PMA Berates Union Over Demand to Unilaterally Fire Arbitrators
The Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union resumed their public relations war on Feb. 9, with the PMA accusing the ILWU of insisting on the right to independently fire contract arbitrators in a long-term deal. An ILWU spokesman didn’t comment on that part of the negotiations, but said there are only a “few remaining issues” in dispute. The two sides are continuing to talk, and the union is committed to striking a new contract deal “as quickly as possible,” said the ILWU spokesman.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The PMA and ILWU have often attacked each other publicly since the ILWU contract expired at West Coast ports in June 2014, but the weekend shutdown sparked severe criticism from traders and lawmakers alike (see 1502080001). Full port operations resumed on Feb. 9.
The demand to be able to fire any arbitrator would give the ILWU “veto-power over arbitrators’ rights to prevent slowdowns,” said a PMA statement. Currently both sides must agree to dismiss arbitrators, said PMA. “Typically, while a contract is in place, disputes between the parties are brought before one of four arbitrators who each oversee a geographic region. The contract’s no-strike clause is frequently relied upon in these cases,” the statement said. “Waterfront arbitrators rule quickly, meaning that disputes can be addressed promptly and port operations can resume without lengthy disruption.”