will often refer to LTL, LCL, and CFCL cargo by the generic term "consolidated container loads." Also, the term "shipper" is used to refer to a shipping company that is a member of a CONASA shipping association
231 N.L.R.B. at 359
Id. at 359-360
See Title I (introductory title to 1968 Rules on Containers entitled "Containerization"), Reprinted in Appendix A Infra
See Rule C.5 (liquidated damages clause in 1968 Hampton Roads Rules on Containers providing for damages of $150 per container), Reprinted in Appendix A Infra. Liquidated damages were $250 per container both in Baltimore, JA(B-HR) 555a, and in New York, respondent's brief (NY) at 6
See 231 N.L.R.B. at 360; JA(B-HR) 94a-95a, 146a-147a, 302a, 555a
JA(NY) 101a (rejected affidavit of John M. Haynes)
Liquidated damages were increased to $1,000 per container in both ports. The Rules on Containers as included in the 1971-1974 Hampton Roads and Baltimore agreements are reproduced at JA(B-HR) 534a-536a and JA(B-HR) 556a-559a, respectively
231 N.L.R.B. at 360
Id. at 362 ("The motor carrier's decision to strip the full shipper's load may rest upon consideration of economy, safety, or state highway and bridge regulations.")
See Rule C.7, Reprinted in Appendix A Infra
231 N.L.R.B. at 362; JA(B-HR) 150a, 318a, 354a, 475a, 998a, 1032a, 1035a-1036a, 1108a-1109a, 1140a-1143a. The Committees apparently believed that FSL containers were not expressly covered by the Rules because these containers are consigned directly to their beneficial owners and thus, unlike CFCL, LTL, and LCL containers, inherently involve no stripping prior to delivery of the cargo to its beneficial owner. Where this is not the case because shortstopping occurs, it would follow that FSL containers come within the scope of the Rules. See 231 N.L.R.B. at 355 (Fanning, Chairman, dissenting) ("The traditional exemption for shippers' loads was premised on the understanding that such loads are 'through' containers, much larger in size but properly analogous to a single item of bulk cargo. When taken to a trucker's warehouse to be stripped and repacked, they lose that identity.")
231 N.L.R.B. at 362
The Dublin Supplement is reproduced at JA(B-HR) 549a
231 N.L.R.B. at 360; JA(B-HR) 260a-261a, 549a-551a, 1027a-1028a, 1034a. In dissent Chairman Fanning contended that the Dublin Supplement carved out an exception to the stuffing and stripping rights of the ILA with respect to All FSL containers stuffed and stripped within 50 miles of port by other than the employees of the cargo's beneficial owner. 231 N.L.R.B. at 355 n.11 (Fanning, Chairman, dissenting). Chairman Fanning's colleagues in the majority, however, flatly disagreed with his characterization. Id. at 352. The proper characterization of the Dublin Supplement, whatever it may be, is not germane to our decision
The Rules on Containers as adopted in the 1974 Baltimore and Hampton Roads agreements are reproduced at JA(B-HR) 561a-563a and JA(B-HR) 537a-543a, respectively. Because they differ in some significant respects from the 1968 and 1971 Rules, the 1974 Rules are reproduced in Appendix B to this opinion
231 N.L.R.B. at 361. See Rule 1(a), Reprinted in Appendix B Infra
See Rule