Teamsters, Local No. 222

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

TEAMSTERS , LOCAL NO ., 222 809
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No.
222 and Jelco, Incorporated ., Case 27-CD-158
October 30, 1973
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED DISPUTE
A. The Facts
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
By MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges ' filed by Jelco, Incorporated, hereinafter Em-
ployer or Jelco, alleging that International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local No. 222, hereinafter Union
or Teamsters, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an
object of forcing or requiring Jelco to assign the work
in dispute to employees represented by Teamsters,
rather than to certain of its own employees not repre-
sented by any labor organization. A hearing was held
on July 19 and 20, 1973, before Hearing Officer Al-
bert A. Metz. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues . Thereafter, Jelco and
Respondent 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Jelco is
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
We find, as stipulated by the parties, that Teamsters
Another unfair labor practice charge, Case 27-CD-159, had been nonsol-
idated for hearing with the instant case, but was withdrawn during the
hearing following an adjustment of the work in dispute therein. Further, there
was a partial withdrawal of the instant charge at the hearing following an
adjustment of certain work in dispute that was initially involved in this
charge in addition to the alleged dispute hereinafter discussed.
The dispute concerns the performance by two Indi-
viduals of certain duties related to Jelco's purchasing
and warehousing operations at a construction site lo-
cated at Huntington Canyon, Utah, where Jelco is
engaged in constructing a power plant for Utah Pbwer
and Light Company. The Employer contends these
individuals are part of its purchasing department,
which is not covered by any labor contract, and that
they are not represented by any labor organization.
Teamsters asserts these two persons are performing
warehouse functions covered by its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer.
Jelco commenced work on this project about
March 1972. In February 1972 it signed a "short
form" collective-bargaining agreement with Team-
sters by which it agreed to adhere to the provisions,
except those relating to the handling of grievances
and settlement of disputes, of a collective-bargaining
agreement between Teamsters and the Associated
General Contractors of America, Utah Chapter. The
then current contract contained the following three
warehouse job classifications: material engineer,
warehousemen (counter clerk), and warehouseman.
On July 1, 1972, a new collective-bargaining agree-
ment became effective which added two new ware-
house job classifications and their duties,2 "assistant
material engineer" and "material clerk." The job con-
tent of "assistant material engineer" is described as
"[a]ssist the material engineer in purchasing, expedit-
ing and checking material flow." The duties of the
"material clerk" are described as "[t]yping, filing of all
material records that are received through the ware-
house." No one has been hired who was designated to
serve in either of these new classifications at the Hunt-
ington project warehouse, which at the time of the
hearing herein was staffed by three employees repre-
sented by, the Union, a material engineer and two
warehousemen.
On or about April 5, 1972, Jelco transferred one
Gordon Leonhardt to the Huntington project as its
assistant purchasing agent .3 Prior to the effective date
of the current contract, the Union protested to Jelco
that Leonhardt was performing warehouse work and
had not been hired pursuant to the hiring hall provi-
sions of the collective-bargaining agreement. Jelco re-
2 Another new provision added to this agreement was a description of
Teamsters work jurisdiction which included the term "record keeping."
3 Leonhardt had previously been performing purchasing and estimating
duties elsewhere for .Telco.
206 NLRB No. 134
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sponded that Leonhardt was part of its purchasing
department, not the warehouse, and rejected Team-
sters assertion that it was in violation of the contract.
It appears from the record that Leonhardt's principal
duties relate to the purchase of supplies and materials
for the Huntington project. The Union contends he is
performing the duties of an "assistant material engi-
neer" under the current contract.
Jelco hired one Herman Beckman on or about
March 28, 1973, to work as a material expediter at'the
Huntington project. The Union complained that
Beckman was actually performing the work of a "ma-
terial clerk" under the current labor agreement and
accused the Employer of violating that agreement by
assigning those duties to him without hiring him pur-
suant to the hiring hall provision thereof. Jelco reject-
ed this assertion and contends Beckman, like
Leonhardt, is employed in its purchasing department,
not the warehouse. The record reveals that Beckman's
primary job duties relate to expediting 4 the shipment
of goods from the vendor to the construction site.
It appears that the parties engaged in a number of
discussions concerning their differences over the work
performed by Leonhardt and Beckman without
reaching a resolution of this problem. The Union took
the position that unless the Employer ceased violating
the contract it would "take all legal and or economic
actions as deemed necessary" to resolve this matter.
From May 4, 1973, until May 11, 1973, the Union
picketed the Huntington project. The pickets carried
signs which read as follows: "On strike-Teamsters
Local 222-Jelco in violation of labor agreement."
B. The Contentions of the Parties
The Union contends that this is not an appropriate
matter for a 10(k) proceeding because the dispute here
involves a contract violation. It appears that the
Teamsters initially protested the Employer's utiliza-
tion of Leonhardt and Beckman in terms that indi-
cated it was claiming that the work they were
performing should be assigned to employees repre-
sented by the Union. However, at the hearing and in
its subsequent brief the Union clearly and unequivo-
cally stated that it has waived any contract violation
resulting from Jelco's failure to hire Leonhardt and
Beckman pursuant to the hiring hall provision of the
contract and that it has no desire to deprive them of
their employment. What the Teamsters does desire is
that Jelco recognize that the jobs performed by Leon-
hardt and Beckman are those classified as "assistant
material engineer" and "material clerk," respectively,
4 The parties stipulated that the term "expediting" means "the moving of
any material from the vendor to the installation on the job."
in the current collective-bargaining agreement and
that they receive the benefits called for therein.
Jelco contends that, there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the Board should sustain by an appropriate
award its assignment of certain purchasing, expedit-
ing, and related recordkeeping duties to its purchasing
department employees. Jelco asserts that it has fully
complied with the collective-bargaining agreement
and that its Huntington project warehouse is being
operated in accordance therewith but that there is no
need at this project for the job, classification of "assis-
tant material engineer" and "material clerk" to be
filled. To the contrary, it contends that Leonhardt and
Beckman are employed in its purchasing department
which it asserts is a branch of management and that
they are performing office clerical duties that are of
a confidential nature because those duties involve
working with information relating to the costs of vari-
ous supplies and materials used at the project. In addi-_
tion, Jelco contends that Leonhardt is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and, consequently, the
Board has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety
of work assignments made to him.
C. Applicability of the Act
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be
satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. On
the record before us, we are not satisfied that any such
violation has occurred in this case.
Although the present matter appears to have initial-
ly been framed in terms of a work-assignment dispute,
the Union stated at the hearing and in its subsequent
brief that it has waived any contract violation result-
ing from Leonhardt and Beckman's not having been
hired pursuant to the contract's hiring hall provision
and that it is not seeking to deprive them of their
employment, but rather that it seeks to have Jelco
recognize that the jobs they are performing are those
classified in the collective-bargaining agreement as
"assistant material engineer" and "material clerk"
and have the terms and conditions of the contract
applied to them. Thus, it is clear that the present
dispute is really a representation question concerning
the unit of employees represented for collective-bar-
gaining purposes by the Union and whether or not
Leonhardt and Beckman are part of that unit. In ef-
fect, the Union seeks clarification of its existing unit
by a finding that the two men are included therein and
are covered by its contract.
We have long held that a dispute within the mean-'
ing of Section 8(b)(4)(D) requires a choice between
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL NO. 222 811
two groups. In this connection, the Board stated: 5
There must, in short, be either an attempt to take
a work assignment away from another group, or
to obtain the assignment rather than have it given
to another group.... A demand for recognition
as bargaining representative for employees doing
a particular job, or in a particular department,
does not to the slightest degree connote a de-
mand for the assignment of work to particular
employees rather than to others.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we are satisfied,
and conclude, that the dispute herein is not over the
assignment of work to one group of employees rather
than another within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(D). Therefore, this matter is not a dispute
within the meaning of Section 10(k). Accordingly, we
shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
5 Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (The Mountain States
Telephone and Telegraph Company), 118 NLRB 1104, 1107, 1108.
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued
in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.