General Teamsters Local Union No. 528

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica and National Homes Corporation and Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, acting on behalf of Millmen's Local Union No. 1528, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CD-271 November 20, 1978 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO, acting on behalf of Millmen's Local Union No. 1528, United Brother- hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, hereinafter called the Carpenters, on March 27, 1978, alleging that General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, War-housemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Teamsters or Local 528, 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, Na- tional Homes Corporation, to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees rep- resented by the Carpenters. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Hear- ing Officer Ann D. Reel on April 17, 1978. All par- ties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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 rul- ings 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 parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer, an Indiana corporation which maintains an office and place of business on Railroad Street in Thomson, Georgia, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of prefabricated homes. During the past rep- resentative 12-month period, the Employer sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located at points outside the State of Georgia. 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 purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11. TIHE LABOR OR(iANIZAIIONS INVOIVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Team- sters and the Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the service and mainte- nance, including gas and oil service, of forklifts and straddlers used by the Employer at its Thomson, Georgia, manufacturing facility. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer manufactures prefabricated homes in Thomson, Georgia. Its facility consists of a plant with several annexes, as well as a garage a block away. The garage is called the transportation depart- ment. The Teamsters has represented transportation department employees since 1961, while the Carpen- ters has represented production and maintenance employees at the plant since 1967. Previously, plant employees operated the Employ- er's 13 forklifts and I straddler on the floor of the plant during the one and only shift. Transportation department employees were responsible for storing, maintaining, repairing, oiling, and gasing these ma- chines and driving them to the plant from the trans- portation department every morning and back to the department at night. Each morning, 10 to 15 trans- portation department employees drive the lifts from the department to the plant over public roads. This ride takes from 15 to 20 minutes. Teamsters had per- formed the work from 1967 through 1977. On May 31, 1977, the Employer replaced 10 of the lifts and removed them, as well as 3 old lifts and a straddler, to the plant for storage and use. The Em- ployer assigned the disputed work to the plant pro- duction and maintenance employees. The Teamsters grieved this loss of work. 370 GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 528 On January 25. 1978, the Teamsters Southern Mul- ti-State Grievance Committee, herein called Griev- ance Committee, awarded the work in dispute to transportation department employees. The Carpen- ters was not afforded an opportunity to participate in the grievance process. On March 7, 1978, the Em- ployer complied with the Grievance Committee award. Thereafter, the Carpenters filed a grievance. On March 13, 1978, however, the Teamsters, by let- ter, advised the Employer that if the Grievance Committee's award was not honored, the Employer would be picketed and possibly struck. C. The Contention of the Parties The Employer contends that its new method of operations justifies its assignment of the disputed work to its production and maintenance employees, who are represented by the Carpenters. The Em- ployer argues that it is more efficient and economical to store lifts in the building in which they are used and to have the same employees who operate the lifts maintain them. The Carpenters contends that the use and mainte- nance of forklifts is part and parcel of the production process and, as such, should be interpreted to be within the Carpenters certified unit of production and maintenance employees. The Teamsters contends that it has not attempted to force the Employer to assign work to it within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D). In addition, the Teamsters contends that its members had performed the disputed work from 1961 until the Employer reassigned the work to the Carpenters in 1977. The Teamsters argues that its certification covers the work in question. Furthermore, it cites the particular skills of employees it represents to perform the work and the efficiency of operations attendant upon such skills. Finally, the Teamsters argues that the Employ- er's past practice and the Grievance Committee's award justify the assignment of the work to its mem- bers. D. Applicahilitv of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that (I) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. We conclude that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. With respect to (1), the Teamsters filed a grievance for the work and, when the Greivance Committee awarded the work to the Teamsters (Local 528), threatened, in writing, picketing and possible strike action to enforce the award if the Employer balked at its application. With respect to (2), the Grievance Committee's proceedings and award have no binding effect on the Carpenters. The Carpenters was not a party to the grievance proceeding, nor was it afforded an oppor- tunity to be. We conclude that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc- curred and that there exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accord- ingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. fMerit 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 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. Board certification Teamsters Local No. 728 was certified on October 26, 1960, to represent employees at Knox Homes Corporation, a predecessor employer of National Homes. The record does not indicate the certified unit. Thereafter, Local No. 728 underwent a schism resulting in Local 528 as the servicing local of Knox Homes. The Carpenters was certified on June i, 1967, at Knox Homes for a unit of all production and mainte- nance employees, including yard employees, plant clericals, leadmen. and sert ice employees; but ex- cluding over-the-road truckdrivers, truck spotters, of- fice clericals, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Teamsters certification is not in evidence, and that of the Carpenters neither clearly includes nor V 1. R v. Radio & Televrsi,n Brotdcart Engineerr I mon. Ilcal 1212. Inrternat i ioncl Brotherhord o! Electri c l uorkceri. .4 4'. (10 /( 'olumhrb BraIad- ,avitng S/tem/]. 364 i S 573 (1961) ' Inlernratinal 4.ocSiccon [f, 11 chintcti. IdcyL .o , .4 4 AFl (-1C0 (J .4 Jonic ( otru, lion ( omptnin , 135 N LRB 1402 119621 371 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clearly excludes the work in dispute. Accordingly, we conclude this factor favors neither group of employ- ees. 2. Collective-bargaining agreements Local 528 and the Employer are parties to the Na- tional Master Freight Agreement executed on April 1, 1976, which will expire March 31, 1979. Local 528 and the Employer have, in addition, privately execu- ted an addendum 4 modifying the master agreement. The Carpenters and the Employer executed an agree- ment on February 9, 1977, which will expire on April 4, 1980. Article 2, section 2(c), of the Teamsters agreement reads in relevant part: "The jurisdiction covered by the National Master Freight Agreement and its vari- ous supplements thereto includes, without lijmita- tion, stuffing, stripping, loading and discharging of cargo on containers." The addendum to the Team- sters agreement defines its coverage as over "all ga- rage employees and hostlers" at the garage. The Car- penters contract does not describe the Union's jurisdiction other than to grant recognition in the certified unit in article 1I (recognition) of the con- tract. (See par. E, , above). These two contract provi- sions shed little light on who is entitled to the work and do not aid in determining this dispute. 3. Company and industry practice The Employer employs mechanics and truckdriv- ers, who are represented by the Teamsters, at its transportation department. From 1967 through 1977, the Teamsters, while the forklifts were garaged at the transportation department, exclusively performed the disputed work. Before 1967, plant employees oc- casionally performed the work. The record does not indicate the practice in the industry. The above fac- tory favors the Teamsters claims. 4. Relative skills The teamsters have gased, oiled, repaired, and driven the lifts for at least 10 years. The Teamsters contends that their long experience in performing the work, and the Carpenters lack of such experience, is ipso facto proof that the teamsters are more capable of performing the work than the carpenters. How- ever, there is no testimony on the record, nor conten- tion, that the carpenters lack the skills to service the Employer's lifts. Both the Carpenters and the Em- ployer contend that the carpenters are able to per- form the work. Thus, this factor favors neither party. 5. Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer contends that it is more time effi- cient and economical to house lifts in the same plant in which they are used than to maintain them a block away from the production floor. Every day 15 to 20 minutes of over-the-road transport are saved to and from the plant; thus, time, gas, and man-hours are saved. Furthermore, hazardous driving is avoided under the Employer's plan: pedestrians and vehicles on the public road are saved from the Employer's traffic and possible accidents are avoided. Produc- tion employees, who operated the lifts during the day, would maintain them at night as well as repair them on the spot on the production floor instead of summoning a mechanic from the transportation de- partment. The factor of economy and efficiency strongly favors the Employer's work assignment. 6. Grievance Committee's award A transportation department employee filed a grievance with the Teamsters on May 31, 1978. The Grievance Committee sustained the Teamsters claim to the work on behalf of its members on January 25, 1978. The Grievance Committee did not publish the basis of its award for the Teamsters, and it is not in the record. Since the Carpenters was not party to the arbitration proceeding and is not contractually bound to accept it, and since the basis for the award is not in the record, the Grievance Committee's award carries little weight in the determination of the dispute. 7. Employer preference The Employer's assignment of the work to the em- ployees represented by the Carpenters triggered the dispute herein, and it prefers that the work be per- formed by those employees. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consid- eration of all relevant factors, we conclude that em- ployees who are represented by the Carpenters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion particularly in light of the Employer's assignment and preference to the production and maintenance employees at the plant and of the effi- ciency and economy of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by Millmen's Lo- cal No. 1528, but not to that Union or its members. 372 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 pro- ceeding,the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. Employees employed by National Homes Cor- poration, who are represented by Millmen's Local No. 1528, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of service and mainte- nance, including gas and oil service, of forklifts and 373 straddlers used by the Employer at its Thomson, Georgia, manufacturing facility. 2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require National Homes Cor- poration to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 shall notify the Regional Direc- tor for Region 10, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscnbed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 528