News / California port workers launch lawsuits against terminal operator bosses

© Olivier Le Moal

Californian port workers have filed two class action lawsuits against the Pacific Maritime Association, 27 named companies, including Maersk, APM Terminals and Cosco Shipping Terminals and a host of other, unnamed, firms.

One class action is on behalf of 8,000 to 10,000 port staff, an attempt to recover sick pay, one-off pandemic wage payments and statutory penalties, under Californian laws. The case alleges “multiple violations of the Labor Code”.

It claims: “In addition, defendants agreed to divide among its longshore employees $70m for the risks that these essential workers took by keeping the flow of freight at the ports going and continuing to work during the Covid-19 pandemic (“pandemic appreciation pay”).”

Noting that some employees had lost their lives to Covid, the lawsuit claims the defendants “specifically excluded all watchmen” from the pandemic pay, “in retaliation for hundreds of watchmen filing complaints with the California Labor Commissioner for sick pay, despite the fact these watchmen worked during the Covid-19 pandemic, to discourage others from filing Labor Commission complaints against defendants”.

The amount being claimed has not been announced, but is above $5m and up to tens of millions across several complaints.

The claims allege that there was no sick pay policy and sick pay wages were unpaid.

The defendants argue that the complaints should be disregarded because of various local collective bargaining agreements, which waived labour laws on sick leave.

Meanwhile, an overlapping class action, against the PMA, Maersk and the ILWU, alleges that six female casual non-union longshore workers, on “the very bottom rung of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Port 14,000-worker hierarchy”, became pregnant and were not given the “accommodations” to continue working, breastfeed at work or take time off.

“As a result, they lost pay and the seniority needed to earn higher wages and, eventually, gain union membership, a status that comes not just with the guarantee of full-time work, but also generous pension, health and other benefits, and wages well into six figures,” says the action.

The case is being brought on behalf of any workers “similarly situated”, and notes “multiple barriers faced by female casual workers striving to advance in a high-paying industry that historically has been hostile to their presence” on the docks.

Noting a long history of struggle for female dockworkers, the claim says women represent about half the 4,000 or so casual workers at the ports, but account for less than 20% of union membership. The case argues that the way casual labourers can rise up the ladder and become unionised is effectively discriminatory against pregnant women.

It adds: “Moreover, women are all but absent from defendants’ leadership. Defendant PMA’s president and CEO is a man, its 11-member board of directors and 11-member coast steering committee are all men, and all 12 members of its Southern California area steering committee are men.”

It notes a similarly skewed imbalance at the ILWU, also a defendant in this case.

The cases, now filed on the same docket, will go before a magistrate judge.