Teamsters, Local, Union No. 657

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1105 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

TEAMSTERS , LOCAL UNION NO . 657 1105
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , Helpers and
Food Processors Local Union No . 657, a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Dixie
Decorators, Inc. and International Alliance of
Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 76, of the
United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, Party in
Interest . Case 23-CD-299
April 12, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
itions, and trade shows and renting furniture for use
at such events in Texas and various States of the
United States. It maintains its principal office and
place of business in San Antonio, Texas. During the
past 12 months, a representative period, the Employ-
er has received gross revenue in excess of $50,000 in
the operation of its business from certain firms, each
of which makes annual sales and shipments of
products valued in excess of $50,000 across state
lines. 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 MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Dixie Decorators, Inc., hereinaf-
ter called Employer alleging that Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors
Local Union No. 657, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, hereinafter called Teamsters,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees represented by the Teamsters rather than
to employees represented by International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 76, of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called IATSE.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Dwain Erwin on February 13, 1973.
The Teamsters failed to appear at the hearing and
declined to participate when telephoned by the
Hearing Officer. The Employer and IATSE appeared
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. Thereafter, a brief
was filed on behalf of the Employer.
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 rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, Dixie Decorators, Inc., is a Texas
corporation engaged in the business of erecting
displays and exhibit booths at conventions, exhib-
202 NLRB No. 163
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find that Teamsters is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act based
on its admissions to that effect in a related proceed-
ing in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Civil Action No.
SA-72-CA-372) arising from Case 23-CC-488,
which involved the parties herein , and of which we
take official notice . We further find , based on the
record testimony of the business representative of
IATSE that it represents employees for purposes of
collective bargaining , that IATSE is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In September 1972, the Employer contracted with
Arata and Evans Expositions , Inc., Washington,
D.C., to render services involved in the erection and
maintenance of displays and exhibits for the 79th
Annual Meeting of the Association of Military
Surgeons of the United States held in San Antonio,
Texas, commencing December 8, 1972 . Since its
inception in 1958, the Employer 's operating practice
has been to rely upon IATSE to provide the
employees required in the operation of its business.
During the latter part of November 1972, the
Employer was receiving , unloading, storing, and
moving exhibits to the display area of the exhibition
hall in preparation for erecting the displays and
exhibits in connection with the above meeting of
military surgeons . On November 29, 1972, Ted
Garcia , a business agent for Teamsters , requested the
Employer to sign a proposed collective-bargaining
agreement so that Teamsters could provide the labor
for the Employer 's freight-handling operations in the
State of Texas.
On Decmeber 1, 1972, R.C. Shafer, president and
business manager of Teamsters Local 657, warned
Thomas P. Folts, the Employer 's vice president that,
because the Employer refused to sign the collective-
bargaining agreement presented to him by Teamsters .
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or to hire Teamster members, he would place a
picket line around the military surgeons " convention
center beginning December 8, 1972 . Also on Decem-
ber 1, R . C. Shafer informed Ted Evans of Arata and
Evans Expositions , Inc., that Evans had 2 hours to
get the Teamsters dispute with the Employer settled
or Evans would have trouble at the convention
center.
On December 4, 1972, and continuing until served
with a temporary restraining order issued by the
United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas (Civil Action No. SA-72-CA-372) on
December 8, Teamsters picketed the convention
center , stopping freight deliveries to the center.' The
picket sign bore the following legend : "Dixie
Decorators, Inc. Unfair Teamsters Local 657. This
picket is Directed Only to Dixie Decorators , Inc. and
its Employees and No Other Employer or Their
Employees."
The record shows that Teamsters has not with-
drawn its claim to the work in dispute ; that IATSE
has submitted written claim to the Employer for the
work ; and that the work is being performed by
employees who are members of IATSE.
B. The Work in Dispute
This dispute concerns assignment of the following
work: Freight handling, including the loading and
unloading of exposition, convention, and entertain-
ment displays and exhibits from trucks, and moving
same to and from storage and to and from the
display area at conventions in San Antonio, Texas.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and IATSE contend that all of the
work in dispute has been properly assigned to
employees who are members of IATSE, pursuant to
longstanding custom and practice of the Employer
herein and other employers engaged in the same
industry in the San Antonio area. They further
contend that IATSE's claim to the work in dispute
has never before been controverted by any labor
organization.
As stated above, Teamsters failed to appear at the
hearing and, upon request, declined to participate.
The record shows, however, that Teamsters picketed
in support of its claim to the work in dispute until the
picketing was enjoined by the United States Distnct
Court, and that it has not withdrawn its claim to the
work in dispute.
I The Employer filed a charge in Case 23-CC-488, supra, alleging that
Local 657 was engaging in a secondary boycott by threatening Arata and
Evans Expositions, Inc On December 7, 1972, a 10(1) petition was filed in
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 the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act. The record evidence shows that Team-
sters engaged in picketing and threats of picketing
and similar conduct, in support of its claim to the
work in dispute. There is no evidence that the parties
have agreed to any voluntary method of settlement
of the dispute or that Teamsters has withdrawn its
claim to the work in dispute.
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole,
we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that
Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and
that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. 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. The
following factors are relevant in making a determina-
tion of the dispute before us:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
Neither of the labor organizations involved herein
has been certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative for a unit of the Employ-
er's employees. The Employer is not a party to any
written collective-bargaining agreement covering the
work in dispute. Its agreement with IATSE to use its
hiring hall, and those referred through it, is a verbal
one.
As there is no certification or collective-bargaining
agreement covering the work in dispute, neither
union is favored by these factors.
2. Company and industry practice
As stated above, the Employer has consistently
assigned the work in dispute to employees referred to
it by IATSE during the entire period of its opera-
tions. Thomas P. Folts, the Employer's executive vice
president, testified that the other contractors in the
area have customarily assigned this work to employ-
ees referred to them by the IATSE hiring hall. He
further testified that the Employer has never previ-
the U S Distnct Court in San Antonio, Texas, and on the same date the
court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the picketing An
agreed-upon injunction was approved by the court on December 18, 1972
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 657 1107
ously been- involved in a dispute with any union over
the assignment of this work to persons secured
through IATSE. George Secord, business representa-
tive of IATSE, testified that members of IATSE have
performed the work in dispute since its charter was
issued in 1900.
We find that the practice of both the Employer and
the area tends to favor an award to employees
represented by IATSE.
3. Skills and efficiency
In the years that the Employer has 'assigned the
work in dispute to employees represented by IATSE,
they have demonstrated to the Employer's satisfac-
tion that they possess the knowledge and skill
necessary to perform the work. While Teamster
members may also possess the necessary skills to
perform the work, there is no showing that they have
ever been assigned the work in dispute, and there is
nothing in the record to indicate that they could
perform the work in dispute with greater skill than
employees represented by IATSE, or to the greater
satisfaction of the Employer. The Employer contends
that an arbitrary division of the work in dispute or its
assignment to members of the Teamsters would
reduce efficiency and increase the cost of performing
such work. Vice President Folts testified that if a
portion of the work were assigned to members of
Teamsters, a composite crew would have to be
employed which would result in some men remaining
idle while waiting for other men to finish their work.
Folts testified that under its present practice, men are
available and are willing to perform any aspect of the
convention or the exposition setup work. Therefore,
instead of hiring 12 men to do a job, only 6 men need
to be hired to-perform the same work, which results
in substantial savings.
While the, factor of skill is not determinative, we
find the factors of economy and efficiency favor
award of the work in dispute to employees represent-
ed by IATSE. _
Conclusions
Upon the record as a whole , and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the Employer' s employees who are
represented by IATSE are entitled to perform the
work in dispute . We reach this conclusion upon the
Employer' s assignment of the work in dispute to its
employees who are represented by IATSE; the fact
that this assignment is consistent with its own and
area practice ; the further fact that these employees
have the requisite skill and are familiar with, and
perform, all facets of the work; and the attendant
efficiency and economy of the established opera-
tions. We shall, therefore, determine the dispute
before us by awarding the work in dispute at the
Employer's San Antonio operations to those employ-
ees who are represented by IATSE, but not to that
Union or its members. Our present determination 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 the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
1. Employees of Dixie Decorators, Inc., who
currently are represented by International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 76, of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the work of freight handling, including the
loading and unloading of exposition, convention,
and entertainment displays and exhibits from trucks
and moving same to and from storage and to and
from the display area at conventions in San Antonio,
Texas.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Help-
ers and Food Processors Local Union No. 657, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to force or require Dixie Decorators, Inc.,
to assign the above work to employees represented
by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors
Local Union No. 657, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America shall' notify the Regional
Director for Region 23, in writing, whether or not it
will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act, to assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men, Helpers and Food Processors Local Union No.
657, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
rather than,to employees represented by Internation-
al Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 76,
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.