Window Glass Cutters League of America, Etc.

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.