Teamsters Union Local No. 117

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 16, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1239 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL. NO 117 1239 Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated with In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Tradewell Stores, Inc. and General Team- sters Local No. 174, affiliated with Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America. Case 19- CD-379 July 16, 1981 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Tradewell Stores, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated with International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local 117 or Respondent, had 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 it represented rather than to employees represented by General Teamsters Local 174, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, herein called Local 174. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer James E. Loring on March 25, 1981. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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 af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is a Washington corporation engaged in the retail grocery business in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. During the past year, the Employer made total sales in excess of $500,000 and made purchases from outside the State of Washington having a value in excess of $50,000. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju- risdiction herein. 256 NLRB No. 187 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 117 and Local 174 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 approximately 62 Prairie Market, and 38 Tradewell, retail grocery outlets in the States of Washington and Oregon. For about the last 15 years the Employer has maintained a distribution center in Kent, Washington, from which it supplies grocery products to these retail stores. Employed in the distribution center are ap- proximately 70 warehousemen, represented by Local 117, and approximately 38 loaders and driv- ers, represented by Local 174. Currently, both labor organizations have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer covering their re- spective units. A considerable portion of the work performed in the distribution center involves the assembling and loading of orders of grocery products that are shipped from the distribution center to company- owned retail stores. On December 22, 1980, the Employer commenced operating a computer-con- trolled conveyor belt system (Rapistan) in the dis- tribution center which resulted in a substantial modification of the distribution center's method of assembling and loading orders. Before Rapistan, when the distribution center received an order from a store, the first step was to process it through the data processing department where orders were converted into pick lists, pick labels, and invoices. From data processing the documents were routed to the shipping department and further reduced into individual orders. Next, one of these individual orders would be assigned to a Local 117 "order picker," who would drive an electric dolly (tugger) into the storage area of the distribution center and "pick" the ordered goods from the stor- age racks, placing an appropriate label on the boxers and stacking the cargo on two pallets mounted on the front of the tugger. After loading the pallets, the order picker would then drive to a preassigned door in the staging area adjacent to the distribution center's loading docks and detach the loaded pallets from the tugger. The loaded pallets would then be moved from the staging area into trailers parked in the loading docks by Local 174 "loaders" driving gas-powered forklifts. A loader would stack the pallets in the trailer, with no stack having more than two pallets, exercising care to distribute the cargo weight evenly throughout the trailer. After loading the 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pallets, a loader filled the remaining space with lighter cargo, a process called "stuffing." The Rapistan system altered the distribution cen- ter's method of processing orders. Rapistan is a mechanized system of conveyor belts that weave throughout the storage area of the distribution center. At one point in the system the conveyor belts merge and all the products carried on the belts are processed through an electronic scanning device that scans the label on the box, feeds that input to a computer, and then sorts the goods into individual store orders. These individual orders are then moved on conveyors across the top of the warehouse to the appropriate area of the shipping dock, at which point the conveyors descend. On the shipping dock extendable conveyors are placed into trailers and the goods are thereby conveyed into trailers. In the trailer the goods are removed from the conveyors and loaded on pallets. Installation of the Rapistan system has resulted in a significant change in the tasks performed by order pickers. In place of the individual pick lists previously used, the order pickers now receive a revised set of pick documents consisting of a com- puterized sheet listing ordered products for up to six stores, and a revised set of labels designed for the Rapistan electronic scanner. After receiving the pick documents an order picker's duties entail taking the ordered products from the storage racks, sticking an appropriate label on the boxes, and placing the products on the conveyor system. After the ordered products are placed on a conveyor belt, the Rapistan system automatically sorts the products into individual store orders and conveys the orders to the appropriate trailers stationed in the loading docks. The Rapistan system, however, is only capable of handling approximately 75 percent of the items in the warehouse. The remaining 25 percent which are too bulky for the system are taken from the storage area to the loading docks by employing the same system for loading goods that was used before the installation of the Rapistan system. However, because of the size of the extendable conveyors, there is not enough room within a trail- er to permit the loading of cargo by forklift simul- taneously with the loading of products on an exten- dable conveyor. As a result, the scheduling of these separate loading functions is coordinated to insure that loading is accomplished in an efficient manner. Planning for the installation of the Rapistan system began almost 2 years before its installation and the Employer initiated construction of the system in July 1980. Beginning in mid-1979, the Employer informed both local unions about its plans to install the Rapistan system and thereafter engaged in ongoing dialogue about the impact of the system on employees. These discussions cov- ered, inter alia, the assignment of the various work tasks associated with the operation of the Rapistan system, in particular the work of taking items off the extended conveyors and placing them on pal- lets. In December 1980, the Employer assigned the tasks of unloading the extended conveyors and placing the unloaded cargo on pallets to employees employed in the loader classification-employees represented by Local 174. The Employer, howev- er, engaged in further discussions with Local 117 about this work assignment. On January 26, 1981, Local 117 sent the Employer a letter which con- tained a formal demand for the work and a threat of economic action if this demand were refused.' B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves removing cargo from conveyor belts and placing that cargo on pal- lets in trailers at the Employer's distribution center in Kent, Washington. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by Local 174 on the basis of the efficiency and econo- my of operation, special skills and safety, company and industry practice, contractual provision, and employer preference. Local 174 asserts that the Employer's assignment is supported by the terms of its contract with the Employer, company and in- dustry practice, relative skill and experience, area practice, economy and efficiency of operation, job impact, acquiescence by Respondent, and employer preference. Respondent takes the position that its claim to the disputed work is supported by area practice and the Employer's past practice. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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 the parties have not agreed upon a method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The record shows that the Employer awarded the disputed work to employees represented by Local 174 on December 22, 1980. By letter dated January 26, 1981, Local 117 formally submitted a claim to the disputed work and threatened econom- ' At the hearing, Local 117 disclaimed any interest in the work of loading pallets into trailers by forklift, making it clear that its claim was limited to the tasks of unloading cargo from the extendable conveyors and placing the cargo on pallets TEAMSTERS UNION L OCAL NO. 117 1241 ic action if this claim was not satisfied. We there- fore conclude that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc- curred. The parties stipulated, and we find, that there exists no agreed-upon method for the volun- tary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. 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 factors. The following factors are relevant in making the deter- mination of the dispute before us: 1. Economy and efficiency of operation Randy Crowe, the Employer's vice president of warehousing and distribution, testified that opti- mum efficiency in loading trucks could only be ac- complished if all loading functions, including the disputed work and the remaining loading of pallets into trailers by forklift, were assigned to employees within a single unit. Local 117's claim does not en- compass the remaining loading that is accom- plished by forklift and an assignment of the disput- ed work to employees represented by that union would result in a splitting of the loading function. A split assignment of the loading functions would, in Crowe's words, create "logistics problems" in scheduling the separate loading functions and result in delays in the loading of trucks and in an in- creased amount of idle time for workers involved in the loading process. We find that the factors of economy and efficiency of operation favor an as- signment of the disputed work to employees repre- sented by Local 174. 2. Relative skills and safety Operating an extendable conveyor does not re- quire any special skills, and the Employer's wit- nesses indicated that employees represented by either of the respective local unions possessed the necessary skills to unload cargo and to build pal- lets. However, there are legal restrictions regulat- ing the distribution of weight within trailers and, furthermore, improper distribution of the weight can pose a safety hazard to the driver and other motorists. Employees represented by Local 174 are experienced in loading trailers and as a result have become skilled in distributing weight within trailers so as to satisfy legal requirements and to maximize driving safety. The employees represented by Local 117 do not have comparable experience dis- tributing cargo in trailers. Accordingly, we find that the factors of relative skills and safety favor an assignment of the disputed work to employees rep- resented by Local 174. 3. Collective-bargaining agreements Both of the competing local unions currently have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer. Neither of the respective contracts con- tain jurisdictional provisions specifically covering the disputed work, although the Local 174 contract has included since 1968 a provision (sec. 21.3) as- signing to employees represented by that union "[a]ll loading and unloading of trucks . . . by any mechanical devices." However, since that provi- sion does not specifically cover the palletizing of cargo, work traditionally performed by employees represented by Local 117, we do not believe that said provision was designed to cover the precise tasks disputed here. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not favor an assignment of the disputed work to either of the competing unions. 4. Employer preference The Employer assigned the disputed work to employees represented by Local 174 and maintains a preference for its original assingment. The factor of employer preference favors an assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by Local 174. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- clude that employees who are represented by the General Teamsters Local 174, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are enti- tled to perform the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in ques- tion to employees who are represented by Local 174, but not to that Union or its members. The 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of Tradewell Stores, Inc., who are represented by General Teamsters Local 174, affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, are entitled to perform the work of removing 1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cargo from conveyor belts and placing that cargo on pallets at the Employer's Kent, Washington, dis- tribution center. 2. Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Tradewell Stores, Inc., to assign the disputed work to em- ployees represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated with International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Em- ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.