General Truck Drivers Local 692

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 296 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
No. 692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Chamber-Mix Concrete, Inc. and
Automotive Marine Production Finishers Equip-
ment Maintenance and Public Service Local No.
1798. Case 21-CD-385
June 6, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
past 12-month period, the Employer purchased
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers
located within the State of California, which suppli-
ers, in turn, purchased and received said goods
directly from suppliers located outside the State of
California. The parties also stipulated that Chamber-
Mix Concrete, Inc., is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. '
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.
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Chamber-Mix Concrete, Inc.,
herein called Employer, alleging that General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 692,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called Teamsters, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act. The charge alleges, in substance, that the
Teamsters by picketing a jobsite and plant of the
Employer violated the Act since the purpose of the
action was to force the Employer to assign certain
work to its members rather than to members of
Automotive Marine Production Finishers Equipment
Maintenance and Public Service Local No. 1798,
herein called Painters.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los
Angeles, California, before Hearing Officer Michael
A. DeGrace on October 29, November 25 and 26,
and December 12, 13, and 18, 1974. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed
briefs which have been duly considered by 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds 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 EMPLOYER
The parties 'stipulated that the Employer, a Califor-
nia corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of ready-mix concrete and in the operation of a
slurry seal yard in Stanton, California. During the
218 NLRB No. 53
H. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters
and Painters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The supervisor of the Employer's slurry seal
operation, Roy Allen, testified that on August 30,
1974, he was present at the Employer's jobsite in
Carson, California, in response to a visit on the
previous day from certain Teamsters business agents.
The agents threatened to picket the jobsite because
none of the employees were members of the
Teamsters. Earlier that same morning, a Teamsters
picket line brought work to a halt on the site because
the Employer's ready-mix truckdrivers, themselves
Teamsters members, refused to cross the picket line.
During the course of the picketing, Allen spoke with
various Teamsters business agents, including Curt
Williamson of Teamsters Local No. 692. According
to Allen, Williamson stated that he wanted Team-
sters members on the trucks (applicator and flatbed)
while another Teamsters representative wanted
members in the mixerman and serviceman classifica-
tions. Picketing continued at the Carson jobsite for
several days. Commencing on or about September
16, 1974, the Teamsters set up another picket line at
the Employer's ready-mix concrete plant in Stanton,
California. The picketing continued until halted by
an injunction in October 1974.
B. The Work in Dispute
Initially the work in dispute involved driving the
Employer's slurry seal trucks in southern California.
However, in the early stages of the hearing, it became
apparent that the disputed work also included most
of the remaining classifications in a slurry seal crew:
serviceman, mixerman, shuttleman, and squeegee-
man (finishers). Accordingly, the Hearing Officer
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 692 297
expanded the scope of the dispute to include these
job classifications.
The slurry seal operation involves application of a
thin coat of material to a road surface for purposes of
protection and beautification. The various compo-
nents , which, when mixed together, form the slurry
seal are stored in several compartments in the rear of
the applicator truck. As the applicator truck is driven
down a road, the components are mixed together and
sprayed out onto the road surface. Manual applica-
tion of the slurry seal becomes necessary whenever
areas inaccessible to the applicator truck are encoun-
tered, Finishers or squeegeemen with the aid of other
members of the slurry seal crew then apply the slurry
seal by hand through the use of squeegees , brushes,
and brooms. The employees involved in the slurry
seal operation therefore include: (1) an applicator
driver whose main function is to drive the truck in a
straight line at a constant speed; (2) a mixerman who
mixes the slurry seal components and who sees that
the seal is evenly distributed in the slurry box and is
properly applied to the road surface; (3) squeegee-
men (finishers) who manually spread out the slurry
seal where it is impractical to use the applicator
truck, who set out traffic barricades, and who drive
the flatbed truck carrying .the necessary equipment to
and from the jobsite (the flatbed truck is in use
approximately 1-1/2 hours per day); (4) shuttlemen
who drive the applicator' truck to and from the
supply area making certain that each truck contains
the necessary 'proportion of materials; and (5) a
serviceman who services and repairs all equipment
used in the slurry seal process. Also, when needed,
servicemen act as shuttlemen and occasionally as
finishers.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Painters contend that the work
in dispute requires a well-coordinated crew and that
such crews have been and continue to be manned by
members of the Painters. Contrary to the contentions
of the Teamsters, the Employer and Painters claim
that the slurry seal operation entails more than
driving a truck in a`eontinuous straight line. Rather,
experience and timing is necessary for a team of
workers to reach maximum efficiency. The ability of
all crew members to perform several jobs in the
slum seal operation provides an employer with
flexibility necessary to maintain an efficient organi-
zation.-
The Teamsters contends that: (1) no jurisdictional
dispute exists, and (2) if the Board determines that a
jurisdictional dispute does exist, then members of the
Teamsters should be awarded the work. In support, of
its initial contention , the Teamsters argues that a
short-form construction agreement signed in Febru-
ary 1970, adopting the Master Construction Labor
Agreement, contractually compels the Employer to
assign the driving of the slurry seal truck to its
members. Hence, the resulting pickets were merely
an attempt to enforce a valid contract. Assuming that
a jurisdictional dispute does exist, the Teamsters
contends that its members historically have spread
slurry- seal for the Employer and other companies. It
further - contends that experienced construction
truckdrivers can successfully maneuver a slurry seal
track, and perform other functions in the overall
slurry seal operation.
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. As it appears that the
Teamsters picketed the Employer to force the
reassignment of work from employees represented by
the Painters to employees represented by the Team-
sters, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of the Act occurred. Also, it does not
appear that there is any agreed-upon method for the
settlement of the dispute. Accordingly, since the
record shows that there is an existing dispute and no
agreement for voluntary adjustment within the
meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board is not
precluded from making a determination in this
proceeding.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
having given due consideration to various relevant
factors involved. The following factors are relevant
in making a determination of the dispute before us:
1. Efficiency and economy
It appears that the efficiency and economy of the
slurry seal operation depends upon the experience
and skill of each member of the work crew. The
ability of each crew member to act and react
smoothly with his fellow employees is critical to the
completion of an assignment. The ability of each
crew member to interchange job- functions in
response to illness or absence is a necessary ingredi-
ent to a successful operation. Each worker who
knows how slurry seal should be mixed and spread
and how temperatures will affect the types of slurry
seal enhances the efficiency of the entire crew. When
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needed, the applicator driver should be able to
participate in the hand finishing of certain road
surfaces. Without this interchangeability, it is fore-
seeable that a single absentee could hamper the
effectiveness of the entire crew. The Painters contract
of October 1, 1973, provides that the same crew can
be maintained when working within the territorial
jurisdiction of other Painters locals. In contrast, the
Teamsters Master Construction Labor Agreement
requires that unless certain restrictive conditions i are
met any construction job must draw its employees
from the Teamsters local having territorial jurisdic-
tion over the jobsite. A slurry seal contractor's ability
to fulfill a contract is hindered when confronted with
the prospect of dealing with different crews for every
job and with workers potentially unfamiliar with the
slurry seal process. The ability of an employer in this
industry to maintain a work force comprised of
experienced personnel is a necessary prerequisite for
economic survival. For reasons of economy and
efficiency, it would appear that employees represent-
ed by the Painters have a more meritorious claim to
the work in dispute.
2. Employer and industry practice
Gerson Ribnick, executive director of the Parking
and Highway Improvement Contractors Association,
Inc., testified that all of the companies he bargains
for who handle slurry seal utilize painters in their
slurry seal operations. The Employer defined the
relevant "industry" as being those contractors whose
work was able to meet State of California specifica-
tions. As so defined, the, Employer was able to name
one other contractor who also used painters for the
work in question. Teamsters contends that the
"industry" includes any company with the ability to
apply slurry seal. According to Teamsters witnesses,
such operations are manned by Teamsters members.
The Employer admitted that up until 1970 it had
used teamsters as drivers of transit mix trucks which
were then being used in the slurry seal division.
However, since that time, transit mix trucks have
been phased out (since they are unable to accommo-
date the quick setting oil now in use) and the
applicator trucks (requiring greater skill) have been
introduced. Since this changeover, the Employer has
employed painters for the slurry seal operation
almost exclusively (the only exception being senior
employees who would lose union benefits if required
to change their union affiliation). The Employer
states that even when teamsters were employed for
slurry seal work they were limited to the driver
classification . Laborers and operating engineers
handled the remaining work . While the industry
practice is somewhat mixed , the Employer 's recent
past practice since the change in method of applica-
tion, clearly favors an award to employees represent-
ed by the Painters.
3. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Teamsters introduced a short-form agreement
effective February 24, 1970, which incorporated the
Master Construction Labor Agreement between
Southern California General Contractors (of which
the Employer is a member) and Teamsters Joint
Council No. 42 (of which Teamsters Local 692 is a
member). Included within that agreement is a job
classification for a slurry seal truckdriver. It is upon
this provision that the Teamsters based its claim for
the driver's position. The Employer presented two
contracts with the Painters, having effective dates of
October 1, 1970, and October 1, 1974. Both contracts
contain job classifications effectively covering all
members of the slurry seal crew. The Employer
claims that the Teamsters short-form contract was
meant to cover a single employee, Dave Gaye. The
Employer further argues that since the Teamsters has
never signed the February 24, 1970, agreement, it
never became effective. A review of the complex
contractual crossfire leads us to the conclusion that
the collective-bargaining agreements favor an award
to employees represented by neither the Painters nor
the Teamsters.
4. Skills
The Employer testified that a 6-month training
period is necessary for applicator-drivers and mixer-
men to become proficient at their jobs. Finishers,
shuttlemen, and servicemen, while requiring a shorter
learning period, still require training. The Teamsters
claims that minimum training is required for slurry
seal work.
The slurry seal operation requires strict adherence
to procedure. Proper mixture must be maintained
and applied constantly and evenly. The applicator
truck must be handled properly since deviation from
the preset course can result in lost time and money.
The skill involved in hand-finishing work, tradition-
ally done by members of the Painters, involves the
skilled use of brushes, brooms, and squeegees.
Considering the necessary abilities, ,we find that the
I Sec. 204 .7 of the Teamsters Master Labor Construction Agreement days or more, the contractor must notify the appropriate Teamsters local of
provides that if a contractor crosses the jurisdictional boundaries of one the names and addresses of all Teamsters employees . Failure to,comply with
Teamsters local Into the jurisdiction of another Teamsters local he is only this provision subjects the contractor to having all his Teamsters employees
permitted to take with him those Teamsters employees who have been replaced by members of the Teamsters local having territorial jurisdiction
employed by him for the previous 10 days. Also, onjobs of a duration of 4 over thejobsite. (204.7.1).
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 692 299
factor of relative skills favors the assignment to
employees represented by Painters.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
after a full consideration of all the relevant factors, in
particular efficiency and economy, relative skills, and
employer practice, we conclude that the employees
of the Employer who are represented by the Painters
are entitled to the work in question and we shall
determine the dispute in their favor. Our present
determination, awarding the work to the employees
who are represented by the Painters, but not to that
Union or its members, 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 entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. The employees of Chamber-Mix Concrete,
Inc., who are represented by the Automotive Marine
Production Finishers Equipment Maintenance and
Public Service Local No. 1798 and who are engaged
in slurry seal work on the jobsite here involved at the
city of Carson, California, are entitled to the work of
applicator-driver, mixerman, squeegeemen (finish-
ers), shuttlemen, and servicemen.
2. General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Help-
ers Local No. 692, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, is not entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) to force or require Chamber-Mix
Concrete, Inc., to assign such work exclusively to
individuals represented by the aforesaid labor organ-
ization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 692,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing Chamber-
Mix Concrete, Inc., by means proscribed in Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employ-
ees represented by it rather than to employees
represented by Automotive Marine Production
Finishers Equipment Maintenance and Public Serv-
ice Local No. 1798.