Bottlers Local 1187

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

BOTTLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1187
Bottlers Local Union No. 1187, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Brewers and Malt-
sters Local Union No. 6, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Teamsters, Firemen, Oilers, Maintenance and
Associated Industries Local Union No. 367, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Brewery Drivers,
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 133,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case 14-CD-630
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of a charge by Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Bottlers
Local Union No. 1187, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called the
Bottlers, 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 its members rather than
either to employees represented by Brewers and
Maltsters Local Union No. 6, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Brewers and Maltsters, or to employees
represented by Teamsters, Firemen, Oilers, Main-
tenancemen and Associated Industries Local Union
No. 367, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Oilers, or to
employees represented by Brewery Drivers, Chauf-
feurs and Helpers Local Union No. 133, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Brewery Drivers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Karen L. Rengstorf on May 11
and 12, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford-
ed full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. After the hearing, the Em-
ployer and Bottlers filed timely briefs.
258 NLRB No. 129
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 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, a Missouri corporation with its principal of-
fices located in St. Louis, Missouri, and brewing
facilities located in St. Louis, Missouri, and
throughout the United States, is engaged in the
nonretail distribution of malt beverages. During the
past year, the Employer sold and shipped, or
caused to be shipped, goods valued in excess of
$50,000, which goods were shipped from the Em-
ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, facility directly to cus-
tomers located outside the State of Missouri. Ac-
cordingly, 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 jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Bottlers, the Brewers and Maltsters. the Oilers, and
the Brewery Drivers are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a
brewery at its St. Louis, Missouri, facility. The
brewery is located in a multicity block area and
consists of two principal segments: A brewhouse
where the actual brewing of beer beverages is per-
formed and a beer packaging and shipping area
(bottling department), which is comprised of sever-
al buildings connected by passageways and tunnels,
commonly referred to as the Bevo plant or com-
plex. The production process consists of an inte-
grated procedure wherein the processed liquid
product is pumped from the brewhouse via pipe-
lines for placement into bottles and cans. In the
beer packaging and shipping area, the bottles or
cans are placed into cardboard cartons and con-
veyed to the basement area of the complex consist-
ing of several interconnected buildings where the
cartons are arranged onto pallets and then either
placed into storage or transported to railroad cars
997
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or trucks for shipment to wholesalers. Essential to
the foregoing process is the continued receipt into
the facility of empty bottles to be used in the pro-
duction process. These bottles are of two types,
trade return or returnable bottles and nonreturnable
bottles. The empty bottles are delivered to the beer
packaging and shipping area primarily in trailers
and are unloaded onto docks by employees operat-
ing equipment known as carton unstackers. The
empty bottles are then prepared for placement into
the production stream, subsequent to which they
are prepared for transport or placed into storage.
Over the course of several years, the Employer's
production capacity has substantially increased,
thereby requiring the acquisition of additional stor-
age space for its finished product. The Employer
has sought to accomplish this objective by the peri-
odic construction of new buildings which have
been added to the beer packaging and shipping
area, and has promoted production flow by con-
necting these new buildings to the original Bevo
building through the use of passageways and tun-
nels. The Bevo basement is thus virtually one con-
tinuous floor even though it is comprised of several
different buildings. Notwithstanding this continual
expansion, however, in view of space limitations,
empty returnable bottles have been stored for some
time away from the St. Louis facility, as has a por-
tion of the Employer's finished product.
Most recently, in order to further alleviate its
space problem, the Employer commenced con-
struction of a new building known as the material
receiving building, scheduled for completion in
September 1981. This new building is physically
connected to the other buildings of the Bevo com-
plex by a two-level bridge above the street level.
Upon completion, the material receiving building
will be the initial site where empty glass bottles
will be delivered and received. The first floor will
contain carton unstackers which will be used to
unload nonreturnable empty bottles, as well as con-
veyors which will be used to unload trade returna-
ble bottles. Conveyors on the first floor will feed
into an automatic elevator which will elevate pallet
loads of trade returnable bottles to the second
floor. The remaining space on the first floor will be
used for the storage of nonreturnable bottles. The
second floor will contain carton unstackers to be
used for unloading trade returnable bottles. The re-
mainder of the second floor, encompassing approxi-
mately 60 percent of the total floor space, will be
used for the storage of trade returnable bottles.
The third floor will contain packaging materials
and will be used for storage purposes. A two-story
bridge traverses a city street and connects the ma-
terial receiving building to the original Bevo build-
ing, providing conveyor passage on one level and
fork truck and pedestrian passage on the other. The
conveyor transport cartons from the unstackers in
the material receiving building to the production
bottle line in the Bevo building.
In the early part of 1981, the Employer com-
menced a phased transfer of certain equipment and
employees from various locations in the Bevo base-
ment to the material receiving building. When this
transfer is completed, the operations pertaining to
receiving, storage, and distribution of empty bottles
and associated packaging materials will henceforth
be performed in the material receiving building in
essentially the same manner as formerly performed
in the other portions of the Bevo complex. Em-
ployees performing functions relating to loading,
unloading, unstacker operations, utility and relief,
and lubrication servicing f building equipment,
such as fans and doors, conveyors, and unstackers,
will thereafter perform virtually the identical func-
tions in the material receiving building. The fore-
going employees are presently represented by the
Bottlers. The Employer maintains collective-bar-
gaining agreements with the Bottlers covering pro-
duction and maintenance employees engaged in
bottling department production, shipping, storage,
receiving, and noncraft maintenance, with the
Brewers and Maltsters covering brewers and non-
bottling department receiving, shipping, and stor-
age employees, with the Oilers covering, inter alia,
maintenance oilers, excluding bottling department
oilers, and with the Brewery Drivers covering the
Employer's drivers.
By letter dated April 25, 1980, the Bottlers re-
quested the Employer to assign the work to be per-
formed in the material receiving building to em-
ployees represented by the Bottlers. The Employer
responded by indicating that the work would be as-
signed to employees who had customarily per-
formed the job tasks in question. In January the
Employer advised the Brewers and Maltsters that
the work in the material receiving building would
be assigned to employees represented by the
Bottlers, whereupon the Brewers and Maltsters re-
quested that the Employer arbitrate the disputed
work assignment. Thereafter, by letter dated April
8, 1981, the Bottlers advised the Employer that it
had no intention to be bound to any arbitration be-
tween the Employer and the Brewers and Malt-
sters, and "will take whatever economic action is
necessary, up to and including a strike, to preserve
and protect our work." The Bottlers further stated
that, if the Employer awarded the work in the ma-
terial receiving building to employees represented
by the Brewers and Maltsters, "we will take imme-
diate action." Following receipt of the April 8
998
BOTTLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 11R7
letter, the Employer met with the Bottlers, but the
latter refused to submit the matter to tripartite arbi-
tration or otherwise retreat from the position set
out in its April 8 letter. Thereafter, by letter dated
April 14, 1981. the Oilers informed the Employer
of its intention to join the arbitration proceedings
sought by the Brewers and Maltsters and claimed
work jurisdiction over building maintenance in the
material receiving building. The Employer then
filed the instant charge.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves (1) the receiving,
storage, and handling of empty bottles and related
packaging functions in the material receiving build-
ing and (2) the lubrication of equipment and fix-
tures used in conjunction with the receiving, stor-
age, and handling of empty bottles and related
packaging functions in the material receiving build-
ing at the Anheuser-Busch facility located in St.
Louis, Missouri.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that a jurisdictional dis-
pute exists and that the work in dispute should be
awarded to employees represented by the Bottlers
on the basis of the Employer's assignment, the
economy and efficiency of assigning the work to
employees who have performed the work in the
past, the skill and training possessed by bottlers,
prior Board certifications pertaining to the work
involved, company and industry practice, and the
potential loss of existing jobs if the work is as-
signed to employees represented by any labor orga-
nization other than the Bottlers.
The Bottlers contends that its threat to strike
creates reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that, based on past
practice, prior Board certifications, job skills, effi-
ciency of operation, company and industry prac-
tice, effects on presently employed employees, and
employer preference, the disputed work should
continue to be assigned to employees represented
by the Bottlers.
The Brewers and Maltsters contends that the
Bottlers purported threat to strike is conditional in
nature and thus reasonable cause does not exist to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
The Brewers and Maltsters further contends that,
on the basis of the job functions involved and by
contract, custom, and past practice, the disputed
receiving, storage, and handling work should be
awarded to employees it represents.
The Oilers contends that reasonable cause exists
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated
and that the disputed lubrication work should be
awarded to employees represented by it because
the work in question is performed in a separate and
distinct building and not a wing or addition to the
existing Bevo complex.
The Brewery Drivers took no position at the
hearing.
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 the voluntary settlement of the dis-
pute.
The record shows that, following its receipt of
information that the Brewers and Maltsters was
seeking the work assignment in the material receiv-
ing building through arbitration, the Bottlers in-
formed the Employer that it would take economic
action, including a strike, to preserve the existing
work assignment. The Brewers and Maltsters con-
tends that the Bottlers threat to strike was a "fic-
tion" and conditional upon an adverse arbitration
award. However, there is no evidence in the
record indicating that the strike threat was any-
thing but genuine. Further, it is well established
that reasonable cause exists to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred if a labor
organization which represents employees who are
assigned the disputed work puts improper pressure
upon an employer to continue such assignment. In-
ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO and Local Lodge 681, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers. AFL-CIO (Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corpo-
ration), 242 NLRB 22, 24 (1979). Inasmuch as the
Bottlers letter of April 8, 1981, clearly threatens
immediate action against the Employer if it should
award the disputed work to employees represented
by the Brewers and Maltsters, we conclude that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. The record
contains no evidence that there exists an agreed-
upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the
Act. To the contrary, the Bottlers has specifically
refused to participate in tripartite arbitration of the
dispute. Accordingly, we find that the 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
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
giving due consideration to various factors.' The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic-
tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com-
monsense and experience reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case. 2
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
In Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et a, 103 NLRB 1205
(1953), we determined the appropriateness of cer-
tain bargaining units which encompassed the facili-
ty at issue herein.3 In subsequent certifications aris-
ing therefrom, the Bottlers was certified to repre-
sent, in part, all employees engaged in shipping,
storage, receiving, and noncraft maintenance oper-
ations in the bottling department and bottling de-
partment areas; 4 the Brewers and Maltsters was
certified to represent, in part, all employees en-
gaged in receiving, shipping, and storing of pro-
duction supplies outside the bottling department
and bottling department area; and the Oilers was
certified to represent, in part, all maintenance
oilers, excluding bottling department or "bottle-
shop" oilers. The certification of the Bottlers in-
cluded all employees working in the basement of
the Bevo building inasmuch as these employees
were deemed to be functionally integrated with the
remainder of the bottleshop unit. Also included in
the overall bottleshop unit were employees em-
ployed in a building across the street from the
original Bevo building based on evidence that these
employees were engaged in duties which were ex-
tensions of the shipping and temporary storage op-
erations essential to the prior functioning of the
bottling department. See also Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
112 NLRB 686, 703-704 (1955). Finally, the bottle-
shop unit found appropriate was deemed to encom-
pass noncraft bottleshop oilers. The pertinent pro-
visions of the existing collective-bargaining agree-
ments between the Employer and the Bottlers, the
Brewers and Maltsters, and the Oilers, respectively,
set forth appropriate bargaining units consistent
with the original Board certifications. 5 Inasmuch as
' .L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting Svstem], 364 I S. 573 (1961).
International Association of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Conrstruction Company). 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
See also 107 NLRB 496 (1953) and 116 NLRB 1988 (1956).
The parties stipulated that the Bottlers succeeded Brewery Workers
Local 187 as certified bargaining representative of this unit.
5 While a provision of the Brewers and Maltsters agreement provides
that employees represented by it shall perform the storage and handling
of all freight on platforms, docks, or in any other building. the record
reveals that this provision precedes the original Board certification and.
in practice, has not been applied to subsequent structural additions to the
beer packaging and shipping area.
the areas referred to as bottleshop areas in our pre-
vious unit determinations are synonomous with the
present beer packaging and shipping area, and since
the work to be performed in the material receiving
building is essentially the same work formerly per-
formed at other sites in the beer packaging and
shipping area, we conclude that the factors of
Board certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements favor an award of the disputed work to
employees represented by the Bottlers.
2. Arbitration award
The record contains evidence of an arbitration
award issued in 1978, as subsequently clarified the
following year, pertaining to the unloading and
handling of empty cooperage (barrels) in the base-
ment of the Bevo complex. Inasmuch as the award
antedates the construction of the material receiving
building and does not concern the receiving, stor-
age, and handling of empty bottles and related
packaging functions or the lubrication of equipment
used in conjunction therewith, we find that the ar-
bitration award does not favor assignment of the
disputed work to employees represented by any of
the parties.
3. Employer and industry practice
Prior to the construction of the material receiv-
ing building, the Employer's practice at the facility
herein was to assign to employees represented by
the Bottlers the receiving and handling of empty
bottles and related packaging functions, as well as
the lubrication of equipment and fixtures used in
conjunction with that work, as then performed in
other areas of the Bevo complex. As noted, the
work to be performed in the material receiving
building is essentially identical to the work as pre-
viously performed and is functionally integrated
with the overall bottling operation. Accordingly,
we find that the Employer's practice in this regard
favors the assignment of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by the Bottlers. While the
Brewers and Maltsters contends that prior to 1957
its members performed warehousing work pertain-
ing to trade returnable bottles stored at the Em-
ployer's premises, we find such an alleged practice
too remote in time to warrant favorable considera-
tion herein in view of the intervening practices per-
taining to the overall receiving, storage, and han-
dling operations.
With regard to other facilities operated by the
Employer, and industry practice generally, the evi-
dence presented is conclusionary in nature and of
marginal probative value. Accordingly, these fac-
tors do not tend to favor the assignment of the dis-
(XX)
BOTTLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1187
puted work to employees represented by any of the
parties to this proceeding.
4. Skills and experience
The record indicates that the disputed work, in-
cluding the operation of the carton unstackers, has
been performed for a period in excess of 20 years
by employees represented by the Bottlers. While
the disputed work herein does not appear to re-
quire extensive skills or training, the considerable
experience accumulated by these employees weighs
in favor of awarding the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by the Bottlers.
5. Efficiency and economy of operations
The use of employees represented by the Brew-
ers and Maltsters would potentially subject ap-
proximately 75 employees to layoff and would re-
quire the Employer to hire and train a similar
number of new employees to perform job duties
for which the Employer presently has an experi-
enced employee complement. In addition, the
record establishes that the Employer is transferring
to the material receiving building the same foremen
and area foremen supervising employees who pre-
viously performed the disputed work when under-
taken elsewhere in the Bevo complex. An assign-
ment of the disputed work to the current employee
complement represented by the Bottlers would
thus promote a smooth transition to the new loca-
tion. Furthermore, inasmuch as most employees in
the Bevo complex are subject to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Employer and the
Bottlers, assignment of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by the Bottlers would likely fa-
cilitate the interchange of employees between the
material receiving building and the rest of the Bevo
complex for purposes of covering absences and
work assignments. Finally, with regard to cost effi-
ciency and overall flexibility of operations, it ap-
pears that certain job-bidding restrictions and work
guarantees contained in the Brewers and Maltsters
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer
would potentially subject the Employer to greater
costs and decreased flexibility of operations if the
work is assigned to employees represented by the
Brewers and Maltsters. The foregoing consider-
ations favor an award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by the Bottlers.
6. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute
to employees represented by the Bottlers and has
expressed its preference that the disputed work be
performed by these employees. We find that the
Employer's assignment and preference favor an
award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by the Bottlers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all the relevant factors involved, we
conclude that employees represented by the
Bottlers are entitled to perform the disputed work.
In reaching this conclusion, we have relied on the
existing Board certifications and the resulting terms
of recognition in the parties' collective-bargaining
agreements, employer practice, skills and experi-
ence, efficiency and economy of operations, and
employer assignment and preference. Accordingly,
we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dis-
pute by deciding that employees represented by the
Bottlers, rather than those represented by the
Brewers and Maltsters, the Oilers, or the Brewery
Drivers, are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. In making this determination, we are assign-
ing the disputed work to employees who are repre-
sented by the Bottlers, but not to that Union or its
members.
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:
Employees of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., who are
represented by Bottlers Local Union No. 1187, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, are entitled to perform the receiving,
storage, and handling of empty bottles and related
packaging functions in the material receiving build-
ing and the lubrication of equipment and fixtures
used in conjunction therewith at the Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., facility located in St. Louis, Missouri.
1001