The Daily Alaska empire., 1948-09-22
Defenses in Alaska, A|euiians Must Be Strengthened; Shorf
 Announces His Proposed Plan

Local M-271 IVA had agreed to recommend to its members that they cross the picket line and re- turn to work. The mill has oper- ated since that time behind pie ket line.
 5. At no time has the ILWU ever claimed to represent any em- ployees of the Juneau Spruce.
 6. Juneau Spruce operates it's own barges to which lumber is loaded from it's docks for shipment.
 [. Work of loading barges is not continuous, is wholly intermit- tent and performed by men em- ployed by the company as common laborers.
 8. ILWU has demanded that employers agree to call on Local 16 for members of that local to load barges with lumber and to agree not to assign loading to em- ployees.
 9. Employer will not accede to these demands.
 Purpose of Picketing
 10. Purpose of picketing is to force employers to accede to de- mand in paragraph No. above.
 II. That on August 3l. 4l0. GOO feet of lumber was shipped by barge to Prince Rupert where Local 515 ILWU refused to unload the barge because the lumber had come from behind Local 16's picket line.
 And that, finally, the picketing in this case is an unfair labor prac- tice under Section 8b of the Taft Hartley Law.
 Defendants Position Paul, stating the position of the deiendant, maintained that tht TLWU is a cohesive group of long shnvnracn w,sese rserhorssasr hss little change, that it operates or | a rotating plan; that it has been an existing practice since 1884 when the local longshore group became affiliated with the AFL and 1888 when it changed to CIO affil- iation for the longshore group to act as a bargaining unit for all longshore units in Juneau; that the group was recognized in a sim liar capacity throughout the coast of Alaska, the Pacific Coast and British Columbia, and recognized by all employers. including the Ju neau Lumber Mills and Juneau Spruce Corporation.
 Tt is our position that the Juneau Spruce Corporation should not on legal technicality be allowed to make minor variation in the appropriate bar gaining unit Paul said, and con- tinued, If anyone has committed unfair labor practices, it is the Juneau Spruce"
 MT. Hartung, IVA attorney. pre- sented that Local M-271 IVA had signed contracts regarding wages, hours and other working conditions with the Juneau Spruce Corpora ton. We believe the contract speaks for itself. The contract is being lived up to by Local M-27l. Therefore we believe our union has no dispute with the Juneau Spruce; we believe the dispute is between Juneau Spruce and the ILWU.
 Hawkins Testifies
 On the witness stand, E. s. flaw kins, manager of the Juneau Spruce Corporation from the time of its purchase May 1, l947. until June l, 1948, recited the history of negotiations with the IVA from the time the Juneau Spruce pur- chased the local company until he ended his employment with the mill.
 The contract of Nov. with the IVA permitted IVA employees to do longshoring or all work re- quired by the company, MT. flaw kins said.
 Presence of longshoremen for loading of box shocks on cannery scows was explained by MT. flaw kins, who said that the company was in the position of a stevedor- ing agent, or agent for canneries, when canneries asked them to se- cure longshoremen for loading purposes; that the Juneau Spruce would pay the longshoremen and in turn charge the cannery or company for whom it was acting for the longshore wages.
 Here, Henry Roden brought forth a receipt for longshoreman's withholding tax, signed by Juneau Spruce Corporation as employer.
 Hawkins also said that the Ju- neau Spruce, in it's purchase of the Juneau Lumber Mills. had agreed not to assume any contracts of the JIM. The Juneau Lumber Mills property was sold with exception