. See","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"id. at 632. ILWU invoked the work-preservation affirmative","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"defense, arguing that the grievance was intended to preserve","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"the work that it bargained for in the PCLCD and was directed","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"at the employer, Kinder Morgan, with the power to assign","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"the work. See id. The Board rejected that argument. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"at 632–33.","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"16 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"We reversed the Board’s order. See Kinder Morgan,","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"978 F.3d at 630. We held that “[a] valid work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"objective provides a complete defense against alleged","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"violations of section 8(b)(4)(D), as well as against","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"jurisdictional disputes under section 10(k).” Id. at 637. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"we explained, a union can avoid liability under section","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D) by satisfying the two-part test outlined in ILA. See","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"id. at 637–38 (citing ILA, 447 U.S. at 504). And we","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"emphasized that the work-preservation defense can","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"accommodate situations in which a union has not historically","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"performed the precise work at issue but has bargained for the","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"work to preserve its traditional work patterns in the face of","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"technological changes that eliminated jobs. See id. at","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"638 (citing ILA, 447 U.S. at 506).","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"The Board’s conclusion that the ILA work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"defense was inapplicable here cannot be reconciled with our","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"decision in Kinder Morgan. Both cases involve","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"jurisdictional disputes that the Board validly resolved under","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"its section 10(k) authority. In both cases, ILWU lost in the","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"section 10(k) proceedings and then attempted to undermine","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"the Board’s award in arbitration, which led the Board to","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"pursue unfair labor practices charges under section","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D). In this case, ILWU fights that charge by pointing","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"to the same contractual entitlement to work that it pointed to","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"in Kinder Morgan. Having allowed it to do so there, we must","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"allow it to do so here.","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"The Board contests this conclusion on two grounds.","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"Neither is persuasive. First, it points out that Kinder Morgan,","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"unlike this case, involved allegations of secondary activity.","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"See 978 F.3d at 633 n.10. Specifically, the Board there","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"alleged that ILWU attempted to pressure Kinder Morgan to","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"cease doing business with the subcontractor that hired the","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"Electrical Workers rather than ILWU mechanics. See id. at","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 17","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"632. In the Board’s view, that secondary-activity allegation","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"made it appropriate for the court to permit ILWU to raise the","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"work-preservation defense, but the lack of a comparable","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"allegation makes it inappropriate here.","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"While the Board is correct that there was an allegation of","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"secondary activity in Kinder Morgan, that was not the only","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"allegation to which we held that the work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"defense applied. To the contrary, we held that “[a] valid","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"work preservation objective provides a complete defense","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D), as well as","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"against jurisdictional disputes under section 10(k).” 978 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"at 637. We made it clear that allegations of secondary","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"activity do not support charges under section 8(b)(4)(D), nor","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"do they give rise to disputes resolved under section 10(k). As","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"we noted in Kinder Morgan, the secondary-boycott","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"allegations there were brought under section 8(b)(4)(B). Id.","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"at 633 n.10. Thus, Kinder Morgan must mean that the ILA","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"work-preservation defense provides a “complete defense","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D)” in addition","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"to allegations of secondary activity brought under section","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B). Id. at 637. It is for that reason that the court found","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"it unnecessary to “address [section 8(b)(4)(B)] separately”","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"when delineating the scope of the defense. See id. at 633","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"n.10.","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"Second, the Board suggests that our reading of Kinder","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"Morgan is in tension with our decision in Recon, 424 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"980. That case involved a dispute between a construction","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"company, Recon, and a union, the Bricklayers. See id. at 981.","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"To reduce costs, Recon fired employees represented by the","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"Bricklayers and reassigned their work to employees","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"represented by another union, IPTW. See id. at 982. The","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"Bricklayers filed a grievance and a lawsuit for breach of","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"contract, and IPTW threatened economic action if Recon","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"18 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"reassigned the work to the Bricklayers. See id. at 984. Recon","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"asked the Board to resolve the dispute under section 10(k),","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"but the Board refused to do so because it found that Recon","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"had precipitated the dispute by unilaterally reassigning the","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"work to employees represented by IPTW. See id. at 985.","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"Citing Safeway, the Board found that the conflict was “not a","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"jurisdictional dispute suitable for resolution under § 10(k)”","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"but rather a “work preservation dispute” between Recon and","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"the Bricklayers that had to be resolved through arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"See id. at 985; accord USCP-WESCO, 827 F.2d at 583. We","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"affirmed, describing the showing that the Bricklayers made","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"to avoid adjudication of the dispute under section 10(k) as","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"an invocation of “a work preservation defense.” Recon,","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"424 F.3d at 988–89 (quoting International All. of Theatrical","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"& Stage Emps., 337 N.L.R.B. 721, 723 (2002)).","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"But our decision in Recon did not say, as the Board","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"contends, that the Safeway work-preservation defense is the","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"only defense that is available when a union is alleged to have","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"violated section 8(b)(4)(D) in the context of a jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"dispute. Nor could it have—the Board’s finding that Recon","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"precipitated the dispute there meant that no genuine","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"jurisdictional dispute existed, and the Board declined to","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"enter a section 10(k) work award for that reason. See Recon,","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"424 F.3d at 985. The court in Recon had no occasion to","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"decide whether a union enmeshed in a genuine jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"dispute can rely on the ILA work-preservation defense to","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"avoid liability for conduct contravening an adverse section","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"10(k) award. That is the central question in this case, and","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Kinder Morgan is the only decision from our circuit that","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"answers it.","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"In sum, Kinder Morgan compels us to hold that a union","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"charged with an unfair labor practice under section","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D) may raise the ILA work-preservation defense","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 19","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"even when the union is not alleged to have engaged in illegal","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"secondary activity. The Board’s refusal to entertain the","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"work-preservation defense under Kinder Morgan was error,","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"so we remand to the Board to evaluate the merits of the","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"defense in the first instance. Because our conclusion that the","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"Board erred requires vacatur of the Board’s order, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"reach ILWU’s alternative argument that the underlying","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"section 10(k) work award was not supported by substantial","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"evidence. For the same reason, we also do not reach IAM’s","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"argument that the remedy required by the order was","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"insufficient.","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"ILWU’s petition for review (No. 23-632) and PMA’s","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"petition for review (No. 23-658) are granted; IAM’s petition","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"for review (No. 23-793) and the Board’s cross-petition for","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"enforcement (No. 23-780) are denied. Costs shall be taxed","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"against IAM in No. 23-793 and against the Board in Nos. 23-","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"632, 23-658, and 23-780.","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"VACATED and REMANDED.","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"MILLER, Circuit Judge, concurring:","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"I join the court’s opinion, which correctly applies our","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"decision in International Longshore and Warehouse Union","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"v. NLRB (Kinder Morgan), 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020). I","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"write separately to express my view that Kinder Morgan was","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"wrongly decided. Kinder Morgan applies an affirmative","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"defense that the Supreme Court created to cabin the reach of","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"one statutory provision, section 8(b)(4)(B) of the National","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B), to cases","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"arising under a separate statutory provision, section","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"20 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D), id. § 158(b)(4)(D). It is not supported by","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"precedent; it creates a circuit conflict; and it undermines","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"Congress’s decision to empower the Board to resolve","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"jurisdictional disputes.","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"Under section 8(b)(4)(B), it is an unfair labor practice for","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"a union to “forc[e] or requir[e] any person . . . to cease doing","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"business with any other person.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B).","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"Section 8(b)(4)(B) proscribes only secondary union activity;","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"it does not prohibit “any primary strike or primary","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"picketing.” Id.; see National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n v. NLRB,","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"386 U.S. 612, 620 (1967). That is, a union violates section","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B) only when it attempts to prevail in a dispute with","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"one employer by involving another employer that is neutral","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"to that dispute. But if a union’s conduct is aimed at a dispute","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"within the employer-employee relationship—in other words,","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"if it is primary—the union does not violate section","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B).","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"To distinguish between permissible primary conduct and","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"impermissible secondary conduct, the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"developed the work-preservation defense. The defense","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"requires a two-part showing. First, the union’s conduct “must","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"have as its objective the preservation of work traditionally","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"performed by employees represented by the union.” NLRB v.","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"International Longshoremen’s Ass’n (ILA), 447 U.S. 490,","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"504 (1980). By focusing on work historically performed by","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"the union’s members, the first part of the test ensures that the","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"union is truly attempting to preserve existing work rather","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"than attempting to acquire new work. Second, the union","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"must show that “the contracting employer [has] the power to","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"give the employees the work in question.” Id. If the employer","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"does not have that power, “it is reasonable to infer that the","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"agreement has a secondary objective, that is, to influence","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 21","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"whoever does have such power over the work.” Id. at 504–","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"05.","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"Because the ILA work-preservation defense allows a","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"union to demonstrate that it did not act with an illegal","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"secondary objective, the Board has historically entertained","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"the defense only when a union is alleged to have engaged in","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"secondary activity in violation of section 8(b)(4)(B). See,","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"e.g., International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 372 N.L.R.B. No.","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"36 (Dec. 16, 2022) (dismissing a section 8(b)(4)(B) charge","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"under the work-preservation defense); Teamsters Nat’l Auto.","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"Transporters Indus. Negotiating Comm., 335 N.L.R.B. 830,","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"832 (2001) (same). We have done the same. See, e.g.,","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. NLRB,","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"514 F.2d 433, 438 (9th Cir. 1975) (rejecting work-","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"preservation defense raised against section 8(b)(4)(B)","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"charges after determining that the union’s objective was","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"work acquisition).","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"That changed in Kinder Morgan. There, we held that the","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"ILA work-preservation defense can be raised “against","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D),” in addition to","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(B). 978 F.3d at 637.","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"Section 8(b)(4)(D) addresses jurisdictional disputes, which","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"arise when two unions have valid contractual claims to the","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"same work and one or both of those unions seeks to secure","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"the work for its employees through means such as picketing.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"Fearing the labor instability that jurisdictional disputes","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"generate, Congress directed the Board to resolve those","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"disputes through section 10(k), 29 U.S.C. § 160(k). See","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"NLRB. v. Radio & Television Broad. Eng’rs Union, 364 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"573, 580 (1961). A section 10(k) work award is not","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"independently binding but is enforced through section","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D). See NLRB v. Plasterers’ Loc. Union No. 79,","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"404 U.S. 116, 126–27 (1971). If the union that is not","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"22 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"awarded the work complies with the Board’s work award,","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"the initial section 8(b)(4)(D) charges will be dismissed. See","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"id. at 127. But if that union continues to pursue the disputed","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"work, a further section 8(b)(4)(D) complaint will issue, and","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"the union will likely be found guilty of an unfair labor","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"practice. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"In the context of section 8(b)(4)(D), the Board has","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"recognized a different (but confusingly similarly named)","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"work-preservation defense. See Highway Truck Drivers &","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"Helpers, Local 107 (Safeway), 134 N.L.R.B. 1320 (1961).","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"The Safeway work-preservation defense allows a union to","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"compel the Board to drop section 8(b)(4)(D) charges and","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"quash notice of a section 10(k) hearing if it can show that the","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"case is actually a work-preservation dispute between the","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"employer and the union, and not a jurisdictional dispute","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"between two unions. Id. at 1323. But it was never meant to","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"apply where, as here, two unions have a genuine","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"jurisdictional dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"Grafting the ILA work-preservation defense onto section","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(D), as Kinder Morgan did, undermines the","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"jurisdictional dispute-resolution scheme enacted by","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"Congress. The Board’s section 10(k) work award is effective","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"because of the prospect of a follow-on section 8(b)(4)(D)","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"charge. But a union entangled in a jurisdictional dispute now","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"has little reason to worry about that section 8(b)(4)(D)","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"charge because it will almost always be able to escape","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"section 8(b)(4)(D) liability by raising the work-preservation","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"defense that prevailed in Kinder Morgan. That is because","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"every jurisdictional dispute, by its nature, involves two","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"irreconcilable primary disputes—each one between the","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"employer who has the authority to control the work and a","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"union whose collective bargaining agreement seeks to","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"preserve the union’s work jurisdiction. See International","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB 23","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. NLRB (Sea-","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"Land), 884 F.2d 1407, 1408 (D.C. Cir. 1989). By providing","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"the disappointed union with a reliable affirmative defense to","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"the prospective section 8(b)(4)(D) charge, Kinder Morgan","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"renders the section 10(k) work award illusory by removing","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"the union’s incentive to comply with it.","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"No precedent supports that result. Kinder Morgan cited","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"several Supreme Court cases in support of its holding, but","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"each of those cases involved charges brought under section","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B), not section 8(b)(4)(D). See National Woodwork,","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"386 U.S. at 644–46; ILA, 447 U.S. at 503–13; NLRB v.","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 473 U.S. 61, 79–82","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"(1985). And an affirmative defense available in the section","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"8(b)(4)(B) context should not be reflexively imported to the","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"section 8(b)(4)(D) context because “the theoretical bases for","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"each charge are different.” Sea-Land, 884 F.2d at 1412","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"(quoting International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"Union, Loc. 62-B v. NLRB, 781 F.2d 919, 922 (D.C. Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"1986)). Indeed, the only other circuit to have squarely","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"confronted this question concluded that the ILA work-","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"preservation defense does not immunize conduct charged","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"under section 8(b)(4)(D). See id. at 1410–13. In so holding,","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"the District of Columbia Circuit intimated what the facts","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"here make clear: Permitting a union to raise the work","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"preservation defense to a section 8(b)(4)(D) charge would","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"unravel the mechanism that Congress created to enable the","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"Board to resolve jurisdictional disputes. See id. at 1413.","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"Attempting to defend Kinder Morgan, ILWU argues that","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"allowing a union to raise the section 8(b)(4)(B) ILA work-","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"preservation defense to a section 8(b)(4)(D) charge fosters","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"labor peace by assuring contracting parties that their","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"negotiated compromises will be respected. The problem, of","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"course, is that while deference to contractual solutions may","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"24 INT’L LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION V. NLRB","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"be ILWU’s preferred method of ensuring labor peace, it was","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"not Congress’s. Congress concluded that jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"disputes should be resolved by the Board under its section","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"10(k) authority. And although Congress empowered the","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"Board to consider the parties’ collective bargaining","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"agreements in the section 10(k) hearing, it left to the Board","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"alone the task of weighing that factor against the other","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"relevant considerations. See International Ass’n of","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"Machinists, Lodge 1743, 135 N.L.R.B. 1402, 1405–10","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"(1962); 29 U.S.C. § 160(k).","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"As a three-judge panel, we are bound by Kinder Morgan,","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"which compels us to vacate the Board’s order. But the court","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"should reconsider it en banc.","paragraph_id":"para_749"}],"word_count":5811,"cites":["447 U.S. 490","386 U.S. 612","364 U.S.\n573","404 U.S. 116","473 U.S. 61","978 F.3d 625","827 F.2d 581","884 F.2d 1407","424 F.3d 980","424 F.3d\n980","514 F.2d 433","781 F.2d 919"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6ec857c9b6f02c08478bce570782c507ed4d68ff151c637069fe273e01756043","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/18/23-658.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-09-30T08:26:50.559+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","name":"Angie Cowan Hamada v. Laborforce, LLC","decided":"2026-09-18","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-3110-2026-09-18"},{"id":"us:ca5-24-60653-2026-09-04","name":"Starbucks v. NLRB","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-24-60653-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-24-60653-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-24-60653-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:ca5-24-60650-2026-09-04","name":"Starbucks v. NLRB","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-24-60650-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-24-60650-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-24-60650-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1233-2026-09-03","name":"NLRB v. VNS Fed. Servs., LLC","decided":"2026-09-03","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1233-2026-09-03","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1233-2026-09-03","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1233-2026-09-03"},{"id":"us:ca2-24-3168-2026-09-02","name":"Siren Retail Corp. v. NLRB","decided":"2026-09-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-24-3168-2026-09-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-24-3168-2026-09-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-24-3168-2026-09-02"},{"id":"us:cadc-24-1384-2026-08-21","name":"Preferred Building Services, Inc. v. NLRB","decided":"2026-08-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-24-1384-2026-08-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-24-1384-2026-08-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-24-1384-2026-08-21"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1917-2026-08-21","name":"Russ Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, Mich.","decided":"2026-08-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1917-2026-08-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1917-2026-08-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1917-2026-08-21"},{"id":"us:ca2-25-1085-2026-08-18","name":"Belya v. Kapral","decided":"2026-08-18","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-1085-2026-08-18","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-1085-2026-08-18","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-1085-2026-08-18"},{"id":"us:cadc-24-7140-2026-07-24","name":"Jannease Johnson v. DC","decided":"2026-07-24","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-24-7140-2026-07-24","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-24-7140-2026-07-24","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-24-7140-2026-07-24"},{"id":"us:cadc-22-1163-2026-07-21","name":"Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc. v. NLRB","decided":"2026-07-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-22-1163-2026-07-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-22-1163-2026-07-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-22-1163-2026-07-21"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"6ec857c9b6f02c08478bce570782c507ed4d68ff151c637069fe273e01756043","recomputed_sha256":"6ec857c9b6f02c08478bce570782c507ed4d68ff151c637069fe273e01756043","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-28T19:36:18.204Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"}},"hash":"sha256:a62c5b949bcc86b0b7749bef23583df7a12fdee7111837970ee4fcfc4864a125","version":"legal-2026-10-28","expires":"2026-10-29T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-28+legal-2026-10-28+2026-10-28T10:10:35","content_hash":"sha256:a62c5b949bcc86b0b7749bef23583df7a12fdee7111837970ee4fcfc4864a125","revalidate_after":"2026-10-28T20:36:18.851Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-23-658-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca9-23-658-2026-08-20","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-f3a7a1d6bbf12059b03a48cc689e7d23","response_hash":"sha256:a62c5b949bcc86b0b7749bef23583df7a12fdee7111837970ee4fcfc4864a125"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T17:32:56.827Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca9-23-658-2026-08-20&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":29402}}