SIMIC

The ILA claims its contract gives it jurisdiction over work at new terminals on the East Coast, but the SCPA argues that clause does not apply to the Leatherman terminal because it was not added to the contract until 2013, notes IHS Media.

But the union has asked for the delay as the US National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) looks at whether the ILA's lawsuit amounts to an illegal boycott of the terminal. A ruling on that issue, if favourable to the SCPA, could ease the legal risk that carriers face for calling on the terminal.

Thus, the ILA asked the Superior Court of New Jersey to stay proceedings in its US$500 million suit against Hapag-Lloyd and OOCL that alleges the two lines violated a master contract governing US East Coast longshore labour when their ships were unloaded at the SCPA's Hugh Leatherman terminal.

The United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which represents East Coast maritime employers, was also named in the suit because the two container lines are members of the USMX.

In its filing to the federal court, the ILA said it is delaying the suit at the request of an NLRB attorney that is handling an "administrative complaint that arises out of various unfair labour practices charges brought against the ILA, and one charge that is also brought against defendant USMX."

Since the filing of the ILA's lawsuit on April 22, the NLRB has filed five unfair labour practices charges against the ILA on behalf of the SCPA, the South Carolina's attorney general, and the USMX.

Those charges, which are in addition to the January charge filed by the SCPA against the ILA for blocking liner services to Leatherman, include engaging in a secondary boycott - ie, any attempt to block a company from doing business with another during a labour dispute - and entering into an agreement that blocks that handling of a customer's freight.

The ILA's lawsuit prompted CMA CGM to divert a vessel from the Leatherman terminal to the SCPA's old Wando Welch terminal. The ILA said in its filing that it is requesting the delay ahead of the NLRB filing its own preliminary injunction to block the lawsuit.