Local Union No. 113, Laborers

LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 233 Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO' and Miller Brewing Company and Local Union No. 9, of the Interna- tional Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CD-15 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE During the past calendar year, a typical period, it made purchases directly in interstate commerce from points located outside the State of Wisconsin in an amount in excess of $50,000, and made sales of goods and materials directly in interstate com- merce in an amount in excess of $50,000 to points located outside the State of Wisconsin. Ac- cordingly, 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 policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow- ing a charge filed by Miller Brewing Company, hereinafter called Miller or Employer, alleging that Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Laborers , had violated Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held pursuant to notice at Mil- waukee , Wisconsin, on March 3 , April 28, May 6 and 19 , and July 24, 1969, before Hearing Officer Wallace Taine . The Employer, the Laborers, and Local Union No. 9, of the International Union of United Brewery , Flour , Cereal , Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Brewery Workers, ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the is- sues.' The Laborers and Brewery Workers have filed briefs with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec- tion with this case to a three -member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirm 1 ed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Miller Brewing Company is a Wisconsin corpora- tion engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer. the name appears as amended at the hearing e Although neither the Employer's charge nor the notice of hearing in this 10(k) proceeding named the Brewery Workers as a charged party, we conclude that they should he bound by this Decision as though they were a charged party rho Brewery Workers not only appeared at the hearing, and litigated and filed a brief with respect to the disputed work set forth in the Employer's charge and notice of hearing, but also raised issues regarding other work not included in the Employer's charge which were fully litigated and briefed The Brewery Workers indicated at the hearing that unless its claims for work assignments were satisfied it would engage in economic pressure to obtain the work At this time, the Employer also indicated his 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Laborers and Brewery Workers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The situs of this work dispute is at Miller Brewing Company's main brewery in Milwaukee , Wisconsin. At this brewery, which covers several blocks and encompasses 50 buildings, Miller employs about 2,000 people . The majority of these employees, about 1 ,200, are represented by Lcal 9 of the Brewery Workers. However, specialized groups of employees are represented by other unions ; i.e., the Carpenters, the Machinists , and the Laborers. Local 9 of the Brewery Workers has represented Miller employees since the 1930's. One of the groups of employees represented by Local 9 of the Brewery Workers and covered by a negotiated con- tract are employees in the general trucking depart- ment . The general trucking department is divided into three divisions : yard, garage, and trucking. Between 125 and 175 employees work in this de- partment , although many are assigned to other de- partments at the brewery. The work to be per- formed by the general trucking department, ac- cording to the terms of the contract , is governed by a "work list." The most recent "work list" negotiated between Miller and the Brewery Wor- kers is dated October 31, 1955. Local 113 of the Laborers , like the Brewery willingness to have the Board decide the additional disputed job assign- ments not mentioned in the Notice of Hearing It was further understood among the parties that none of the work assignment disputes, namely, those included in the Employer's charge as well as those raised by the Brewery Workers at the hearing, could be resolved without a settlement of all of the work in dispute Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Board, fulfilling the intent of Section 10(k) of the Act, to make a determination with respect to all the disputed work which the parties have fully litigated in this proceeding and to hind the Brewery Workers as well as the Laborers by our determination 184 NLRB No. 27 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Workers, negotiates a master contract with the "Brewery Proprietors ," including Miller Brewery, for the Milwaukee , Wisconsin , area. However no separate agreement applicable only to Miller em- ployees is negotiated. At present Miller employs between six and eight members of the Laborers. The present work dispute between employees in the general trucking department represented by the Brewery Workers and the members of the Laborers employed at the brewery, hereinafter referred to as the laborers group, began when general trucking department employees filed grievances claiming that work was being performed by the laborers group which should be performed by them. The most notable grievance setting forth this contention was filed on September 25, 1968, with the Brewery Workers claiming that the Employer was violating part VI, article 1, of the present labor agreement with the Brewery Workers and the supplemental "work list" mentioned above. But no specific reference to any work in issue was made. In sub- sequent meetings it was agreed that the Union should give the Employer a bill of particulars re- garding the September grievance. On December 3, 1968, the Brewery Workers, at a meeting with the Employer, presented a list of some 14 assignments which it claimed were wrongfully assigned by Miller. The Employer on December 11, 1968, made a determination with regard to the challenged assignments. With respect to those assignments now in issue the Employer determined that the transpor- tation of tank tubes, beer cocks, and hose couplings to repair areas should be done exclusively by general trucking workers, whereas the transporta- tion of beer pumps and hop carts to and from repair locations should continue to be done by the laborers group. It was also the Employer's position that the hauling of 2 by 2 lumber for use in storing hop bales and the transporting of yeast boxes at all times should now be done by general trucking wor- kers rather than the laborers group. Finally the Em- ployer found no reason to change prior laborers group assignments to handle the movement of jani- torial supplies as well as gloves and boots to the cel- lars, the hauling of rubbish from the administration building and Miller Inn, and the hauling of hop carts and beer pumps for repair. A the December 11 meeting, during which the Employer made his allocation of work, only the Brewery Workers was present. The Employer promptly began to put the new ' In order to simplify the discussion, "work dispute" refers in this deci- sion to all the tasks involved in this dispute, and "job " will be used to refer to a particular task included in the overall "work dispute " ' the record reveals, as the Brewery Workers brief points out, that the Laborers attorney conceded at the hearing that the movement of tank work assignments into effect. On January 8, 1969, counsel for the Laborers sent a letter to Miller claiming that work which had traditionally been done by the laborers group was now being shifted to the general trucking department employees. The Laborers demanded that the Company cease such action and, if it did not, the Laborers was prepared to enforce this demand with direct economic action against the Employer. On January 14, 1969, the Miller Brewing Company filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that the Laborers was violating Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. B. The Work in Dispute The work over which this dispute is centered, as set forth in the notice of hearing, involves the "moving of tank tubes , beer cocks and hose couplings, yeast boxes, lumber for hop bales, and tap service material, and loading of motors in need of repair." However, at the time of hearing, the work in dispute was considerably altered to include a number of additional matters and to delete cer- tain of the items listed above. At the hearing, Brewery Workers challenged certain assignments made to Laborers and threatened direct economic action to obtain that work for its members. These additional disputed assignments are the hauling of beer pumps and hop carts to repair shops, the removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the ad- ministration building area, and the hauling of gloves, boots, and janitorial supplies from the general receiving area to the fermenting and finish- ing cellars. The Laborers withdrew the claim to the moving of tap service material before the beginning of the hearing. During the course of the hearing the parties resolved the disputed "loading of motors in need of repair." Each of the disputed jobs' is not specifically re- lated to the others thereby making generalization difficult and requiring a job-by-job analysis. All the jobs, though, relate to some kind of hauling or cart- ing. A number of the disputed jobs involve the haul- ing or equipment in need of repair from the production area to the maintenance shops. 1. Hauling tank tubes,4 beer cocks, and hose couplings for repair: Tank tubes, sometimes called bazooka, are long rods with a cleaning apparatus attached to one end. They are inserted into the tubes is not in issue However, the Laborers , in its briefs , has again put the movement of tank tubes into issue Inasmuch as the record reveals suffi- cient information regarding the use and repair procedures of tank tubes, we shall make a determination of which group of employees are entitled to do this job LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 235 beer tanks for cleaning corners and out-of-the-way areas. Beer cocks are a type of valve or plug used throughout the production process to control the flow of "fluid." Hose couplings are the connective apparatus between hoses and beer cocks or other types of valves. Both beer cocks and hose couplings are frequently in need of repair or cleaning due to corrosion. They are stored in barrels which when filled are taken to the machine shop where the cleaning and repair are performed. 2. Hauling portable beer pumps for repair: There are two types of pumps: stationary and portable. The portable pumps are mounted on a cart-like as- sembly and are wheeled from location to location when needed in the production area. There are esti- mated to be between 30 and 40 of these pumps in use. When repair is required, they are wheeled by the production employee to the production area loading dock, from which they are transported to the machine shop, and when repaired they are returned to this dock. The stationary beer pumps, as the name implies, are nonmovable pumps con- siderably larger and heavier than the portable pumps. When these pumps must be hauled to the repair shop it requires the services of the laborers group to move them from their location in the production area to the machine shop. The hauling of the light portable pumps from the production area loading dock to the machine shop and back is now in issue. 3. Hauling of hop carts for repair: A hop cart is about 3 or 4 feet square, about 5 or 6 feet high, and mounted on four roller castors. When the processing of the hops has been finished at building 50, the "spent" hops are dumped into these carts and then the carts are pushed by the production employees to refuse receptables when the "spent" hops are dumped. Frequently these hop carts require repair. According to Janowiak, general maintenance superintendent and staff engineer for Miller, of the 30 to 40 hop carts used by the Com- pany about 2 or 3 per week require repair Again the issue is who shall transport the hop carts from the dock area near building 50 to the carpenter shop where the necessary repairs are to be made, and then back to the production area. Besides the hauling of the above items for repair certain other types of carting and hauling are also in dispute. 4. Hauling "new" and "old" yeast boxes: A yeast box is a 2-foot high, 18-inch square corrugated cardboard box lined with styrofoam. Into each box at the Milwaukee brewery is placed a tin containing yeast. These boxes are then shipped to the Em- ployer's other production facilities in California and Texas where the yeast is used in the production process. The Employer began to use these yeast boxes in the early part of 1966. At first there were only a few boxes used each week but now a con- siderable number are used'dunng the course of the week. All of the yeast boxes initially were "new" but as time went on the Employer began to have the "old" yeast boxes reshipped on railroad cars back to its Milwaukee operations where they are reused. At issue in the hauling of "new" yeast boxes is the movement of these initially flat, broken down boxes from the warehouse area to the carpenter shop where they are assembled and then the cartage of the assembled "new" yeast boxes to building 15-45, where the boxes are stored and the yeast inserted into the box. The work of inserting the yeast into the box and the subsequent transport- ing of the filled yeast boxes is admittedly done by employees represented by the Brewery Workers. Also at issue is the movement of certain "old" yeast boxes in need of repair from the building 15-45 area to the carpenter shop and back again. As mentioned above, the empty yeast boxes are returned by rail to the Miller premises where they are unloaded and delivered to building 15-45. Although at first all these used boxes were brought over to the carpenter shop, the procedure now is to have a carpenter go directly to where the boxes are stored in building 15-45 and make on-the-spot repairs if necessary. However, in certain instances, some of the badly damaged yeast boxes have been sent to the carpenter shop. At present approximate- ly 80 percent of the yeast boxes now used to ship the yeast from Milwaukee to the Employer's other locations are "old" yeast boxes. 5. Hauling of 2 by 2 lumber used in hop bales storage: On infrequent occasions the Carpenters are requested to cut 2 by 4 lumber to 2 by 2 size to be used in separating hop bales during storage; 2 by 2 lumber is rarely needed for this purpose because the lumber is continually reused in the storage area. In 1968, the year prior to the Em- ployer's assignment, there is testimony of only one instance in which such lumber was requested. Other than this single instance, no witness offered testimony of any other occasion when similar work had been performed, possibly because of the long interval between requests. The work in issue here is who shall do the hauling of these pieces of 2 by 2 lumber from the carpenter shop to the area where hop bales are stored. 6 Removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the administration building- An employee using a flatbed truck drives to the rear of these buildings where he picks up the trash which has been placed in plastic bags. He then drives the truck over to the 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trash disposal area where he disposes of the plastic bags. The issue here is who should be assigned to drive the vehicle when moving the rubbish. 7. The assignment of the movement of gloves and boots from receiving area to the finishing and fermenting cellars and the movement of janitorial supplies from receiving area to the finishing and fermenting cellars is the subject of the final group of jobs involved in this dispute. C. The Contentions of the Parties Although the parties have made contentions re- garding each of the jobs, as explained above, their arguments are based upon one or two key theories. Basically, the Brewery Workers contends that the work in dispute should be assigned to the em- ployees it represents because all of the work is of a type which is covered in the General Trucking List, a list of jobs compiled to comply with article I, part IV, of the labor agreement between the Brewery Workers and the "Brewery Proprietors" of Milwau- kee, Wisconsin, to which Miller Brewing Company is a signatory.5 Furthermore, it contends that only by an assignement to the brewery workers can these jobs be efficiently integrated into the general brewery operations. It is also claimed that brewery workers have historically performed the functions now in dispute and therefore the Company must as- sign the work to the brewery workers or be in viola- tion of article XVI, section 2,5 and also, as already described, part VI, article I, of the contract with the Brewery Workers. The Laborers, on the other hand, argues that all the work in issue , except for the hauling of rubbish, should be assigned to its members, following the principle that laborers are primarily assigned to assist the skilled trades, such as the machinists, car- penters, and steamfitters, in the performance of its duties. This principle would treat the laborers at Miller in the traditional manner that laborers are 'Inc General Trucking List in this regard states that the duties of the general trucking department include, in pertinent part I Haul materials used in the making or packaging of Miller High Life Beer 2 Haul brewing materials to and from warehouses s s n k a 6 Miscellaneous intra-plant hauling which is to include the following L Haul rubbish to the bailers and to the rubbish pit i Haul cleaning agents and materials in accordance with past practice utilized in general construction work. It is also the position of the Laborers that the work assignment of the disputed jobs should be made to its members because, historically, they performed the work in question either exclusively or more frequently than did brewery workers.' With respect to the disputed rubbish hauling which the Laborers concedes can- not be included within its general theory of "tradi- tional work function," it argues that it must be al- located to laborers on the basis of past practice. The Employer, who has not filed a brief, has refused to subscribe to any of the above theories but rather allocated the work through a job-by-job analysis. The Employer specifically rejected the Laborers "traditional work function" theory on the ground that, although this may be a rule of thumb, the actual practice in the plant over the preceding years does not conform to this theory. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. As indicated above, both Unions, the Laborers and the Brewery Workers, have threatened the Em- ployer, Miller Brewing Company, with economic action unless the Employer accedes to their de- mands regarding the work now in dispute.' We therefore find that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have oc- curred, and the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute As stated in the J. A. Jones case' we shall, pur- suant to the Supreme Court's CBS decision , 10 deter- k Hauling of uniforms in accordance with past practice 13 Remove rubbish in conjunction with outside contractor and laborers The Employer shall not contract or subcontract out any work presently being performed by employees covered by this agreement, nor shall any such work be transferred in any manner so as to result in its being per- formed by employees not covered by this agreement ' The Laborers has a work preservation clause in its contract similar to that contained in the Brewery Workers clause Work which is or has been exclusively performed by members of the Union will not be assigned to employees of any other bargaining unit of the Employer " See fn 2, in this regard International Association of Machinists, Iwidge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Co ), 135 NLRB 1402 "' N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573 LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 237 mine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate assign- ment of the disputed work only after taking into ac- count the evidence supporting the claims of the parties and balancing all relevant factors. As mentioned above, both Unions have offered broad theories to support their claim for all the work in dispute. The Employer, on the other hand, although recognizing that these theories are valua- ble as a rule of thumb, concluded that they are not helpful in allocating the work because of the past practice of allowing members of both Unions to do the same work, as well as other circumstances which arise and must be considered in assigning work to its employees. We are in general agreement with the Employer that none of the theories ad- vanced by the Unions is fully applicable and that each of the jobs involved in this work dispute must be considered separately on its own merits. A separate assignment must be made for each job now in issue. However, in resolving the disputed work certain observations are equally applicable to all the jobs in dispute. Thus, each Union has attempted to support its position by citing certain portions of its respec- tive labor agreement with the Employer. However, the labor agreements contain general clauses providing that the Employer shall not reassign any work which has been historically performed by the employees represented These clauses are not help- ful in resolving this dispute, since both parties claim either that at one time they performed or are now performing the work in dispute or that the work was improperly assigned initially. The Brewery Workers also argues that the "General Trucking List," last negotiated with the Employer in 1955, supports its claim to the work. However, upon ex- amination of this supplement to the master agree- ment, it becomes apparent that it does not specifi- cally cover the work in issue except in the most general manner. Further, the "General Trucking List" was drafted in, and has not been revised since, 1955, a time when the vast majority of the jobs now in issue were not in existence Con- sequently, we conclude that the labor agreements between the Unions and the Employer will not help to resolve the present work dispute. There is no question that both groups of em- ployees are capable of doing the disputed work. One of the major tasks of the general trucking de- partment employees is the loading and transporting of items to different locations at the brewery Likewise, one of the major tasks of the laborers group is to perform similar transport work. As the manager of labor relations, Sherman, said: "To a certain extent, there has been duplication of such hauling assignments, often dependent upon who is requesting the service and of whom the service would be requested." The Brewery Workers claims there would be work flow and job continuity in a number of instances if the employees in general trucking were allowed to work in conjunction with those employees represented by Brewery Workers in production capacities. The record clearly shows, however, that general trucking department em- ployees and production employees have separate job functions and there is no solid evidence from which to conclude that such envisaged continuity would in any way increase plant and job efficiency or skill Accordingly, we conclude that both the employees represented by the Laborers and the em- ployees represented by the Brewery Workers are equally qualified to do the work now in issue, since they possess both the requisite skill and ability to perform the work efficiently. 1. Hauling of tank tubes , beer cocks, and hose couplings for repair: The Employer concluded, after investigation supported by the record, that both the laborers group and general trucking em- ployees were involved in the hauling of these items from the production area to the machine shop for repair. It was further concluded that there had never been any clear delineation as to who per- formed this work. The Employer assigned these jobs to employees represented by the Brewery Workers on December 11, 1968, in settlement of the Brewery Workers grievance, basically because the Brewery Workers presented evidence to show that it had been doing a substantial portion of this work for a considerable period of time. Both Unions agree that prior to 1964 there were repair shops set up in the cellars to repair the hose couplings, beer cocks, and tank tubes. At that time, whenever repairs were needed these items were transported to the repair shops by the production employees represented by Brewery Workers. After 1964 the repair work was centralized in the main machine shop, thereby necessitating the transport- ing of the items to be repaired from the production area to the machine shop. It is clear that both groups of employees are qualified to perform the job and both have done the job since 1964 with no precise delineation as to which group should be doing the job. However, we conclude that because the brewery workers production employees for- merly performed all of the hauling of these items to repair shops in the cellars and because the brewery workers, as the Employer decided , still haul a sub- stantial number of these items, the brewery workers should be assigned the work. 2. Hauling of portable beer pumps for repair: As already mentioned there are two types of beer 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pumps used at the brewery; namely, stationary and portable. The Employer in his investigation of the Brewery Workers grievance giving rise to this work dispute found that laborers had always hauled the stationary beer pumps for repair. When the Em- ployer investigated as to which group of employees had moved portable beer pumps for repair, he found the same duplication of work as had been characteristic of the hauling of beer cocks, hose couplings, and tank tubes. However, the Employer decided not to assign the movement of the beer pumps to the brewery workers, as he had done with the beer cocks, hose couplings , and tank tubes, but rather to the laborers group. The Employer 's decision appears to have been based in large part on the fact that the laborers did haul all the stationary pumps in need of repair, and that the laborers performed a substantial portion of the transportation of the portable beer pumps as well. Thus, it would appear that the Employer was of the opinion that continuity of brewery operations would be best served if only one union, the Laborers , should be assigned to haul all types of beer pumps to be repaired . After considering the entire record evidence , including the laborers' historic assignment to moving the stationary pumps, and the fact that they also have been regularly as- signed to transporting the portable pumps, and also considering the fact of the Employer's assignment, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence advanced in the record to support the Employer's assignment of the hauling of all the beer pumps to the laborers represented by the Laborers, and we shall not disturb such assignment. 3 Hauling of hop carts for repair: The Employer reaffirmed the past practice of assigning to the laborers the hauling of hop carts for repair. Upon investigation, the Employer found that the laborers had traditionally hauled the hop carts. The Brewery Workers, while conceding that the laborers had been the sole group hauling the hop carts, con- tended that the work was connected with produc- tion and therefore should be assigned to the general trucking department employees. We agree with the Employer's assignment to the laborers. The laborers have performed this job over a long period of time to the satisfaction of the Employer, as wit- nessed by its reaffirming this job assignment. The mere fact that it is indirectly connected with the production process does not justify changing the developed past practice of having the laborers do this job. 4. Hauling "new" and "old" yeast boxes: The use of yeast boxes at Miller is a new operation. All parties agree that when the program was first in- itiated the laborers performed the job of hauling the "new" knockdown yeast boxes from the warehouse to the carpenter shop , and then after as- sembly to building 15-45 where they were to be filled with yeast . Subsequently, the program was ex- panded considerably and now not only are "new" yeast boxes madeup but also some of the "old" yeast boxes are reused. The disputed hauling of damaged "old" yeast boxes from their storage area in building 15-45 to the carpenter shop and back appears from the record to be minimal at present since most repairs are made by a carpenter at the storage area site. As mentioned above, the parties agree that the employees represented by the Brewery Workers do the hauling of the "new" knockdown yeast boxes to the warehouse and the hauling of the "old" yeast boxes to the storage area in building 15-45. It is agreed that brewery workers also haul filled yeast boxes to the airport, where the boxes are flown to Miller's other breweries. The Employer reassigned the above disputed work on December 1 1 to the employees represented by Brewery Workers. However, the Employer offered no specific reason for giving this job to the brewery workers. The Brewery Workers claim that the work should be given to it since it re- lates to production and the general trucking depart- ment does similar hauling of knockdown corru- gated cartons to the production box assembly unit at the brewery . Further, the Brewery Workers ar- gues, since the employees it represents are already involved in other aspects of the hauling of the yeast boxes, it would be efficient and prevent fragmenta- tion to include the whole operation. The Brewery Workers arguments are unconvinc- ing. Laborers have been hauling the yeast boxes since the commencement of the program. Moreover , the shipping of the yeast to other Miller breweries is only peripherally related to normal production activities at the brewery . Furthermore, there has been no showing that the assignment to laborers would result in a fragmentation of the operation, creating increased costs and difficulties to the Employer. Indeed, the different hauling tasks involving the yeast boxes seem to be quite unre- lated. On the other hand, for over a year since the job was created, laborers performed the job, presumably successfully. Therefore, there having been no substantial reasons advanced warranting the reassignment of the work in dispute other than the complaints and grievances filed by the Brewery Workers, we must conclude on the basis of the historical assignment of the work to the laborers group that this group should still be assigned the job; i e., the hauling of "new" yeast boxes from the warehouses to the carpenter shop and then to the LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS storage area in building 15-45, and the hauling of "old" yeast boxes from the storage area to the car- penter shop and then back to the storage area. 5. Hauling 2 by 2 lumber used in hop bales storage: The record evidence with regard to this job is sparse. The job takes place infrequently, possibly once or twice a year depending upon need . The last time that the job of hauling the 2 by 2 lumber from the carpenter shop to the storage area for use in keeping separated stored hop bales was performed it was performed by laborers While there is some general testimony that employees working in general trucking have performed this work, no one could remember a precise or specific instance when this work was so assigned . We must therefore con- clude, based on the limited record evidence as to past practice, that the hauling of 2 by 2 lumber from the carpenter shop to the hop bale storage area should be assigned to the laborers group. 6. Removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the administration building: Prior to 1964 , all rubbish was collected at the brewery by a two -man team composed of one laborer and one general trucking department brewery worker. The laborer dumped the filled barrels of rubbish into the "scoop" which was driven by a general trucking employee. In 1964, the Employer revised his rubbish collection procedures. Instead, the Employer in certain areas of the brewery had the production workers place the barrels filled with rubbish on pallets, which a forklift turck would lift and remove to the rubbish dump . This method eliminated the job which the laborer had been performing . The Employer at this time also revised his procedure of removing rubbish from Miller Inn and the administration building because of the unsightliness of the scoop method of collecting rubbish . The Employer decided to have the rubbish in this public area placed in plastic bags which would be collected and hauled on a flatbed truck to the rubbish dump . The Employer con- cluded that the same employee who drove the truck could also load the truck , and assigned this job to the laborers group . This new procedure thereby eliminated the need for the general trucking brewery worker . Grievances contesting the changes were filed by both Unions at this time. However, the Employer refused to change the new procedures , feeling that not only had it increased efficiency and removed an unsightly job from public view but it had made an equitable allocation of the new jobs between the laborers and the general trucking brewery workers. The Brewery Workers again questioned the Em- ployer 's assignment to the laborers group of rubbish collecting at Miller Inn and the administration building. The Employer refused to change his 239 original job allocation made in 1964 . Members of both Unions are equally skilled at performing the task involved . The original allocation of jobs by the Employer over 4 years ago was made, in part, for reasons of efficiency of operation , but at the same time also was attempting to equitably distribute the new jobs between the employees represented by the two Unions . To now adopt the Brewery Workers argument would most likely result in the require- ment that two men do the work now being effec- tively done by one; i.e., a laborer to load and a brewery worker to drive the truck . Consequently, we must conclude that efficiency and economy of operation , and the Employer 's practice-having a laborer haul the rubbish at Miller Inn and the ad- ministration building-are sufficient reasons for not disturbing the Employer 's work assignments in this regard. 7. The movement of gloves, boots, and janitorial supplies from the receiving area to finishing and fermenting cellars: The Employer refused to reas- sign the above jobs to brewery workers at the December 11, 1968, meeting , but rather decided to have the laborers group continue to do this job as they had done in the past . The record shows that the laborers group over a long period of time had transported the above items to the finishing and fer- menting cellars , and that the employees represented by the Brewery Workers had done similar transporting to the bottle house. No reason or evidence was offered as to how this division of work had arisen. Consequently , on the basis of historical assignment of such work , we agree with the Employer that laborers should continue to transport these items. 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 hereby makes the following determination of the dispute: 1. Employees of Miller Brewing Co. who are currently represented by Local Union No. 9, of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal , Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Wor- kers of America , AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of hauling tank tubes, beer cocks, and hose couplings for repair, and those who are cur- rently represented by Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of haul- ing to and from the carpenters shop " new" yeast boxes and "old" yeast boxes for repair; to haul 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL portable beer pumps for repair, to haul hop carts for repair; to haul 2 by 2 lumber to be used in hop bale storage ; to remove rubbish from Miller Inn and the adminstration building; and to haul gloves, boots, and janitorial supplies to the cellars." 2. Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO , and Local Union No. 9, of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour , Cereal, Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO , are not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act to force or require Miller Brewing Company to assign work which employees represented by the other unions are entitled to per- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD form. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , Local Union No 113, Laborers International Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 9, of the Inter- national Union of United Brewery , Flour , Cereal, Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work which employees represented by the other union have been found to be entitled to perform. " in making these determinations, we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by the respective Unions involved and not to the Unions or to their members