Local 675, Machinists

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 675 of District Lodge 76, International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and F.
N. Burt Company, Inc. and Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, Local 261, AFL-CIO. Case
3-CD-446
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 ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
February 13, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER 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 F. N. Burt Company. Inc.,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 675
of District Lodge 76, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, herein called the
I.A.M., had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
The charge alleges, in substance, that the I.A.M., by
threats and economic action, violated the Act in that
one of the purposes of such conduct was to force the
Employer to assign certain work to its members
rather than to members of Graphic Arts Internation-
al Union, Local 261, AFL-CIO, herein called the
G.A.I.U. or Graphic Arts. Pursuant to a notice, a
hearing was held in Buffalo, New York, before
Hearing Officer Raymond J. Ratajczak on October
29 and 30, 1973. All parties appeared and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer and
the G.A.I.U. filed briefs. These briefs 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 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 OE THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Delaware Corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Cheektowa-
ga, New York, is engaged in the manufacture of
paper boxes and packaging products. The parties
stipulated, and we find, that during the past year the
Employer has received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the
State of New York.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
209 NLRB No. 13
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
G.A.I.U. and the I.A.M. are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer operates a plant which manufac-
tures folding cartons and rigid boxes. The Employ-
er's plant houses two separate manufacturing divi-
sions, the Folding Carton Division and the Set Up
Box division. Approximately 285 production employ-
ees of the Folding Carton Division are represented
by the G.A.I.U., and approximately 325 employees
of the Set Up Box division are represented by the
I.A.M., which also represents shipping and receiving
employees servicing both divisions. Pursuant to the
new-equipment provision of its contract with the
G.A.I.U., the Employer assigned to members of the
G.A.I.U. the operation of its new roll board sheeter
machine.
In May 1973, the Employer notified the I.A.M. that
the roll board sheeter, which had not previously been
utilized by the Employer, would be brought into the
plant in August 1973 for the purpose of sheeting
board to be processed into cartons by its Folding
Carton Division and that it would be operated by
employees who were represented by the G.A.I.U. At
a subsequent meeting, in June 1973, the I.A.M.'s
president told the Employer's officials, "You'll meet
with me one way or another, either here or in the
street."
The roll board sheeter began operation on Septem-
ber 24, 1973, manned by employees represented by
the G.A.I.U. On September 28, 1973, members of the
I.A.M. established a picket line at the plant entranc-
es, carrying signs which read "unfair to labor."
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation of the
Employer's new roll board skeeter machine.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the assignment was
made pursuant to its collective-bargaining agreement
with the G.A.I.U. covering employees of the Folding
Carton Division and that the roll board sheeter here
in issue was designed and purchased for the specific
purpose of producing sheeted hoard with the quality,
LOCAL 675, MACHINISTS
grade, and specifications required for the production
of folding cartons by the Folding Carton Division.
Further, the Employer and the G.A.I.U. contend that
the assignment of the disputed work was based on
considerations of efficiency and economy of opera-
tion, in that, inter alia, the roll board sheeter was
installed in an area of the plant immediately adjacent
to the Folding Carton Division's lithographic press-
room and staging area where that division's sheeted
board is stored prior to moving on to the presses.
The I.A.M. contends that the disputed work
belongs to employees which it represents because
there is a sheet cutter classification agreement in its
contract with the Employer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge herein alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The facts show that the
Employer assigned the work to its employees who are
members of or are represented by the G.A.I.U. The
I.A.M. demanded that the Employer take the work
away from members of the G.A.W. and assign it to
its members. In support of its demand, the I.A.M.
picketed and caused a work stoppage. Accordingly,
we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
The three parties have not agreed upon a method
of settling this jurisdictional dispute. As the G.A.I.U.
is not a party to an agreement to be bound by an
arbitration proceeding in this matter, it is unneces-
sary to consider whether the I.A.M. and the
Employer are bound by such an agreement.'
It is thus clear from the foregoing, and we find, that
at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist
any agreed-upon or approved method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all
parties to the dispute were bound.
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 all relevant factors
involved. The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no Board certification determining the
bargaining representative for the employees assigned
to perform the work in dispute. The I.A.M. was
certified by the Board in 1965 as the collective-
i San Diego Stereoiipers ' Union No 82, affiliated with the International
SiereotVper% and Elertronpers Uniun of North 4merica (Union-Tribune
Publishing Company), 20] N LRB 893 Offset Workers, Printing Pressmen &
33
bargaining representative for the following unit of
the Employer's employees:
All production and maintenance employees of the
Company at its Eric County, New York plant,
truck drivers, stock-handlers, inspectors, factory
record clerks (timekeepers) and stationary engi-
neers, excluding machine shop employees and all
office clerical employees, employees of the Fold-
ing Carton Division comprised of the lithograph
and creaser departments, professional and engi-
neering employees.
The record shows that the Employer is a party to
collective-bargaining agreements with each of the
two labor organizations claiming the disputed work
herein.
The Employer's collective-bargaining agreement
with the G.A.I.U. recognizes the G.A.I.U. as the
exclusive bargaining representative for all lithograph-
ic production employees, encompassing the Folding
Carton Division, specifically excluded from the
I.A.M.'s certification and collective-bargaining
agreement. Further, article 12 of the G.A.I.U.'s
agreement specifically spells out jurisdiction over
new machines or processes involving the method and
manner of the G.A.I.U.'s work production.
Unlike the G.A.I.U. contract, however, the
I.A.M.'s contract with the Employer contains no
such protective contract provision regarding intro-
duction of new machines or processes.
Moreover, the G.A.I.U. and the Employer execut-
ed a memorandum of agreement providing for the
assignment and payment of the G.A.I.U. members
relative to work on the roll board sheeter.
2. Employer's assignment and past practice
Based on the Employer's purchase of the equip-
ment involved specifically for use by its Folding
Carton Division for the purpose of sheeting board to
be processed into cartons by the division and the fact
that such equipment had not been previously utilized
by the Employer, the Employer assigned the work
here involved to its employees represented by the
G.A.I.U. pursuant to article 12 of its agreement with
the G.A.i.U., which covers the employees of the
Folding Carton Division.
3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of
operations
The Employer strongly favors an award to its
employees represented by the G.A.W. because of
Asvitams' Union No 39 (7he Craftanan Press, Inc', 193 NLRB 577, Local
1184, Southern California District Council of Laborers (H M Robertson
Pipeline ('onsiruciors). 192 NLRB 1078
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their skills in performing the disputed work, the
proximity of the disputed work to their other duties,
and the resulting efficiency and economy of opera-
tions.
The roll board sheeter is located in an area of the
plant immediately adjacent to the lithographic
pressroom and also adjacent to the staging area
where the sheeted board utilized by the Folding
Carton Division is temporarily stored before moving
on to the presses. This new equipment, designed to
overcome problems of shortage, storage, and use of
sheeted board, is used exclusively by the Folding
Carton Division to satisfy one-third of its sheeted
board requirement.
The Employer's assignment of the lithographic
floor help to the operation of the roll board sheeter
utilizes the familiarity and skills which those helpers
have already acquired in handling and processing
sheeted board for the Folding Carton Division. In
contrast, the I.A.M. has never performed cutting in
the manner and form of the roll board sheeter.
Paper-sheet cutting, performed by its members
classified as "sheet cutters," is dissimilar and unrelat-
ed to the nature of roll board cutting. Nor can the
I.A.M.'s "stockhandlers" provide the skills necessary
for jogging or curling stock essential to folding box
operations.
Further, due to the similarity of size and complexi-
ty of the roll board sheeter to the presses and cutting
and creasing equipment already utilized by the
Folding Carton Division, and because all of the
equipment utilized by that division processes sheeted
board from the beginning to the end of the
manufacturing process, the skills acquired on the roll
board sheeter will prepare an employee for advance-
ment to the other pieces of equipment utilized by the
Folding Carton Division.
Thus, if required to assign this work to Respondent
I.A.M., the Employer would bear the burden and
expense of training I.A.M. employees to properly
perform the work now performed efficiently by
employees represented by the G.A.I.U. Additionally,
the interrelated duties of the employees of the
Folding Carton Division would be unnecessarily
interrupted, and time would be needlessly wasted
and expense created.
We are, therefore, persuaded that the factors of
skill and training, location of the work involved, and
efficiency and economy of operations dictate the
award of the work to the Employer's employees who
are represented by the G.A.I.U
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all of the relevant factors, in
particular the contractual relationship between the
Employer and the G.A.I.U., the nature and location
of the work here in dispute, the skills involved, and
the efficiency and economy of operations, we
conclude that the employees of the Employer who
are represented by the G.A.I.U. are entitled to the
work in question , and we shall determine the dispute
in their favor . In making this determination, we
award the work to the employees of the Employer
who are represented by the G.A.I.U., but not to that
labor organization 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 F. N. Burt Company,
Inc., who are represented by Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union , Local 261 , AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the work in dispute which involves the
operation of the Employer 's new roll board sheeter
machine.
2. Local 675 of District Lodge 76 , International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, is
not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require F . N. Burt
Company, Inc., Cheektowaga , New York , to assign
the above work to machinists represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Local 675 of District
Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 3, in writing , whether or not it
will refrain from forcing or requiring F. N. Burt
Company, Inc., by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a manner
inconsistent with the above determination.