Over-the-Road, City Transfer Drivers, Local 147

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 1, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' Over-the-Road, City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen & Warehousemen, Local Union No. 147, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen& Helpers of America and J. Wesley Errett and The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company.' Case 18-CD-68 February 1, 1968 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol- lowing a charge filed by J. Wesley Errett, manager of the Industrial Relations Department of Firestone , alleging that Over-The-Road, City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen & Warehousemen , Local Union No. 147, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters , had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring Firestone to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by the Teamsters rather than to employees represented by Local Union No. 310, United Rubber , Cork , Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called Rubber Workers. A'hearing was held on November 16, 1967 , before Hearing Officer Dale C. Perman. All parties, including Rubber Workers which inter- vened , participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Tereafter , Firestone , Teamsters, and Rubber Wrkers filed briefs. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of rubber tires and other products in several States, including the State of Iowa. During the past year the Company has 1 Herein referred to as Firestone or the Company. sold goods valued in excess of $1 million to points directly outside the State of Iowa and during the same period has purchased goods valued in excess of $1 million from points outside the State of Iowa. We find, accordingly, that the Company is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Team- sters and Rubber Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background The dispute herein involves the driving of one combination tractor and semitrailer used to haul tires from Firestone's plant production facility to the plant warehouse located on Firestone property approximately one-quarter mile from the produc- tion plant. The truck is backed up to the dock at the production plant, loaded with pallets of tires, driven the one-quarter mile at a speed no greater than 15 miles per hour, and backed into the dock of the warehouse where the tires are unloaded. The truck operates 3 shifts per day and makes 10 trips per shift. The total time in an 8-hour shift when the truck is actually driven is 1-1/2 hours. For the balance of the shift the truck is at the loading plat- forms. In 1961 Firestone entered into a leasing agree- ment with Commercial Truck Rental Service (herein called Commercial) which supplied tractor- semitrailers and drivers to transport tires from Firestone's production facility over public streets to a commercial warehouse 10 miles away operated by Merchants Transfer and Storage Company. However, in 1966 Firestone built a warehouse on its own premises and ceased warehousing off com- pany property. In order to expedite the transporta- tion of products between the plant and warehouse, Firestone arranged to lease from Commercial the oversized trailer involved herein, which was too large for use on public highways. Initially, Commer- cial also provided drivers. The Teamsters is, and has been, the representa- tive of all drivers supplied by Commercial, but represents no employee of Firestone at the produc- tion plant. Instead, Firestone bargains with Rubber Workers as representative of all production and maintenance employees at that facility. On October 31, 1966, Rubber Workers filed a grievance protest- ing use of Commercial's driver to operate the trac- tor-semitrailer used exclusively on plant property. The Rubber Workers urged that it should be driven by employees of Firestone in the bargaining unit represented by the Rubber Workers rather than em- 169 NLRB No. 77 OVER-THE-ROAD, CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS , LOCAL 147 ployees of Commercial Truck Rental Service represented by the Teamsters. On April 20, 1967, Firestone established a classification and wage rate for a semitrailer driver.2 However, on this date the Rubber Workers nationwide strike against Firestone occurred. On August If, 1967, after the strike ended, Firestone settled the grievance by ad- vising the Rubber Workers that it would no longer use Commercial's drivers to operate the trailer but would assign the operation to Firestone's own em- ployees represented by the Rubber Workers. The job was posted in the warehouse department. The qualifications included the ability to drive a truck and the possession of a valid Iowa chauffeur's license. The drivers would not be regulated by the ICC since they did not drive on public roads. Three drivers and three alternates were chosen and were given training by a commercial trucking company. On September 6, 1967, these men began driving the truck, and Firestone and Commercial executed a new leasing agreement wherein Commerical pro- vided the truck, but not the drivers. On September 7,1967, from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the Teamsters picketed Firestone's plant with a sign reading, "Firestone unfair to Teamsters Local No. 147." While produc- tion workers crossed the picket lines, truckdrivers refused to make deliveries. The picketing has not recurred. B. The Contentions of the Parties The Teamsters concedes that the purpose of the picketing was to claim the work in dispute, and con- tends that the work should be reassigned to it because (a) of area and company practice, (b) its members possess the requisite skill while the warehouse employees must be trained, and (c) an award of work to the employees represented by the Rubber Workers will result in job loss for its mem- bers while an award to Commercial's employees will not so result. Firestone and Rubber Workers contend that the controversy does not involve a ju- risdictional dispute cognizable under Sections 10(k) and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. However, in the alterna- tive, they contend that employees represented by Rubber Workers should perform the work because of (a) efficiency of operations, (b) the certification of the Rubber Workers and its collective-bargaining agreements with Firestone, and (c) Firestone's as- signment ofthe work to Rubber Workers bargaining unit. C. The Applicability of the Statute The charge herein alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the z The contract between Rubber Workers and the Company provides that the Company shall establish classifications and wage rates. a N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Columbia Broad- 577 Teamsters stipulated, that on September 7, 1967, the Teamsters picketed Firestone for an object of forcing reassignment of the disputed work to em- ployees represented by it. On the basis of the entire record and as Teamsters picketing was admittedly for an object of forcing assignment of work from one group of employees to another, we find, con- trary to Firestone and Rubber Workers, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dis- pute is properly before the Board for determination. D. The Merits 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 relevant factors .3 1. Certification and bargaining agreements The evidence indicates that the Rubber Workers was certified in 1945 for a unit of "all production and maintenance employees and cafeteria workers at the Firestone plant, except for office personnel and clerks, factory clerical employees, laboratory technicians, plant protection employees, scheduling clerks, and supervisory employees with the authori- ty to hire and fire or effectively recommend such action." In 1951 the first truckdriver classification was established by Firestone in the receiving depart- ment for the driver of a flatbed or straight truck. In 1956 Firestone established a truckdriver classifica- tion in the warehouse for the driver of a small pickup truck used to make small deliveries. Firestone's truckdrivers within their classification did not operate tractor-trailer type trucks. In 1967, after the Rubber Workers filed the above-mentioned grievance, the Company established the following job description: Operating truck-tractor to haul trailer loads of tires, camelback and other materials, between the two company warehouses, using the road on company property, unless otherwise in- structed, operate lever on fifth wheel to couple or uncouple trailer as necessary, driver assists in loading or unloading, moving carts or driving lift truck as necessary, major part of shift spent transferring trailers between warehouses, and then he performs other typical duties con- sistent with job factors as required or may be requested by the supervision. Teamsters has never been certified as representa- tive of employees at Firestone's production facility, and has no collective-bargaining agreement with casting System), 364 U.S. 573; InternationalAssociation ofMachrmsts, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J.A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402,1411. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Firestone covering any such employees. At the same time, however, since the certification of Rubber Workers and its bargaining agreement in ef- fect when Firestone reassigned the work from Commercial's drivers did not specifically cover the disputed work, we find that these factors favor neither labor organization. 2. Company and area practice The record shows that prior to the completion of the new warehouse in October 1966, all intraplant warehousing operations, including the movement of tires, had been performed by employees of Firestone represented by Rubber Workers. While Firestone had engaged employees of other compa- nies in connection with delivery of goods to the off- premises warehouse, the only exception to the otherwise uniform practice whereby Firestone used its own employees for intraplant movement of goods occurred when the new warehouse was first opened. Although Firestone did not at that time ad- just its lease with Commercial and continued to uti- lize the latter's drivers, its action in this regard was an interim measure, since it did not then appear that the use of the trailer to haul the tires would continue indefinitely. Although the Employer's general practice with respect to in-plant warehousing operations tends to favor the Rubber Workers, the evidence of area practice appears inconclusive. At the hearing, testimony adduced by Teamsters established that generally employees represented by that Union operate tractor-trailer combinations. However, there is no evidence that employees represented by Teamsters drive vehicles utilized solely on private property as an integral step in warehousing opera- tions at a manufacturing plant. Accordingly, the area practice appears to be inconclusive with respect to the instant dispute. tion with driving of the vehicle. Thus, as the driving duties entail only about 1-1/2 hours of the 8-hour shift, these employees would be idle for the remainder of the shift. On the other hand, since Firestone may utilize its own drivers to help load or unload the trailer, assignment to that group will per- mit more efficient utilization of manpower. Further- more, since the disputed work is an integral step in overall warehousing activities performed by other Firestone employees, it would appear that greater efficiency could be achieved if all warehousing operations were performed by the same group of employees. E. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute Having considered all pertinent factors, we con- clude that employees of Firestone represented by the Rubber Workers are entitled to perform the disputed work. Firestone, having assigned the work to them, is satisfied with their performance. Such assignment is consistent with efficiency of opera- tion insofar as Firestone's drivers may be utilized to load and unload the trailer, while those represented by Teamsters may not. Furthermore, as the disputed work is integrated with a sequence of operations which in all other respects is per- formed by Firestone's employees, award of the work to Rubber Workers bargaining unit will permit overall performance of the warehousing function by a single group of employees. On the basis of the en- tire record, therefore, we shall determine the exist- ing jurisdictional controversy by awarding to Firestone's employees representedby Rubber Work- ers, rather than drivers employed by Commercial and represented by Teamsters, the work of driving the tractor-semitrailer from the production facility to the warehouse located on the premises of the plant. The present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. 3. Skills The, record shows that Firestone's employees, after training, possess the required skills to perform the disputed work. Although drivers represented by Teamsters need no further training, the evidence also indicates that the work in controversy is con- fined to the plant premises, involves driving at speeds no greater than 15 miles per hour and trips of no more than one-quarter mile, and accordingly does not require the higher skills possessed by drivers represented by Teamsters. 4. Efficiency of operation This factor tends to favor the claim of Rubber Workers. During the brief period when employees represented by Teamsters performed the disputed work, Firestone could use them solely in connec- 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 case , the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees represented by Local Union No. 310, United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO , and employed by The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company , are enti- tled to perform the task of driving the tractor- semitrailer from the production facility to the new warehouse on company property. 2. Over-The-Road , City Transfer Drivers, Hel- pers, Dockmen & Warehousemen , Local Union No. 147, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & OVER-THE-ROAD , CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS , LOCAL 147 Helpers of America, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require The Firestone Tire & Rubber Com- pany to assign the work in dispute to individuals represented by the aforesaid Union. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Over-The-Road, City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen & 579 Warehousemen, Local Union No. 147, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to as- sign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. 350-212 0-70-38