Window Glass Cutters League of America, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Window Glass Cutters League of America, AFL-CIO, and Win-
dow Glass Cutters League of America, Local No. 12, AFL-
CIO and American -Saint Gobain Corporation . Cases Nos.
16-CD-22-1 and 16-CD-P2-2. February 20, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following
amended charges filed by American-Saint Gobain Corporation, here-
inafter called Employer, alleging that Window Glass Cutters League
of 'America,, AFL-CIO, and Window Glass Cutters League. of
America, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondents
or the League, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the
Act by inducing or encouraging employees to engage in a work
stoppage and by threatening, coercing, or restraining officials of the
Employer, for- the purpose of compelling the Employer to change
work assignments from one group of employees to another. A hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Evert P. Rhea on July 9 and 10,
1963, at which all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs filed by the Employer, the League, and the United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC, hereinafter
called United, have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this, proceeding, the Board makes the
following findings :
1. American-Saint Gobain Corporation is a Delaware corporation,
with its principal office at Kingsport, Tennessee, and is engaged in the
manufacture of window glass. It operates, inter alia, three window
glass plants located at Jeannette, Pennsylvania; Arnold, Pennsyl-
vania; and Okmulgee, Oklahoma. Its plant at Okmulgee is involved
in the present dispute. This plant during the preceding 12 months
purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000 from directly out-
side the State of Oklahoma, and the value of products manufactured,
sold, and shipped by it outside the State of Oklahoma during the same
period was in excess of $100,000. The Employer conceded, and we
find, that at all times material herein, the Employer was engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
146 NLRB No. 9.
WINDOW GLASS CUTTERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ETC. 65
2. Window Glass Cutters League of America, AFL-CIO, and Win-
dow Glass Cutters League of America, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO, and
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, are labor organizations. within the meaning of the Act.'
3. The dispute :
A. The work at issue
The Employer has collective-bargaining contracts with both United
and the League in units which have been certified by the Board.
United was certified in March 1949 in Case No. 6-RC-313, for a unit
covering "all production and maintenance employees of the American
Window Glass Company plants located at ... Okmulgee, Oklahoma,
excluding all window glasscutters, window glasscutter apprentices,
and window glass inspectors of the cutting room . . .' ." The League
was certified in Case No. 16-RC-337 on March 4, 1949, for a unit
covering "all window glass cutters, inspectors, and apprentices of
the Employer at its window glass plant in Okmulgee, Oklahoma,
who were employed as of February 11, 1949, excluding all other
employees ...."
The manufacture of window glass is begun in the part of the
plant known as the "hot end" wherein is located a tank of molten
glass and a drawing machine. Attached to the drawing machine are
an automatic cutter and border trimmers which function as part of a
continuous, integrated "hot end" operation whose end result is the
production of sheet glass. All the employees performing work in
the""hot end" are members of United. Employees who are members
of the League work in another building called the "cold end," to which
the glass is transported by members of United for further cutting
by hand to the various specific sizes needed in filling customers' or-
ders. After the League members have cut the glass to the required
sizes and inspected it, United members prepare it for shipment to
the customers. .
The method of manufacturing glass in the Okmulgee plant is
known as the Fourcault process and may be more particularly de-
scribed as follows: The process utilizes a drawing machine which at-
taches a "bait" to the molten glass and automatically draws a sheet of
glass, which is approximately 90 inches wide, directly upward from
the tank through a portion of the drawing machine at which there is
a device known as the border trimmer, operated by a "cutoff man"
who is a member of United. This device is equipped with four ad-
justable cutting wheels which score the glass vertically on each side,
near each edge,' so that an accurate cut results.' Several feet ' above
i The "cutoff man" adjusts the border trimmers both by setting them in the proper
position ' and by moving a weight on -the trimmer shaft to vary the tension of the cutting
wheel as it scores the glass.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the floor another device known as the automatic cutoff wheel rises
at the same speed as the glass and scores the glass horizontally, a.
process known as automatic capping. The glass then continues auto-
matically upward through a hole in the "breakoff floor" where em-
ployees first break off the scored glass horizontally and then break off
the scored vertical edges and place it on an A-frame. The resulting
sheets of glass are then transported to the "cold end." All of the
above-described work has always been performed by members of
United. At this point it is possible that the glass could have four
salable edges, that is, no further cutting by members of the League
would be necessary. Normally, however, prior to April 19, 1963, the
border trimmers on the drawing machine were not used to make the
precise dimensional-width cuttings required to fill customers' orders,
but were only used to roughly trim the edges or to cut off the un-
usable outside edges, before the glass was transported to the "cold
end" for hand cutting to particular sizes.
In April 1963, the Employer had received a number of orders for
doors and panels 76 inches long by 46 inches wide. The Employer
determined that in filling these orders it would be possible for the cut-
off man'to adjust the border trimmers on the drawing machine so that
the glass could be trimmed accurately to the dimensions required by
the customer, thus avoiding the necessity for further hand cutting by
members of the League. As pointed out above, border trimmers had
not previously been utilized to make dimensional cuttings. It was the
setting of these border trimmers to make dimensional-width cuttings
that provided the basis for the present dispute.
B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
On April 18, 1963, the plant manager, Thomas J. Butchko, notified
Pat Stead of Local 12 of the League that the Employer was going
to adjust the border trimmers to provide for dimensional cutting.
Harold McElroy of United Local No. 10 was also so advised on the
same afternoon. The adjustment was made at 9:30 a.m. on April 19,
with members of United performing the necessary operations. Stead
and Fred Dangott, the latter an executive officer of the League's
international organization, came into the Employer' s office about
this time and asked Joseph L. Lunz, manager of labor relations for
the Employer, and the plant manager, Butchko, to assign a member
of the League to the work of setting the border trimmers . Butchko
stated that the assignment would remain with United. The two
League representatives then inspected the work at the drawing-ma-
chine at the points where the cutoff man is employed, following which
they left. the plant. The representatives of United's International
and its Local No. 10 inspected the operation at the same time'and
WINDOW.GLASS CUTTERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ETC. 67
,notified. the Company's representatives that if the Employer at-
tempted to use a member of the League on the adjustment of the
border trimmers, United members would strike. On April 19, at
1:30 p.m.; Stead and Dangott informed Lunz and Butchko that if a
member of the League were not assigned the work of adjusting the
border trimmers, the League would strike. Butchko told them that
the Employer would not agree to assign the work to the League.
At 2:30 on the same afternoon, 66 members of the League, on, orders
from Stead, went on strike and left the plant. Normal quitting time
was 4:15 p.m. Responsibility for the strike activity is admitted by
the League's International as well as by its Local. At 4:15 p.m. on
the same afternoon, Stead and Dangott returned to the plant and
announced that the strike would continue unless the Employer acceded
to their demands. The Employer agreed to suspend the disputed
operations but informed the League of its intention to file charges
with the National Labor Relations Board. The Employer then ceased
the production of the dimensional cuts on the drawing machine which
had caused the dispute, and the League then agreed to return to work.
C. Contentions of the parties
The League rests its claim to the disputed work on its contract
with the Employer which incorporates the Miami Agreement, an
agreement reached among the parties with respect to the jurisdiction
of the League over employees engaged in "cutting machine opera-
tions." The League contends that the Miami Agreement, discussed
more fully below, and the Board's decision in Window Glass Cutters
League of America (Lib bey- Owens-Ford Glass Company and Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company), 123 NLRB 1183, hereinafter referred
to as PPG, require that the work be assigned to employees represented
by the League. Briefly stated, the League takes the position that the
agreement and the Board decision assign jurisdiction over "cutting
machine occupations" to the League and that the machines involved
herein, when used to, make salable panes or lights of glass, are "cut-
ting machines." The League therefore argues that the employees
operating the machines at those times fall within the classification of
"cutting machine occupations" and therefore should be represented
by the League.
United places a different interpretation on the Miami Agreement
and the Board's decision. United contends that the machines in-
volved in the PPG case are different in their operation from the ma-
chines in the Okmulgee plant here involved. It therefore argues that
the agreement and Board decision are not dispositive of the assign-
ment of work in this case.
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer also would give a different interpretation to the
agreement and decision. It contends that the classification of "cutoff
man," the employee presently operating the machine and setting the
border trimmers, is not included. in any of the classifications enumer-
ated in PPG, and, in fact, this classification has been included in the
contracts with United since 1940. It also contends that the Miami
Agreement is applicable only when "cutting machines are introduced"
by the company and that no new machines have been introduced-into
the Okmulgee plant .2
D. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a Determination of Dispute pur-
suant 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,
The record shows that official representatives of the League threatened
the Employer on or about April 19, 1963, that a strike would occur
unless the Employer assigned this work to glasscutters represented by
the League rather than to employees represented by United. The
record further shows that a strike actually occurred. We find that
the foregoing conduct establishes that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the League through its agents has violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) and that the dispute is properly before the.
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. The merits of the dispute
As stated in the J. A. Jones case,3 we will, pursuant to the Supreme
Court's CBS decision,4 determine, in each case presented for resolu-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of
the disputed work only after taking into account and balancing all
relevant factors.
As pointed out above, the League places its principal, if not-sole,
reliance upon its contract with the Employer which contains the so-
called Miami Agreement. The Miami Agreement, reached in 1958,
provides, in substance, that the parties signatory thereto would abide
by the Board's decision in the PPG case with respect to the jurisdic-
tion of the two competing unions over employees in "cutting machine
occupations."
2 The record shows that when the Employer introduced a cutting machine at its Jeanette,
Pennsylvania , plant it entered into a contract with the League providing for representa-
tion by the League of the employees in the job classifications enumerated in the PPG
decision.
3 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410, 1411.
* N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, et at. (Columbia
Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573.
WINDOW GLASS CUTTERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ETC. 69
In the PPG case the Board held that the disputed jobs of cutting-
machine operator, reject cutter-machine cut glass, and inspector-
machine out glass were appropriately included in the units represented
by the League. Subsequently the Board clarified its order by includ-
ing the operation of the "Little Joe" machine within the jurisdiction
of the League. The Board based its decision on (1) the existence of
a 25-year collective-bargaining history of inclusion of the disputed
machine cutting jobs in the League's craft units; and (2) the fact
that the new machines introduced by the Employer were basically the
same as the old machines, and the skills required for the operation of
the new machines were substantially the same skills as were required
for the old machines.
The machines involved herein have been in, use for several years.
During that period the machines have been operated by employees
classified as "cutoff man," a classification not enumerated in the PPG
decision, who have been represented by United since 1940. It is thus
clear that no collective-bargaining history supports the League's as-
sertion that the work properly belongs to employees represented by
it. Moreover, the record shows that no new product or machine proc-
ess is here involved. The cutoff man has always produced two
"salable" edges by the adjustment of the automatic cutoff, and lie here
produces two additional salable edges by the adjustment of the border
trimmers,. a function he has always performed. He has, in fact, set
the border. trimmers to produce salable edges when the Employer has
received orders for glass for medicine cabinets or counter dividers.
It is the skills of the cutoff man, therefore, and not of a League
craftsman which are required in operating the machines. The fac-
tors considered by the Board in assigning work to the League in the
PPG case thus not only do not support the League's position herein,
but on the contrary support an assignment of the work to employees
represented by United .5
Turning to the other factors relevant to the determination of the
appropriate assignment of the disputed work enumerated in the Jones
case, supra, we find they support the assignment of the work to em-
ployees represented by United. Thus it is clear that the adjustment
of the border trimmers has always been performed by members of
United and has never been performed by members of the League.
It has, of course, always been the practice of this Employer to assign
such work to members of United. And finally it is clear that'the as-
We do not think that the assignment of the enumerated cutting occupations on the
"Little Joe" machine to employees represented by the League militates against our result.
The "Little Joe" machine is an additional cutting device that is capable of making a num-
ber of dimensional cuts on the glass and thus converts the machine to which it is attached
Into a "cutting" machine. No additional cutting devices are utilized in performing the
Work here in dispute , and there is thus no need for the skills of League members such as
would be required in. the operation of-the "Little Joe" machine.
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
signment of the cutoff man represented by United who customarily
operates the machine for all other purposes and whose skills are suf-
ficient for a relatively routine task is far more prudent from the
standpoint of efficiency and economy of operation than. the employ-
ment of the highly- skilled members of the League whose services
would be required only a few minutes each day.
Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute as to the
operation of the border trimmers by deciding that employees rep-
resented by United rather than employees represented by the League
are entitled to adjust border trimmers on the drawing- machine to
make dimensional' cuts. Our present determination is limited to the
particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In making
these determinations with respect to the border trimmers, we. are
assigning this category of disputed work to the "cutoff man" rep-
resented by United and not to United or its members:
In view of the above, we find that the League was not and is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to force or
require the Employer to assign the work of operating the drawing
machine's border trimmers in making dimensional cuts to its mem-
bers rather than to employees represented by United.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record
in these cases, the Board makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act.
1. Employees engaged as cutoff men currently represented by United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC, and
its Okrnulgee Local No. 10, are entitled to operate the border trimmers
in making dimensional cuts on the drawing machine at the American-
Saint Gobain Corporation plant at Okmulgee, Oklahoma.
2. Window Glass Cutters League of America, AFL-CIO, and
Window Glass Cutters League of America, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO,
.are not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to force
or require American-Saint Gobain Corporation to assign to employees
engaged as glasscutters, who are currently represented by Window
Glass Cutters League of America, Local 12, AFL-CIO, the follow-
ing work : Setting the adjustable border trimmers on the drawing
machine to make dimensional cuts.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Window Glass Cutters League of America, AFL-CIO,
and Window Glass Cutters League of America, Local No. 12, AFT,
CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring
American-Saint Gobain Corporation by means proscribed by Section
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 71
8(b) (4) (D) to assign the disputed work to members of the League
rather than to employees represented by United.
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO and Wright Line
Division of Barry Wright Corporation . Case No. 1--CB-865.
February 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
There is no exception to the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with
regard to the Respondent Union's threats and acts of violence during
its picketing of the Charging Company's plant. In any event, we
are satisfied that such findings are amply supported by the record.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by such conduct directed at non-
striking employees, as well as by threats and violence directed at
supervisors in the presence of both striking and nonstriking em-
ployees? We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that it
was prejudicial error for the Trial Examiner to deny its request for
a continuance of the hearing pending the disposition by the State
I We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's occasional inadvertent references to the
Charging Party 's plant superintendent , John Hawkesworth , and its production service
manager, Arthur Simonds ( erroneously spelled S-i-m-o -n-s at one place in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision ) as being Respondent 's supervisors.
We also note that Cliff Hague is the same Hague mentioned as one of three of the
Respondent Union's officials present at various times relevant here.
21nternational Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO, et al. (W. T. Smith Lumber Com-
pany), 116 NLRB 507, enfd. 243 F. 2d 745 (C.A. 5).
146 NLRB No. 11.