Carpenters Local 1529

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters District Council of Kansas City and
Vicinity and Millwrights Local 1529 and The
Sardee Corporation and International Association
of Machinists & Aerospace Workers. Case
17-CD-116
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the IAM
and the Carpenters, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by The Sardee Corporation, herein
called Sardee, alleging that Carpenters District
Council of Kansas City and Vicinity and
Millwrights Local 1529, herein called Respondent or
Carpenters, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing
Officer, Michael D. Gordon, on March 17 and 18,
1969. All parties appearing were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing upon the issues. Thereafter, the Carpenters
and the International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, herein called the IAM, filed
briefs before the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated to the following facts: The
Sardee Corporation is an Illinois corporation with
its principal office and place of business at Chicago,
Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
can conveying equipment. During the course and
conduct of its business operations, The Sardee
Corporation annually purchases goods and services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
outside the State of Illinois ; and in addition,
annually sells goods and services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers outside of the State of
Illinois. We find 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.
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Since 1962 Sardee has built both standard and
special order can conveyor systems and has installed
such systems . In some instances Sardee sells only
the machinery and checks the system after the
purchaser has installed it. On February 3, 1969,
Sardee began installation of can conveying
equipment at the Perk Food Company , herein called
Perk , in Kansas City, Kansas . Perk is engaged in
the manufacture of pet foods . Sardee had also
installed some can manufacturing and conveying
equipment at Strongheart Products Company,
herein called Strongheart , in Kansas City, Kansas,
in late November 1968. Strongheart is similarly
engaged in the manufacture of pet food.
Kenneth E. Atkison , a supervisor for Sardee and
three other employees were sent to Perk to install
special can conveying equipment leading to and
from the hydrostatic cooker . Sardee 's employees are
currently represented by the IAM. On the morning
of February 3, 1969 , Richard Cox , business agent
for the Carpenters, approached Atkison and asked
him not to have his men start work because the
work belonged to the millwrights. Atkison spoke to
the assistant plant manager, Phil Kassens , and also
contacted his local IAM representative , Marvin
Tillman , who told him to continue working. Cox
also talked to Tillman and informed him that if
Atkison continued to do the work he would set up a
picket . Atkison's men stopped working on February
3, and did not resume work until February 5. On
February 7, at approximately 10 o'clock, the
Carpenters put up a picket sign in front of Perk's
facility containing the following language:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
This notice is addressed only to the General
Public and not to any employer or employee.
Millwright work , Carpenter work being
performed on this job by SARDEE is not being
done by Bldg. Trades , Millwrights or Carpenters.
The employer does not have a bargaining contract
with the below named labor organization and as a
result thereof, the prevailing rates of pay and
conditions for Millwrights or Carpenters are not
being met by said employer . CARPENTERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF KANSAS CITY
AND VICINITY.
Atkison stopped working after the picket sign
appeared , and Kassens requested that he not start
again until the problem was resolved . Sardee's
177 NLRB No. 96
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1529 877
employees left the plant about noon. The picketing
was not resumed after February 7, and Sardee's
employees resumed the installation work after the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
granted a Temporary Injunction on February 28,
•1969.
B. The Work in Dispute
The dispute concerns the installation of certain
can manufacturing and conveying equipment at the
Kansas City, Kansas, pet food manufacturing plant,
of Perk Food Company. Specifically, the installation
at Perk consists of four special magnetic elevators
and two cable systems for can-conveying to the
hydrostatic cooker, a cross conveyor, and two cable
systems coming from the cooker. The conveyors in
dispute carry only filled cans. The magnetic
elevators pick up the cans after they are sealed and
washed and place them on the conveyor to the
hydrostatic cooker. There are two magnetic
elevators that take the cans from the hydrostatic
cooker to the conveyor. The hydrostatic cooker at
Perk was being installed by the millwrights. The
cans slide onto the nylon-covered cable conveyor
and the cable conveys the can along four side rails.
In order to prevent the cans from falling off, the
cable must be set at the proper incline or decline.
From the magnetic elevator to the hydrostatic
cooker the conveyor extends approximately 220 to
230 feet. The end feed cable is approximately l 1 feet
above the floor.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Sardee contends that it makes mostly firm bids to
its customers, a price that includes the cost of the
equipment and the installation price, and that since
its own employees fabricate the equipment , they are
more efficient in its installation . If the installation is
faulty, Sardee contends that it must remedy the
problem, as it is required to guarantee the job.
Sardee's firm bids are based on its anticipation that
its own employees will perform the job.
The Carpenters contends that, although a
jurisdictional agreement between the IAM and the
Carpenters covering the work in dispute is no longer
in effect, this agreement coupled with the IAM's
relinquishment of the work over the 12-year span of
the agreement supports its claim. Carpenters
contends further, that the work in dispute is
performed exclusively by millwrights, in the local
area, and throughout the nation, and that the
Board' s assignment of the disputed work to the
IAM will cause loss of work to the millwrights.
The IAM contends that Sardee, like other
employers in the industry who manufacture can
conveying machinery, desires to utilize factory
trained erectors in lieu of millwrights to install their
equipment. Further, the IAM contends that its
agreement with Sardee, in effect from March 1,
1966, until February 28, 1969, was in effect at all
times material , and employees performing the
disputed work are clearly within the unit or job
classifications covered by the agreement.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a
determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k)
of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is a
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has been violated.
The amended charge herein alleges a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i),(ii), and (D) of the Act. The record
shows that on or about February 3, 1969, the
Carpenters, through its agent, Cox, induced and
encouraged individuals employed by Perk, to strike
or refuse to perform work, and threatened persons
engaged in commerce with an object of forcing or
requiring Perk to reassign work presently being
performed by members of IAM to members of
Carpenters in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D).
We conclude that there is reasonable cause to
believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining agreement
On March 1, 1966, Sardee became a party to an
agreement with the IAM effective until February 28,
1969. While the agreement makes reference to the
premium pay for journeymen who have to remain
overnight outside of Chicago, it does not define the
unit or the work in dispute. Sardee does not have an
agreement with the Carpenters.
2. Company and industry practices
The record contains evidence that the usual
practice is for Sardee both to manufacture and to
install its machinery, and that it makes its bids
based on the use of its own employees. In those
instances where the customer contracts out the
installation or performs it with his own employees,
Sardee usually sends an employee down to check
out the installation before it can guarantee the
system. Sardee has used millwrights from a local
hiring hall on jobs where the labor situation forced
it to do so. There is also evidence in the record that
millwrights have performed work involving conveyor
systems within the Carpenters' geographical area.
Although the IAM and the Carpenters entered into
a jurisdictional agreement in 1954 in which the IAM
conceded jurisdiction over the installation of
conveyors to the Carpenters, that agreement was
cancelled by the Carpenters in 1966. We conclude
that while the millwrights have performed
installation work on conveyors, the dispute herein is
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
limited to the installation of special can conveying
equipment , and Sardee ' s practice is to assign the
work to its employees.
evidence that on at least one particular job where
Sardee used millwrights , the job took longer and
Sardee lost money.
3. Related skills
There appears to be no issue herein with respect
to the necessary skills and tools available to both
parties , since both the IAM and the Carpenters
possess the necessary skills and tools to perform the
disputed work . Sardee ' s employees undergo
on-the-job training for up to 4 years , including
training in installation by assisting erectors on the
road . The Carpenters provides a formal 4 year
apprenticeship program , which combines classroom
study in addition to on-the-job training . Sardee
concedes that millwrights with prior experience
could install the can -conveying equipment . Some of
the tools required for the performance of the
disputed work include ladders, stud gun,
cut-off-wheel, grinding wheels and special bending
irons . All of these tools , with the exception of the
bending irons , are used by Sardee ' s employees and
the millwrights . The bending irons are used by
Sardee ' s employees to shape twist fittings that
change the direction of the can on the conveyor
from an upright to a rolling position . While both
parties possess the necessary skills , we conclude that
assignment of the disputed work to Sardee's
employees would provide greater assurance that
properly qualified persons were assigned to do the
work.
4. Efficiency and economy
Sardee prefers to have its own employees,
represented by the IAM, install the can conveyors
on the ground that since they have fabricated the
system they have more knowledge of its operation
and therefore are better equipped to perform the
installation work . There is evidence that Sardee's
employees would require less supervision , since they
can start to install all four areas of the conveyor at
one time . In addition , Sardee ' s supervisors work
along with the journeymen , while the millwrights
require a nonworking supervisor for every 3
millwrights on the job.
There is evidence in the record that, although the
journeymen rate per hour of the millwrights is
higher than that of Sardee ' s journeymen , the overall
cost including travel expenses and bonuses to
Sardee 's employees performing out-of-town jobs is
higher . However , Sardee counters this fact with
evidence that it can perform a given job more
quickly with its own employees thereby keeping the
overall cost of a job down . Moreover , there is
5. Gain or loss of jobs
The Carpenters contend that assignment of the
disputed work to Sardee ' s employees represented by
the IAM will deprive local millwrights of work
which they have done for years . However , as it has
been the prevailing practice of Sardee to assign the
work to its employees, assignment of the disputed
work to the millwrights would result in a loss of job
opportunities for Sardee ' s employees.
Conclusions
Based upon the entire record and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
find that the work assignment to Sardee' s employees
represented by the IAM is proper. This
determination is limited to the particular
controversy giving rise to the dispute.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of
the foregoing findings , the National Labor Relations
Board hereby makes the following Determination of
Dispute:
1. Employees employed by The Sardee
Corporation, as production and maintenance
employees and currently represented by the
International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, are entitled to install the
special magnetic elevators and the cable systems for
can conveying to the hydrostatic cooker, a cross
conveyor, and the cable systems coming from the
cooker , at the Perk Food Co., Inc ., plant at Kansas
City, Kansas.
2. The Carpenters District Council of Kansas City
and Vicinity and Millwright Local 1529 are not and
have not been entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the
Sardee Corporation to assign the above work to its
members.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, the Carpenters
District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity and
Millwrights Local 1529, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 17, in writing , whether they will
or will not refrain from forcing or requiring Sardee,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to assign
the work in dispute to employees represented by the
Carpenters rather than Sardee ' s employees
represented by the IAM.