General Teamsters, Local 470Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 15, 1973203 N.L.R.B. 592 (N.L.R.B. 1973) Copy Citation 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America ' and Philco-Ford Cor- poration and Local 102, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO2 Case 4-CD-304 a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectu- ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION May 15, 1973 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as afnended, following charges filed by Philco-Ford Corporation hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4XD) by General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers , Local 470 , affiliated with In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , hereinafter called Teamsters . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on January 24, 1973, at Philadelphia, Pennsylva- nia, before Hearing Officer Allen Baron Roberts. The Employer, Teamsters, and Local 102, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called IUE Local 102, ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the is- sues. The Employer and IUE Local 102 thereafter filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board. 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Dela- ware corporation engaged in the manufacture of con- sumer electronic and defense equipment . Annually, the Employer does business outside the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania in excess of $50 ,000 per year. We find, accordingly, that the Employer is engaged in The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters and IUE Local 102 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's headquarters are located in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, but it has manufacturing facilities in the Delaware River valley at various places, includ- ing Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, the location in- volved in the instant case. Willow Grove is one of several locations in the Delaware River valley to which employees are as- signed to perform transportation functions under the terms of the Philadelphia Local Cartage Supplemen- tal Agreement of the National Master Freight Agree- ment . The Employer is a party to this agreement with Teamsters. Four employees represented by Teamsters are assigned to the Willow Grove facility currently comprising Buildings 35A and 35B. Additionally, at this facility, IUE Local 102 represents approximately 246 employees who are assigned to production and services functions under the contract between the Em- ployer and IUE Local 102. Teamsters and IUE Local 102 represent employees now situated at Willow Grove who were previously assigned to work at the Employer's Philadelphia facility (commonly referred to as Plant 50) until the facility discontinued opera- tions in December 1972. In April 1972, the Employer began to relocate Plant 50 to a newly constructed building (Building 35B) at Willow Grove. Building 35B was constructed about 100 feet from an existing structure (Building 35A) which had been in operation since 1960.3 In May 1972, the Employer began limited manufacturing op- erations at Willow Grove in Building 35B. The move- ment of material and equipment between Buildings 35A and 35B by means other than licensed motor vehicles was at that time assigned to employees repre- sented by IUE Local 102. However, on May 19, 1972, Teamsters filed a grievance alleging a contract viola- tion in Employer's assignment of this work to employ- ees other than Teamsters. Thereafter, in July 1972, the Employer began using Name appears as amended at the hearing Building 35A is a research and development center while Building 35B2 Name appears as amended at the hearing . is a production plant 203 NLRB No. 99 GENERAL TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 470 593 an asphalt pad situated outside of Buildings 35A and 35B as a storage area for material and equipment. Employees represented by IUE Local 102 were as- signed to move the material and equipment , unless licensed motor vehicles were used, in which event employees represented by Teamsters were assigned to do the work. It is this work by the use of other than licensed motor vehicles (usually by electric forklift vehicles) which is the subject of the instant dispute. Meanwhile, during this time Teamsters grievance, filed in May, continued to be processed through the various steps of the contractually provided grievance procedure between the Employer and Teamsters. On October 25, 1972, the Employer and Teamsters pre- sented their respective positions to the Eastern Con- ference Joint Area Grievance Committee and the decision of that committee, which is the final step provided in the grievance procedure, was that "move- ment of material between buildings requiring the use of forklifts or other wheeled transportation equipment shall come under the jurisdiction of Local 470 [Team- sters]." On November 10, 1972, the Employer proceeded to implement the decision of the Eastern Conference Joint Area Grievance Committee. The Employer reas- signed the movement of material and equipment be- tween Buildings 35A and 35B from IUE Local 102-represented employees to those represented by Teamsters. At this time also, Teamsters began to pro- test the Employer's continued assignment to employ- ees represented by IUE Local 102 of the movement of material and equipment to and from the storage area outside Buildings 35A and 35B. Teamsters claimed that the Joint Area Grievance Committee' s decision awarded this work also to Teamsters represented em- ployees.4 On November 29, 1972, Thomas McCaffrey, an official of Teamsters, threatened that Teamsters would strike the Employer if the work of moving ma- terial and equipment between the outside storage area and Buildings 35A and 35B was not assigned to em- ployees represented by Teamsters.' On November 30, 1972, the Employer, under this strike threat, did reas- sign the work of moving material and equipment be- tween the outside storage area and Buildings 35A and 35B from IUE Local 102-represented employees to the employees represented by Teamsters .6 On November 14, 1972, IUE Local 102 filed a grievance under its con- tract with the Employer alleging that the Employer violated that contract when it reassigned the movement of material and equipment between Build- ings 35A and 35B to employees represented by Teamsters. We have no evidence as to the outcome of this grievance proceeding. 5 In answer to a question by one of the Employer' s officials , the threat was repeated on December 15, 1972, by McCaffrey and Teamsters Secretary- Treasurer William Gormley. 6 On this same date , IUE Local 102 verbally expanded its previously filed On January 15, 1973, Region 4 of the Board, the Employer, and Teamsters entered into a stipulation approved by a United States District Court Judge that stated that Teamsters should refrain from strike threats concerning the movement of material and equipment between the outside storage pad and Buildings 35A and 35B by employees represented by IUE Local 102. On the same day, the Employer and Teamsters entered into a memorandum of under- standing which stated that if the Employer should reassign the movement of material and equipment between storage pad and Buildings 35A and 35B to IUE Local 102-represented employees and if Team- sters subsequently were awarded this work by the Board,' then four Teamsters-represented employees would receive retroactive pay for the period of time the work was performed by IUE Local 102-repre- sented employees. Thereafter, on January 17, 1973, the Employer did reassign the work of moving material and equipment between the storage area and Building 35A and 35B to IUE Local 102-represented employees. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the movement of mater- ials 8 by hand or equipment other than by licensed motor vehicles between outside storage areas and plant buildings located at the Employer's facility at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.9 C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer takes the position that its assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by IUE Local 102 is proper because of past practices and because such is the most economical and efficient method of assignment. IUE Local 102, in agreement with the Employer as to who should be awarded the work, cites the Employer's past practices, the relative skills of the employees represented by it vis-a-vis those repre- sented by Teamsters, and the relative efficiency and cost of the assignment as reasons that award should be made to it. Teamsters, at the hearing, claimed the disputed work based on the grievance award of the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee regarding the grievance to include as an alleged contract violation the reassignment to Teamsters-represented employees of the movement of material and equip- ment between the storage pad and Buildings 35A and 35B. r The instant charge had been filed by that time. 8 At the time of the hearing the materials located on the storage pad consisted of flammable chemicals , cable, packaging materials , and pallets. 9 If this work necessitated the use of licensed motor vehicles, the parties agree that such work would properly be assigned to Teamsters represented employees. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD movement of materials between Buildings 35A and 35B and its alleged performance of similar work in the past. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(bX4XD) has been violated and that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As to the latter, the record establishes that there is no agreed -upon method for settling the dispute. All the parties stipulated that on November 29, 1972, an official of the Teamsters 10 threatened to strike the Employer if the movement of material and equipment to and from storage areas outside of Build- ings 35A and 35B at Willow Grove were not assigned to Teamsters-represented employees. Further, John Roberts , Employer's hourly personnel manager , testi- fied without contradiction that on December 15, 1972, in answer to a question by him as to what would be Teamsters position if the work in dispute were reassigned from Teamsters to IUE Local 102, Team- sters' officials McCaffrey and Gormley stated that Teamsters would strike the Employer. Based on the record we thus conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a vio- lation of Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion. E. The Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company," we shall determine the appropriate assign- ment of disputed work in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements By article I, section 1, of its contract with IUE Local 102, the Employer recognizes that union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for all employees on an hourly basis in production and ser- vice . The agreement in relevant part also provides broadly that certain practices or customs, called "past practices," which have come into existence in the course of the relationship between the parties, shall , 10 Later revealed to be Thomas McCaffrey , vice president and business manager of Teamsters. n International Association ofMachinists , Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. to the extent they are not inconsistent with the terms of the contract , be binding on the parties except as noted. The Local Cartage Agreement between the Em- ployer and Teamsters states at article 40 , section 2, that the employees covered by that agreement include in relevant part ". . . employees used in dock work, checking, stacking, loading, unloading, handling, ship- ping , receiving , switching, forklift, Teamster Rigger, and assembling or drag line and allied work." (Em- phasis supplied.) The same section also provides that: It is understood , however, that the term employ- ee shall be construed to mean those employees of the Employer employed directly and indirectly by and/or under the control of the Employer, and who are represented by the Local Union or during the life of this Agreement may come to be represented by the Local Union.12 The Board will rely on a contract 's provision if the assignment of the work in dispute is made in clear and unambiguous terms in that contract . Such is not the case with IUE Local 102's contract which broadly covers production and service work at the Employer. And while the Teamsters contract states it covers "forklift" work, it also states that it covers loading, unloading, shipping and receiving , which jobs have traditionally been done by IUE Local 102 with no claim ever having been made to that work by Team- sters. Also, this work jurisdiction clause only applies where the employees performing the work are repre- sented by Teamsters . The employees performing the work in dispute were represented by IUE Local 102. On balance we find that the factor of collective- bargaining agreements weighs in neither IUE Local 102's nor Teamsters ' favor. 2. Employer's assignment and past practice The storage pad area between Buildings 35A and 35B was completed in July 1972. From that time until November 30, 1972, when such work was reassigned under Teamsters strike threat, the disputed work was assigned by the Employer to IUE Local 102.13 Addi- tionally, Edward Chapin, Employer's supervisor of material handling at the Willow Grove facility, testi- fied (1) that there was no distinction between the work 12 Additionally, the National Master Freight Agreement , to which the Employer and Teamsters are signatories and to which the Local Cartage Agreement is a supplement, states that the master agreement is not applicable to "those operations of the Employer where the employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with a Union not signatory to this agree- ment or to those employees who have not designated a signatory Union as their collective bargaining agent." 13 There was also evidence that in 1970 at Building 35A (then simply Building 35), the Employer had stored materials in a number of large cargo containers some 1,000 feet from Building 35A. These materials were moved from these containers to Building 35A by forklifts which were operated by employees represented by IUE Local 102. GENERAL TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 470 595 functions assigned to IUE Local 102 at Willow Grove and at its predecessor Plant 5014 and (2) that at' Plant 50 Teamster-represented employees were never in- volved in the operation of forklift or material han- dling equipment." Such work, according to Chapin, was assigned to employees represented by IUE Local 102.16 Teamsters evidence that it has done some of the work in dispute in the past for the Employer demons- trated that it had done so (1) only when licensed motor vehicles were used or (2) at a plant where IUE Local 102 did not represent employees or (3) as noted in footnote 15 above. We find that it has been the practice of the Employ- er to assign the work in dispute to employees repre- sented by IUE Local 102. Such a practice, which the Employer wishes to continue, is a factor favorable to the continued performance of the work by these em- ployees. 3. Economy and efficiency The Employer and IUE Local 102 state that assign- ing the work in dispute to IUE Local 102-represented employees is the most efficient and economical meth- od of handling the work in dispute. Employer's representative Chapin testified that in the period from November 30, 1972 to January 17, 1973 (that time in which Teamsters handled the work in dispute) the Employer had incurred delays in the movement of materials from the storage pad area to the requested production area . He stated the delays resulted because an IUE Local 102 represented em- ployee would have to drive his vehicle to the receiving area and then wait until a Teamsters represented em- ployee was available to accompany him out to the pad." Once at the pad, the IUE Local 102-represented employee would then select the material and the 14 The materials now stored on the outside storage pad at Willow Grove facility were stored within the confines of Plant 50 itself when that plant was operational . Chapin testified , however, that the location of the material, i.e., whether it be inside or outside the plant , was not determinative of which union-represented employees were to perform the work . Prior to Chapin's present position he was a supervisor of production planning and control at plant 50. 15 A Teamsters witness did testify that in 1946 he saw Teamsters -repre- sented employees driving forklift trucks in Plant 50 . The witness was not specific as to the full extent of the assignment of work at that time , however, and could recall no such further assignment at Plant 50. 16 However , at the hearing it was revealed that a small portion of the work of moving materials at Plant 50 was done by employees represented by IUE Local 101 , not IUE Local 102. Further , the evidence showed that IUE Local 101 continues to represent certain employees at the Willow Grove facility. IUE Local 101 represented at Plant 50 , and represents , at the new facility, maintenance employees. Its members transported maintenance materials such as paints and oils at Plant 50 and continues to do so at the Willow Grove facility . IUE Local 101 is not a party to these proceedings and therefore any award of work does not encompass it or any work to which it may have claim. 17 There are four Teamsters -represented employees at the Willow Grove facility. Teamsters-represented employee would then move the material to the appropriate building while the IUE Local 102-represented employee would walk back. Chapin testified that even when Teamsters was as- signed this work, it was necessary that an IUE Local 102-represented employee go along in order to select the desired materials. There are certain flammable materials in the storage area for which there are cer- tain handling requirements. IUE Local 102-repre- sented employees had a familiarity with the requirements of the various materials that Teamsters did not possess. Commenting further, Chapin testified that no de- lays occurred when the work in dispute was assigned to IUE Local 102-represented employees and that de- lays were caused when Teamsters-represented em- ployees were assigned to the work in dispute could affect production operations with a cumulative effect that would result in some cost penalties and would affect delivery deadlines of the Employer's products to its customers including the United States Depart- ment of Defense, to which the Employer ships certain defense related items. We find the factors of economy and efficiency fa- vor the assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by IUE Local 102. 4. Board certifications and prior awards There is no evidence indicating that a Board certifi- cation covers the disputed work. Teamsters has claimed the work in dispute here on the basis of an award to it by the Eastern Conference Joint Area Grievance Committee regarding the move- ment of materials between Buildings 35A and 35B. We note that the grievance on which the award was based was filed on May 19, 1972, some 2 months before the storage pad area here in question became operational. We note also that the individual who stated that he filed that grievance testified that, at the time he filed the grievance, he did not contemplate that the grievance encompassed jurisdictional claims to materials stored on the outside storage pad. Further, we note that, although the pad had been operational for some 3 months at the time the area grievance committee issued its award, there is no evi- dence that the work in dispute had been a topic of the grievance. The final award of that committee specifi- cally states that the claim of the Teamsters be upheld "in that movement of material between buildings re- quiring the use of forklifts or other wheeled transpor- tation equipment shall come under the jurisdiction" of Teamsters and makes no mention of the work in dispute here. As importantly, we note that IUE Local 102 was 5% DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not a party to the grievance proceedings before the area grievance committee and, that there are no spe- cific reasons listed in the area grievance committee's statement of award detailing the rationale for that award being made to Teamsters. On the basis of the foregoing, we deem the award of related work to Teamsters by the Area Grievance Committee of no significance here. Conclusions Upon the entire record, and after full consideration of all relevant factors here involved , we believe that employees represented by IUE Local 102 are entitled to perform the work in dispute . This award is support- ed by Employer's assignment of the work to employ- ees represented by IUE Local 102, the relative efficiency that results and the concurrent economies of such an assignment . 1$ In making this award, we are assigning the work to employees represented by IUE Local 102 rather than to that organization itself or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceed- ing. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor " As noted supra, fn. 16, IUE Local 101 was not a party to these proceed- ings and therefore the award of work here to IUE Local 102 does not cover any work which arguably may be that of WE Local 101 Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of Philco-Ford Corporation who currently are represented by Local 102, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of moving materials by hand or equipment, other than by li- censed motor vehicles, between outside storage areas and plant buildings located at the Employer's facility at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. 2. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, is not and has not been entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Philco-Ford Corporation, to assign the above-described work to its members or employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 4, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pros- cribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Local 102 , Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work- ers, AFL-CIO. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation