Assoc. of Western Pulp & Paper Wkrs., Loc. 580

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ASSOC. OF WESTERN PULP & PAPER WKRS., LOC. 580
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers,
Local 580 and Weyerhaeuser Company and Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 3-536. Case 19-CD-244
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, pursuant
to charges filed by Weyerhaeuser Company, the
Employer, alleging that Association of Western Pulp
and Paper Workers, Local 580, Respondent, violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Richard
V. Stratton on February 13 and 14, 1975. All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter,
the Employer, Respondent, and Local 3-536, Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO
(IWA), filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has- reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Weyerhaeuser Company is engaged in the manu-
facture of lumber, plywood, pulp, and paper and
other related wood products in Longview, Washing-
ton. In the course and conduct of its business, it
annually ships lumber, plywood, and paper and
other wood products valued in excess of $100,000 to
points outside the State of Washington. Accordingly,
we find, as the parties have stipulated, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respon-
dent and Local 3-536, International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
218 NLRB No. 214
III. THE DISPUTE
1395
0
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of the operation and
maintenance of a facility at the Weyerhaeuser
Longview plantsite called "Mill A" and also the work
of driving the chip truck which collects and hauls
away the chips from Mill A.
B. Background
Mill A was constructed in 1974 by members of
IWA as an adjunct to the Employer's plant. In
September 1974, Mill A began operation staffed by
Weyerhaeuser employees who were members of and
represented by IWA Local 3-536. The Employer
recognized IWA Local 3-536 as the representative of
the employees manning Mill A and also the chip
truck driver servicing Mill A for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
In November 1974 the officers of Respondent met
with James Shelly, the labor relations manager for
Weyerhaeuser, and demanded that employees repre-
sented by Respondent be given certain jobs in Mill
A. Shelly's undenied testimony was that Respon-
dent's representative stated "if we didn't recognize
[Respondent] as the bargaining representative for the
jobs, that [Respondent] would place pickets on the
plant site." Shelly further testified that this demand
and threat were repeated at a second meeting a week
later.
The Employer's industrial complex is divided into
two divisions or facilities, one for pulp and paper
manufacturing and the other for making logs and
lumber products. Each facility, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, has been organized on an
industrial basis with the wood (lumber) products
employees being represented by the IWA and the
pulp (paper) mill employees by Respondent.
The production of pulp requires the use of wood
chips as one of its basic raw materials. Wood chips
are a byproduct chopped from waste lumber and
logs. These wood chips are produced at various
facilities throughout the Employer's complex.
In the wood products facilities, made up of mills 1,
2, 3, and the stud mill, chips are produced as a
byproduct, which means that these facilities are
devoted principally to the production of lumber, and
chips are made from the waste material. Employees
in the wood products facilities are represented by
IWA. On the other hand, Employer's fiber chip plant
and hydraulic log barker facilities are primarily
designed for the production of chips. Respondent
represents the employees working in the fiber chip
plant and the hydraulic log barker.
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's representative testified that Mill A was
constructed because there "was nofacility at Long-
view to convert small logs into lumber, and . . . the
objective of this facility is to extract lumber out of
small logs which previously some of these logs went
to chipping, some went to sales."
The production process involved in Mill A starts
with the delivery of logs by the log stacker to what is
termed a dead dock. The grapple operator, through
the use of a crane, feeds these logs into a conveyor.
The logs are inspected by the No. 1 cut off saw
operator who determines one of three potential uses
for the log conveyed to his work station. If the log is
crooked, too small, or highly defective, he will do
whatever trimming is required and then route it to
the chipper for the production of chips. If the log has
potential lumber yield, he will trim it for routing into
the Adco West machine to be made into 2 by 4's. If
the log has potential for domestic sales or for use in
the production of plywood, it will be removed from
the conveyor process for outside use.
The logs that are routed to the chipper or Adco
West machine are first debarked. There is no barker
or chipper operator. These two processes are auto-
matic and are operated by the No. 1 cutoff saw
operator. If the log is to be channeled into the
production of lumber, the log goes to the No. 2 cutoff
saw operator who cuts the log into such lengths as
will produce the optimum in terms of lumber
production. The chips that fall away in this cutting
go down into a vibrating conveyor below the Adco
West machine and are later transferred to a chip bin.
The log is then transferred to the Adco West
machine whose operator, through visual inspection,
is responsible for selecting the number of lumber cuts
that will be made by positioning the log in the best
position possible to obtain the desired cut. The
lumber produced in this sawing process goes to a
stacker-sorter operator who inspects the lumber. If
he finds it suitable for lumber, he will direct it to a
lumber stacker. If the lumber is too short, broken, or
defective, it is directed to a wastewood chipper. The
lumber stacker packs and bands the lumber together
and sets it aside to be picked up and processed at the
rest of the mill. The chips from the wastewood
chipper also go into the chip bin. When the chip bin
is full, a truck picks up the chips.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and IWA take the position that the
Employer's assignment of the disputed work is
consistent with industrial practice , wherein a distinc-
tion is drawn generally between wood products or
lumber manufacturing activities and paper and pulp
activities , and that the logging , lumbering, and
manufacturing of finished wood products on an
industrial basis are within the jurisdiction of the
IWA. Therefore, employees represented by IWA
should be awarded the work because Mill A is a
lumber production facility. The assignment to IWA,
they contend, is further supported by the area
practice, economy, and efficiency realized by the use
of the training, experience, and stable workdays of
IWA. The Employer contends that the restricted no-
work holidays recognized in Respondent's bargain-
mg agreement would interrupt Mill A's operation if
Respondent's employees filled certain positions
because these employees would be absent while
employees represented by IWA would be present but
unable to carry on the complete operation of Mill A.
Respondent argues that the operation of Mill A is
no different from the fiber chip plant and the
hydraulic barker where chips are the primary
product. Respondent further contends that Mill A is
a replacement for the work being done by the fiber
plant since some of these employees have been laid
off. Moreover, Respondent argues that the mere
physical location of Mill A, within close proximity to
the fiber chip plant and storage area for the wood
chips, warrants that employees represented by
Respondent should be awarded the work. Finally,
Respondent takes the position that because all
drivers servicing the fiber chip plant are represented
by it, the driver servicing Mill A should also be an
employee represented by it.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and
that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
The record shows that, after the assignment of the
work to IWA by the Employer, representatives of
Respondent made repeated demands upon the
Employer that the work be assigned to it rather than
to members of IWA and stated that if such work was
not assigned Respondent would picket the Employer.
The record also establishes that this work was
claimed and was being performed by employees
represented by IWA. Thus, by its repeated demands
and threats to picket, Respondent sought to force the
Employer to assign the work to its own members or
employees whom it represented. We find that
reasonable cause exists to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
It is clear from the record that neither labor
organization's collective-bargaining agreement with
the Employer provides for tripartite arbitration. IWA
ASSOC. OF WESTERN PULP & PAPER WKRS., LOC. 580 1397
is not party to, nor would it be bound by, an
arbitration settlement as presently sought by Re-
spondent under its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer. Thus, we find that no agreed-
upon method exists for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute which is binding upon all of the parties.'
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to relevant factors.
1. Collective-bargaining contracts
Both labor organizations, Respondent and IWA,
have collective-bargaining agreements with the Em-
ployer and claim to be certified by the Board.
However, neither the agreements nor certifications
offer evidence or aid that would assist us in making
our determination. Accordingly, we find that this
factor does not support either claimant.
2. Employer's assignment, area and past
practice
The area practice is limited to the Employer as Mill
A, particularly the Adco West machine, is a new
operation and apparently has not been adopted by
other industrial complexes in the area.
As noted above, the Employer has assigned the
work in question to employees represented by IWA.
This assignment was predicated in part on its
evaluation of the skills possessed by these employees
and its conclusion that its practice, and the practice
of the industry in general, was to assign work which
primarily involved wood or lumber production to
IWA members. This factor favors an award of the
disputed work to the employees represented by IWA.
3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of
operations
The Employer strongly favors an award to its
employees represented by IWA because of their
skills , experience, and their availability to the
Employer. IWA members who were assigned to Mill
A had performed similar work in the Employer's
other lumber facilities; i.e., log inspection performed
by the No. 1 cutoff saw operator. There were no
comparable jobs performed by Respondent members
that would be similar to skills needed in the
operation of Mill A, other than operation of the chip
truck, because the log barker is operated automat-
ically by the cutoff saw operators as they operate the
Adco West machine.
Operational efficiency, and the extent to which it
results in reduction of production costs and lost time,
favors an assignment to IWA members. The assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represented
by IWA reduces the number of maintenance employ-
ees required to service Mill A. Moreover, this
assignment permits the Employer to draw upon
additional comparable skills from other IWA lumber
production facilities as necessary. Also, the Employer
would not have to curtail its operation when some of
its employees, represented by Respondent, were off
because of no-work holidays, e.g., if the chip truck
driver and the log grapple operator which service
Mill A were employees represented by Respondent
then Mill A could operate only on a limited basis.
The record does not reveal that the major reason
for employment curtailment at the fiber chip plant
was due to the operation of Mill A. Respondent's
representative testified that the Employer stated if
changes are "made in the employment, [the Employ-
er ] would try to utilize these people in any openings
throughout the Weyerhaeuser group rather than lay
them off and hire them again somewhere else; they
would transfer within the organization wherever
possible." This factor does not favor an award to
employees represented by Respondent.
Accordingly, we find that the factors of skill,
availability of workers, efficiency, and economy of
operations favor the award of the work to the
employees who are represented by IWA.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
a full consideration of all of the relevant factors, the
following in particular: (1) the primary objective for
which Mill A was constructed, i.e. to produce lumber
products; (2) the Employer's practice; and (3) the
skills required and efficiency and economy of
operations, we conclude that the employees of the
Employer who are represented by IWA are entitled
to perform the work in question and we shall
determine the dispute in their favor. The truckdriver
who services the other facilities where IWA members
are employed is an IWA member. Therefore, since
we have determined that IWA members are entitled
to the work assignment at Mill A, we also find that,
consistent with the Employer's practice, an IWA
member should be awarded the work of chip truck
driver servicing Mill A. In making this determina-
tion, we award the work to the employees of the
I The Denver Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, Local 22, a/w
International Printing and Graphic Communications Union (The Denver
Publishing Company), 208 NLRB 745 (1974).
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer who are represented by Local 3-536,
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
but not to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
1. Employees employed by Weyerhaeuser Com-
pany, who are represented by Local 3-536, Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work in dispute which
consists of the operation and maintenance of the
facility at the Weyerhaeuser Longview plantsite
called Mill A and also the work of driving the chip
truck which collects and hauls away the chips from
Mill A.
2. Association of Western Pulp and Paper Work-
ers, Local 580, is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require
Weyerhaeuser Company to assign the above-de-
scribed work to its members or to employees
represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Association of
Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local 580, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to its members or employees represented by
it rather than to employees represented by Local 3-
536, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-
CIO.