The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is suing the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and its chief executive, alleging they are using their control of the port’s terminal employer to violate the union’s master contract by forcing new rail crane technology on longshore workers.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Virginia, says the VPA and Chief Executive Stephen Edwards leveraged Virginia International Terminals (VIT) — the port’s separate legal entity that handles daily operations and directly employs longshore workers — to implement new technology at the port without going through the process required by the master contract.

The suit, which further alleges the port authority sought to influence contract talks held earlier this year and in 2024 even though it was not a party to the talks, seeks to bar the VPA and Edwards from interfering in the contractual relationship between the union and VIT.

“VPA and Edwards are aware of the terms and conditions of the master contract, specifically as they relate to the specific processes, procedures and assurances for implementing new technology, as well as the workforce protections guaranteed to ILA labor,” the lawsuit reads.

“Yet, despite their knowledge of the terms and conditions of the master contract, VPA and Edwards have knowingly and intentionally interfered with the contract between VIT and ILA by causing VIT to violate that contract,” the suit adds.

The VPA declined comment on the lawsuit.

Crane installation began in April

The VPA in April began to install semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes on the north berth of Norfolk International Terminals, the suit said. The ILA claims that VIT, as the signatory to the master contract and the actual employer at the terminal, did not notify the union about the new rail cranes being installed.

Under the ILA master contract ratified this past March, any new technology implemented by ports along the East and Gulf coasts must be vetted by a new technology committee comprised of the union and maritime employers to determine staffing levels for the new equipment, training and pay rates. The local union must also be notified so it can negotiate with employers about the new technology.

However, the ILA alleges that VIT did not follow this process. Instead, “VIT said that the cranes had been purchased by VPA, not VIT.” VIT said that because VPA is not a party to the master contract, it did not have to inform the union about the new technology, the suit claims. The ILA said it only undertook the lawsuit after filing multiple grievances under the master contract.

“Thus, VPA is using its authority to frustrate the collective bargaining process and interfere with the master contract relationship between ILA and VIT,” the lawsuit reads.

Even before the new cranes arrived, the ILA alleges that Edwards and the VPA were seeking to influence the contract talks, claiming that VIT “argued vociferously against more stringent workforce protections for ILA labor related to the implementation of new technology.”

“VIT’s argument during contract negotiations in favor of automating and against workforce protection was at the behest of defendants VPA, in general, and defendant Edwards, in particular,” the suit alleges.