General Teamsters Local Union No. 528

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 370 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica and National Homes Corporation and Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
acting on behalf of Millmen's Local Union No.
1528, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CD-271
November 20, 1978
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Southern Council of Industrial
Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, acting on behalf of
Millmen's Local Union No. 1528, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called the Carpenters, on March 27,
1978, alleging that General Teamsters Local Union
No. 528, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, War-housemen and
Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Teamsters
or Local 528, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with
an object of forcing or requiring the Employer, Na-
tional Homes Corporation, to assign certain work to
employees it represents rather than to employees rep-
resented by the Carpenters.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Ann D. Reel on April 17, 1978. All par-
ties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, an Indiana corporation which maintains an
office and place of business on Railroad Street in
Thomson, Georgia, is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of prefabricated homes. During the past rep-
resentative 12-month period, the Employer sold and
shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located at points outside the State of
Georgia. 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 purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. TIHE LABOR OR(iANIZAIIONS INVOIVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Team-
sters and the Carpenters are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the service and mainte-
nance, including gas and oil service, of forklifts and
straddlers used by the Employer at its Thomson,
Georgia, manufacturing facility.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer manufactures prefabricated homes
in Thomson, Georgia. Its facility consists of a plant
with several annexes, as well as a garage a block
away. The garage is called the transportation depart-
ment. The Teamsters has represented transportation
department employees since 1961, while the Carpen-
ters has represented production and maintenance
employees at the plant since 1967.
Previously, plant employees operated the Employ-
er's 13 forklifts and I straddler on the floor of the
plant during the one and only shift. Transportation
department employees were responsible for storing,
maintaining, repairing, oiling, and gasing these ma-
chines and driving them to the plant from the trans-
portation department every morning and back to the
department at night. Each morning, 10 to 15 trans-
portation department employees drive the lifts from
the department to the plant over public roads. This
ride takes from 15 to 20 minutes. Teamsters had per-
formed the work from 1967 through 1977.
On May 31, 1977, the Employer replaced 10 of the
lifts and removed them, as well as 3 old lifts and a
straddler, to the plant for storage and use. The Em-
ployer assigned the disputed work to the plant pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The Teamsters
grieved this loss of work.
370
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 528
On January 25. 1978, the Teamsters Southern Mul-
ti-State Grievance Committee, herein called Griev-
ance Committee, awarded the work in dispute to
transportation department employees. The Carpen-
ters was not afforded an opportunity to participate in
the grievance process. On March 7, 1978, the Em-
ployer complied with the Grievance Committee
award. Thereafter, the Carpenters filed a grievance.
On March 13, 1978, however, the Teamsters, by let-
ter, advised the Employer that if the Grievance
Committee's award was not honored, the Employer
would be picketed and possibly struck.
C. The Contention of the Parties
The Employer contends that its new method of
operations justifies its assignment of the disputed
work to its production and maintenance employees,
who are represented by the Carpenters. The Em-
ployer argues that it is more efficient and economical
to store lifts in the building in which they are used
and to have the same employees who operate the lifts
maintain them.
The Carpenters contends that the use and mainte-
nance of forklifts is part and parcel of the production
process and, as such, should be interpreted to be
within the Carpenters certified unit of production
and maintenance employees.
The Teamsters contends that it has not attempted
to force the Employer to assign work to it within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D). In addition, the
Teamsters contends that its members had performed
the disputed work from 1961 until the Employer
reassigned the work to the Carpenters in 1977. The
Teamsters argues that its certification covers the
work in question. Furthermore, it cites the particular
skills of employees it represents to perform the work
and the efficiency of operations attendant upon such
skills. Finally, the Teamsters argues that the Employ-
er's past practice and the Grievance Committee's
award justify the assignment of the work to its mem-
bers.
D. Applicahilitv of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (I) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated
and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
We conclude that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the parties have not agreed upon a method for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
With respect to (1), the Teamsters filed a grievance
for the work and, when the Greivance Committee
awarded the work to the Teamsters (Local 528),
threatened, in writing, picketing and possible strike
action to enforce the award if the Employer balked
at its application.
With respect to (2), the Grievance Committee's
proceedings and award have no binding effect on the
Carpenters. The Carpenters was not a party to the
grievance proceeding, nor was it afforded an oppor-
tunity to be.
We conclude that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc-
curred and that there exists no agreed-upon method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute within
the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the
Board for determination.
E. fMerit of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of disputed work after
giving due consideration to various factors.' The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic-
tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com-
monsense and experience, reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case.2
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Board certification
Teamsters Local No. 728 was certified on October
26, 1960, to represent employees at Knox Homes
Corporation, a predecessor employer of National
Homes. The record does not indicate the certified
unit. Thereafter, Local No. 728 underwent a schism
resulting in Local 528 as the servicing local of Knox
Homes.
The Carpenters was certified on June i, 1967, at
Knox Homes for a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees, including yard employees, plant
clericals, leadmen. and sert ice employees; but ex-
cluding over-the-road truckdrivers, truck spotters, of-
fice clericals, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Teamsters certification is not in evidence, and
that of the Carpenters neither clearly includes nor
V 1. R v. Radio & Televrsi,n Brotdcart Engineerr I mon. Ilcal 1212.
Inrternat i ioncl Brotherhord o! Electri c l uorkceri. .4 '. (10 /( 'olumhrb BraIad-
,avitng S/tem/]. 364 i S 573 (1961)
' Inlernratinal 4.ocSiccon [f, 11 chintcti. IdcyL .o , .4 4 AFl (-1C0 (J .4
Jonic ( otru, lion ( omptnin , 135 N LRB 1402 119621
371
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clearly excludes the work in dispute. Accordingly, we
conclude this factor favors neither group of employ-
ees.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
Local 528 and the Employer are parties to the Na-
tional Master Freight Agreement executed on April
1, 1976, which will expire March 31, 1979. Local 528
and the Employer have, in addition, privately execu-
ted an addendum 4 modifying the master agreement.
The Carpenters and the Employer executed an agree-
ment on February 9, 1977, which will expire on April
4, 1980.
Article 2, section 2(c), of the Teamsters agreement
reads in relevant part: "The jurisdiction covered by
the National Master Freight Agreement and its vari-
ous supplements thereto includes, without lijmita-
tion, stuffing, stripping, loading and discharging of
cargo on containers." The addendum to the Team-
sters agreement defines its coverage as over "all ga-
rage employees and hostlers" at the garage. The Car-
penters contract does not describe the Union's
jurisdiction other than to grant recognition in the
certified unit in article 1I (recognition) of the con-
tract. (See par. E, , above). These two contract provi-
sions shed little light on who is entitled to the work
and do not aid in determining this dispute.
3. Company and industry practice
The Employer employs mechanics and truckdriv-
ers, who are represented by the Teamsters, at its
transportation department. From 1967 through 1977,
the Teamsters, while the forklifts were garaged at the
transportation department, exclusively performed
the disputed work. Before 1967, plant employees oc-
casionally performed the work. The record does not
indicate the practice in the industry. The above fac-
tory favors the Teamsters claims.
4. Relative skills
The teamsters have gased, oiled, repaired, and
driven the lifts for at least 10 years. The Teamsters
contends that their long experience in performing the
work, and the Carpenters lack of such experience, is
ipso facto proof that the teamsters are more capable
of performing the work than the carpenters. How-
ever, there is no testimony on the record, nor conten-
tion, that the carpenters lack the skills to service the
Employer's lifts. Both the Carpenters and the Em-
ployer contend that the carpenters are able to per-
form the work. Thus, this factor favors neither party.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer contends that it is more time effi-
cient and economical to house lifts in the same plant
in which they are used than to maintain them a block
away from the production floor. Every day 15 to 20
minutes of over-the-road transport are saved to and
from the plant; thus, time, gas, and man-hours are
saved. Furthermore, hazardous driving is avoided
under the Employer's plan: pedestrians and vehicles
on the public road are saved from the Employer's
traffic and possible accidents are avoided. Produc-
tion employees, who operated the lifts during the
day, would maintain them at night as well as repair
them on the spot on the production floor instead of
summoning a mechanic from the transportation de-
partment. The factor of economy and efficiency
strongly favors the Employer's work assignment.
6. Grievance Committee's award
A transportation department employee filed a
grievance with the Teamsters on May 31, 1978. The
Grievance Committee sustained the Teamsters claim
to the work on behalf of its members on January 25,
1978. The Grievance Committee did not publish the
basis of its award for the Teamsters, and it is not in
the record. Since the Carpenters was not party to the
arbitration proceeding and is not contractually
bound to accept it, and since the basis for the award
is not in the record, the Grievance Committee's
award carries little weight in the determination of the
dispute.
7. Employer preference
The Employer's assignment of the work to the em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters triggered the
dispute herein, and it prefers that the work be per-
formed by those employees.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consid-
eration of all relevant factors, we conclude that em-
ployees who are represented by the Carpenters are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion particularly in light of the Employer's
assignment and preference to the production and
maintenance employees at the plant and of the effi-
ciency and economy of operations. In making this
determination, we are awarding the work in question
to employees who are represented by Millmen's Lo-
cal No. 1528, but not to that Union or its members.
372
The present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
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 pro-
ceeding,the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees employed by National Homes Cor-
poration, who are represented by Millmen's Local
No. 1528, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work of service and mainte-
nance, including gas and oil service, of forklifts and
373
straddlers used by the Employer at its Thomson,
Georgia, manufacturing facility.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require National Homes Cor-
poration to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, General Teamsters
Local Union No. 528 shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 10, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscnbed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 528