Loca 676, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1835 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1835
4. By permitting Local 110 to hold meetings on its premises and by soliciting
membership in Local 110 on its premises during working time among its employees,
Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. By entering into and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
110 at a time when Local 110 did not represent a majority of its employees, which
required membership in Local 110 as a condition of employment and which further
required the deduction of union dues by Respondent Star-Lite from its employees'
pay, Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain in good faith with Local 431 at a time when Local 431
represented a majority of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
7. By entering into and enforcing a recognition agreement and a collective-bargain-
ing contract with Star-Lite at a time when it did not represent a majority of the
employees of Star-Lite, Respondent Local 110 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
8. By entering into and enforcing a contract with Star-Lite which required mem-
bership in Local 110 as a condition of employment with Star-Lite and which required
Star-Lite to deduct union dues from the moneys due its employees and transmit such
moneys to Local 110, Local 110 violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Armstrong Cork
Company. Case No. 4-CD-129. September 30, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Armstrong
Cork Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 676,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, had violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Leo F. Hannon on May 20, 1965. All parties appeared at the
hearing 1 and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, all parties
filed briefs. The Respondent then filed a motion to strike portions of
the Intervenor's brief on the ground that the Intervenor was belatedly
seeking an additional determination about the work of operating ware-
house trailers which had not been encompassed by the notice of hearing
or placed in issue at the hearing. The Intervenor filed a statement in
opposition to the motion.2
' Glass Bottle Blowers Association, Local 257, affiliated with the Glass Bottle Blowers
Association of the United States and Canada, herein called GBBA, intervened and was
represented by counsel at the hearing.
2 We find merit in the Respondent's motion, which is hereby granted Accordingly, the
assignment of this work is not being considered in the instant proceeding.
154 NLRB No. 137.
1836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of glass containers at its plant in Millville, New Jersey.
In the course of its operations, the Employer annually ships glass con-
tainers and related products valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant
in Millville, New Jersey, to points located outside the State of New
Jersey. The parties stipulated, and 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.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Teamsters and the
GBBA are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The dispute.
a. The work in issue
The disputed work involves the operation of forklift trucks in lnov-
ing pallets loaded with cartons of glassware from the cooling ovens, a
distance of 50 feet, to warehouse trailers,3 and returning empty pallets
and pallets of carton materials to the loading point near the ovens. All
of this work is performed within the packing department.
Since their respective certifications in 1945, both the Teamsters and
the GBBA have bargained collectively with the Employer for their
respective units. The Teamsters represents, inter alia, employees in
the carton storage, warehouse, and shipping departments. The GBBA
represents production and maintenance employees, including those in
the packing department.
The present dispute arose when the established boundary line
between packing and warehousing work was eliminated following the
consolidation of two formerly distinct operations, each under the juris-
diction of one of the unions involved here. At various times prior to
1964, a number of different methods had been used to transport pallets
loaded with ware from the ends of the cooling ovens, or lehrs, to the
warehouse areas, for storage or shipping. Essentially, the procedure
had been that GBBA unit employees would stack the cartons of ware
on pallets at the ends of the lehrs ; other GBBA unit employees, operat-
ing hand transporters, would transfer pallets singly to an intermediate
point within the packing area; and from this point, employees repre-
8 These are motorized trains of flatcars which can transport a large number of pallets
at one time.
LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1837
sented by the Teamsters, driving forklift trucks,4 would then move the
pallets to the warehouse trailers. The trailers, also operated by Team-
sters unit employees, would transport the pallets into warehouse areas.
In January 1964, following the construction of additional facilities,
the Employer was able to combine into a single operation the move-
ment of pallets from lehrs to warehouse trailers. Forklift trucks now
pick up the pallets at the ends of the lehrs and carry them about 50
feet to trailers stationed just inside the area designated as the packing-
house. The trailers are then driven by Teamsters unit employees out
of the packing area, down a ramp to the warehouse area. The Em-
ployer continues, as before, to use two employees per shift for the pallet
moving operation, but now both are forklift operators. The job of the
hand transporters, formerly within the GBBA unit, has been
eliminated.
At the time of the change, the Employer assigned all the forklift
driving work to the Teamsters' unit on the basis of efficiency, economy,
and past practice. Pursuant to a grievance filed by the GBBA under
its contract, an arbitration hearing was held which the Teamsters
refused to attend. On January 1, 1965, the arbitrator awarded the dis-
puted work to the GBBA.5 When the Employer notified the Team-
sters that it intended to adhere to the award as of February 15, the
Teamsters replied by letter, dated January 29, that it would regard the
proposed assignment as a contract breach, and would order Teamsters
members to strike if it were effectuated. The Employer filed the
charge initiating this proceeding on February 5, 1965.6
b. Contentions of the parties
The Employer has adopted a neutral position in this proceeding.
The GBBA contends that the Board should consider the arbitra-
tor's award to be binding on the Teamsters or, in the alternative, should
give it controlling weight in reaching its determination. The GBBA
also contends that the transfer of pallets from the ends of lehrs to a
temporary resting spot, or intermediate point, prior to their movement
into the warehouse is a traditional function of the packing operation,
over which it has jurisdiction by its certification and contract; and that
the present system departs from past practice only through the use of
4 The vertical lift range of the hand transporters is only a few inches , while that of
the forklift truck is at least 12 feet.
5 The grievance also covered the work of operating the warehouse trailers , which the
arbitrator awarded to employees represented by the Teamsters See footnote 2, supra
6 The parties stipulated to the following facts : The Employer assigned the disputed
work to employees represented by GBBA on February 26; on March 1 ( coincidental with
the expiration of the Teamsters ' contract) the Teamsters called a work stoppage at the
plant, pursuant to an agreement reached by representatives of all parties during the
course of injunction proceedings brought by the Board under Section 10(1) of the Act,
the work was reassigned to employees represented by the Teamsters at the conclusion of
the work stoppage , pending the Board's determination of the dispute.
1838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a different method of transportation. Moreover, the GBBA points
out that the entire operation of moving ware to the warehouse trailers
is now performed within the confines of the packing area. The GBBA
concedes that the short training period necessary for the employees in
its unit to learn to operate a forklift truck is a relevant factor, but not
one of major importance.
The Teamsters contends that the same factors which prompted the
Employer's initial and voluntary assignment of the work to its mem-
bers warrant a Board determination in favor of employees whom it
represents. In addition to basing its claim on greater skill, efficiency,
and familiarity with the job, the Teamsters maintains that its certifi-
cation and contract grant it jurisdiction over loading warehouse trail-
ers, a warehousing function which should include the preceding move-
ment of pallets. The Teamsters also argues that if it is deprived of its
assignment, it will suffer the loss of eight jobs. Finally, the Teamsters
urges that the arbitration proceeding under the GBBA contract does
not represent a voluntary method of adjusting disputes within the
meaning of Section 10 (k) of the Act, since it was not required to, anct
did not participate in the proceeding, and therefore cannot be bound
by the award.
c. Applicability of the statute
The uncontested facts as to the Teamsters' threat to strike if the
Employer deprived the Teamsters of the work assignment and gave it
to the GBBA, afford reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has occurred. Accordingly, we find that the dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determination under Section
10 (k) of the Act.
d. Merits of the dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work, and the Board has held that its determina-
tion in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based
upon common sense and experience in balancing various factors.7
Certain factors usually considered by the Board in jurisdictional
dispute cases provide little assistance in determining the present dis-
pute. There is no evidence of area or industry practice, and the
Employer, which is now neutral, had assigned the work to both unions
in the past, and believes that either one is capable of performing it
competently. Neither union's certification or contract unequivocally
supports its respective claim.
The factors of skill and experience favor the Teamsters to some
extent, since it represents employees who have for a number of years
been driving forklift trucks as a preliminary step in the loading of
7International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1744, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1839
warehouse trailers. However, it is clear that operating a forklift
truck is a skill that can be learned fairly quickly. The GBBA unit
employees, some of whom have operated a forklift truck part-time,
can be and have been trained on the job with only slight inconven-
ience to the Employer. Thus, there is no great preponderance of
skill and experience favoring the Teamsters.
We do not consider the arbitrator's award, referred to previously,
as binding on us, although we do regard it as a relevant factor 8 In
analyzing the jurisdictional coverage of the GBBA contract, the arbi-
trator relied principally on the limiting language of the Teamsters'
certification. He concluded that the operation of forklift trucks
between the lehrs and the trailers was a packing function, principally
because it occurred within the confines of the packing area and involved
work near the lehrs. We recognize that the arbitrator was not author-
ized to issue a binding interpretation of the Teamster's contract, and
we consider the award only to the extent of its persuasiveness in
assessing factors which we ourselves must evaluate.,
An examination of the job loss factor urged upon us by the Team-
sters reveals that whichever union is awarded the disputed work, the
other will suffer the loss of some job positions in its unit from those
it had in January 1964. Thus, it seems to us that this factor is not
significant to our determination. It also appears that, in any event,
no employees will actually be separated from employment because of
our assignment.
In this plant, moving the pallets loaded with cartons of glassware
away from the immediate area around the ends of the lehrs has been
regarded as within the jurisdiction of the GBBA, on the ground that
such work is essentially a continuation of the packing process, which
is clearly a production operation. Once this operation was completed,
jurisdiction over moving the loaded pallets passed to the Teamsters,
because loading warehouse trailers, which were stationed outside the
packing area, with goods destined for storage areas, was considered a
warehouse function. We regard this traditional division of function
as a helpful factor in resolving this dispute.
e. Conclusions as to the merits
We are satisfied that the disputed work is closer functionally to
work which has been traditionally performed by the GBBA than it
is to work performed by the Teamsters, since its primary purpose is
to clear a production area. We consider the initial uninterrupted
movement of pallets out of the production area as part of the packing
$ Women's Bindery Union, Local No. 42, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO ( National Publishing Division, McCall Corporation ), 150 NLRB 388.
1840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
process, rather than of warehousing. Furthermore, we note that the
operation is now performed entirely within the packing department
whereas it had previously been performed partly in a warehouse area.
Therefore, upon consideration of all pertinent factors, but particu-
larly for the reasons discussed immediately above, we shall assign the
work in dispute to employees represented by the GBBA, but not to
that union or its members. Our determination is limited to the par-
ticular cons roversy that 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 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees engaged as forklift truck operators in the unit rep-
resented by the Glass Bottle Blowers Association, Local 257, affiliated
with the Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform, within the packing
department, the work of moving pallets loaded with ware from the
ends of lehrs to the warehouse trailers, and of returning empty pal-
lets loaded with carton materials from the warehouse trailers to the
ends of the lehrs.
2. Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is not and has not been law-
fully entitled to force or require Armstrong Cork Company to assign
the above work to employees engaged as forklift truck operators, who
are currently represented by Local 676, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Armstrong Cork Company, by
means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dis-
pute to employees whom it represents.
O