Metal Polishers Local 128

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers Interna- tional Union, Local 128, AFL-CIO and Thorsen Manufacturing Company and International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1566, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CD-313 October 6, 1971 DECISION, DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE, AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING IN PART By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed on October 12, 1970, by Thorsen Manufacturing Company, herein called the Employ- er, alleging that Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union , Local 128, AFL-CIO, herein called the Metal Polishers , had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pros- cribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work in dispute to employees represented by the Metal Polishers , rather than to employees represented by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1566, AFL-CIO, herein called the Machinists. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Dean Francis on various dates from December 15, 1970, until May 17, 1971. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed . The Employer, the Metal Polishers, and the Machinists have filed briefs which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Thorsen Manufacturing Company is engaged in the manufacture of mechanics' handtools at its Emery- ville, California, facility. During the past year, it shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of California and received and purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Machinists and the Metal Polishers are labor organi- zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE The notice of hearing in this case referred to the assignment of the operation of four machines at the Employer's Emeryville facilities: the Harper polishing machine; the Clair polishing machine; the vibrating machine; and the Acme belt sanding machine. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the dispute encompassed the operation of five additional ma- chines: the Chick production centerless machine; the Engelberg centerless polishing machine; the Porter- McLeod polishing machine; the Acme circumference polisher and grinder; and the Ryman edge grinder. The parties further stipulated that the Metal Polishers engaged in a strike on October 12, 1970, to compel the Employer to assign the operation of these machines to employees represented by the Metal Polishers. How- ever, the Metal Polishers took the position that the operation of the Ryman edge grinder was not a subject of the strike. A. Background The Employer has had collective-bargaining agree- ments with the Machinists since about 1941. Early in World War II, the Employer was unable to obtain enough journeymen machinists who could do its polishing work, which was then done by hand. Accordingly, at the suggestion of the Machinists, the Employer hired members of the Metal Polishers to do this work. Since then, the Employer has been a party to successive collective-bargaining agreements with the Metal Polishers, either as an individual employer or as a member of the California Metal Trades Association. The Employer now has approximately 20 to 30 employees represented by the Metal Polishers and approximately 150 employees represented by the Machinists. The work done by the Metal Polishers consisted of the hand polishing of small tools on polishing lathes containing moving belts or wheels. The quality of the work depended on the skill of the individual polisher in rotating the tool and holding it properly against the face of the wheel. The Employer still has about 10 to 12 polishing lathes, which are operated by metal polishers. However, the Employer has also acquired a 193 NLRB No. 60 METAL POLISHERS LOCAL 128 535 number of machines which perform, in an automatic or semiautomatic fashion, some of the functions formerly performed by hand on the polishing lathes. The Employer assigned the operation of these machines to employees represented by the Machin- ists, on the ground that the machine, rather than the skill of the operator, determined the quality of the finished product. In 1959, the Metal Polishers filed a grievance over the assignment of the operation of one such machine to a member of the Machinists, contending that it violated a clause in the Metal Polishers' contract providing that "the Employer will not reassign any work presently done by members of [the Metal Polishers] . . . to members of any other Union in his shop."' A compromise was proposed whereby the operation of the Engelberg centerless machine would be assigned to employees represented by the Metal Polishers, while employees in the Machinists' unit continued to operate the Cincinnati platen machine. This settlement broke down when the Cincinnati platen machine was removed from the Employer's plant, and the Machinists' unit employees have continued to operate the Engelberg centerless machine. In 1964, when the Employer assigned the operation of the Ryman edge grinder to employees represented by the Machinists, the Metal Polishers filed a grievance. In a subsequent arbitration proceeding in which the Machinists did not participate, the arbitra- tor awarded this work to members of the Metal Polishers' unit. The Employer, upon putting the Porter-McLeod polishing machine into operation shortly after this award, assigned its operation to the metal polishers because it seemed indistinguishable in principle from the Ryman edge grinder. The Machin- ists filed a grievance, and an arbitration proceeding was held. The Metal Polishers did not participate in this arbitration, and the arbitrator was not informed of the arbitration award concerning the Ryman edge grinder. He ruled that the machinists were entitled to operate the Porter-McLeod. When the Employer, in compliance with the arbitrator's award, reassigned this work to the machinists, the Metal Polishers filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board, alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. These charges were dismissed by the Regional Director for Region 20, whose action was sustained by the General Counsel on appeal. Thereafter, the Metal Polishers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Employer had breached its contract by i This provision has not appeared in the Employer's contracts with the Metal Polishers since 1959 2 The Employer was notified of the unions ' plan in a letter from the Metal Polishers' business agent to the Employer's president which has been made part of the record in this proceeding The letter stated that the parties would also submit the dispute over the operation of the "burnish finish refusing to assign the operation of the Porter-McLeod to members of the Metal Polishers' unit. The Employer and the Metal Polishers later stipulated that this suit would be dismissed upon the submission of the dispute to a new arbitrator for a final and binding decision. The arbitration proceeding, in which the Machinists did not participate, did not result in any final decision because the Metal Polishers' attorney died before the arbitration hearing was concluded. Meanwhile, disputes had arisen concerning the operation of the other machines involved in this proceeding. The Employer urged both unions to arrive at a negotiated settlement of the dispute. At one point, it proposed that future assignments of ma- chines alternate between the two unions, but this proposal was rejected. In 1968, the Employer negoti- ated separately with the Metal Polishers for a new contract, rather than negotiating through the Califor- nia Metal Trades Association as it had done in the past. It proposed a contract term providing that the operation of machines would be assigned to employ- ees represented by the Metal Polishers when the manual skill of the operator was the major factor in controlling the work operations but that such work would be assigned to employees represented by the Machinists when the machine was the major factor in controlling the work operations. This proposal was not accepted, and the Employer ultimately put into effect all of the terms of the master collective- bargaining agreement between the Metal Polishers and the California Metal Trades Association. In June 1970, the two unions notified the Employer that they had agreed to submit the dispute over the operation of the Harper and Clair polishing machines and the Acme circumference polisher and grinder to the AFL-CIO Jurisdictional Dispute Board for a binding decision.2 However, the AFL-CIO Jurisdic- tional Disputes Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Thereafter, the metal polishers walked off the job, and the unfair labor practice charges in the instant case were filed. In view of the pendency of this proceeding before the Board, the Employer and the Metal Polishers have agreed that the pending arbitration proceeding concerning the Porter-McLeod polishing machine will not be resumed. B. The Work in Dispute As indicated above, the dispute concerns the operation of the following machines: machine" to the AFL-CIO Jurisdictional Disputes Board It is not clear what machine this refers to The work now performed on the vibrating machine was formerly done on a machine called the burnishing barrel, which was operated by a member of the Machinists, but the Employer no longer has this machine in its plant 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Chick production centerless machine has been in operation at the Employer's plant for more than 15 years. The Employer now has five such machines, which are operated by employees represented by the Machinists. These machines grind and polish round bar parts with variable cylindrical diameters. They have two wheels: a rubber regulating wheel which determines the speed at which the part turns and the rate of speed at which it oscillates back and forth across the face of the wheel, and a larger pushing wheel which has belts and a grinding abrasive which removes metal while the work is rotating slowly. This work was formerly done on the polishing lathe, where the operator had a skate strapped to his waist, and the pressure of the operator's body behind the skate pushed the part up against the polishing wheel as it spun at a fairly high rate. On the Chick production centerless machine, the operator uses a foot pedal to apply and remove pressure from the regulating wheel. After the work on this machine is done, the wrench goes to the plater or the Harper polishing machine to have the circumference of the head polished. The operator of the Chick production centerless machine makes minor adjustments such as changing the belts (which last 4 to 6 hours) and adjusting the height of the work rest between the two wheels, the distance between the rubber regulating wheel and the polishing belt, the angle of the regulating wheel, and the tension on the belt. Major repairs are made by the machinist leadman about once a week; the metal polisher leadman would have to be trained to make them. The Employer has had Engelberg centerless polishing machines in its plant for more than 10 years and now has three or four such machines, which are operated by members of the Machinists' unit. This machine grinds and polishes the outside of cylindrical surfaces, such as artillery shells, which have a constant diameter; it also polishes most kinds of socket wrenches. The machine consists of two pairs of opposing wheels. In the first pair, one wheel does the grinding while the other turns the work. The parts are then automatically fed into position for the second pair of wheels, one of which is a polishing wheel, while the other turns the work and then ejects it. This work was once done by hand on a polishing lathe, with the operator manually holding the work on a spinning belt; the operator's skill determined the speed with which the part was rotated, the length of time the part was held against the wheel, and the pressure which was applied to the wheel. On the Engelberg centerless polishing machine, all of these functions are per- formed by the machine itself. The operator simply puts the belts on the machine; starts the machine; feeds the parts in by dropping them into a chute, after which the machine carries them through the entire grinding and polishing cycle and automatically ejects them ; and shuts off the machine at the end of a shift. He also makes minor adjustments , such as changing the belts, the tension on the belts , the method of retracting the belts, the height of the work rest as it passes between the two opposing wheels , the pressure exerted on the parts, and the speed and angles of the regulating wheels . To determine the need for these adjustments, the operator inspects the socket wrench- es after they have come through the machine on a spot basis every 15 to 30 minutes . Any major adjustments are made by the machinist leadman : it is unlikely that the metal polisher leadman would have the skill to make them. The Employer has had the Ryman edge grinder in its plant for approximately 8 years and now has four such machines . They were originally assigned to members of the Machinists' unit, but were reassigned to employees represented by the Metal Polishers in 1965 as a result of the arbitrator 's award discussed supra, and are still being operated by the metal polishers. This machine removes rough edges from flat wrenches or end wrenches which are drop-forged. This work was formerly done by hand on the polishing lathe, where the operator held one side of the wrench against the polishing wheel , oscillated it up and down, and moved it transversely across the wheel to remove the sharp burrs . On the Ryman edge grinder, the machine brings the parts into contact with the grinding belt, and the operator does not hold the parts in his hand . The operator simply places the wrench in a cradle, which is part of a device similar to a ferris wheel and which carries the work in a circular motion up one side of the machine and down the other side in contact with a grinding or polishing belt while the operator is placing other wrenches in other cradles on the wheel . When one side of the wrench is done, it drops into a chute, goes up a conveyor belt to a tote tray, and is carried to another Ryman edge grinder, where the process is repeated on the opposite side of the wrench . The wrench is then carried to another machine for vibrating or plating. The Ryman edge grinder is turned off by the operator only during rest periods or at the end of a shift . The operator makes minor adjustments , such as replacing the belt when the operation of the ferns wheel at a predeter- mined speed fails to remove the rough edges of the tool, dressing the edge of the belt with a carborundum stone, cutting or whipping the belt to the proper size, and adjusting the cradle to accomodate to the length of a part which is being run through the machine. The metal polisher leadman has been trained to make major adjustments. The Employer introduced the Porter-McLeod polish- ing machine into its operations in 1965 and now has four such machines which have been operated by members of the Machinists' unit since the arbitration METAL POLISHERS LOCAL 128 537 proceeding discussed supra. This machine grinds and polishes both faces of a flat tool, such as an open end wrench, simultaneously. It consists of two opposing wheels, both of which have grinding grit or emery on them. The operator loads the wrenches onto a rack, which is placed in a cradle in the machine; a button is pressed, and the machine lowers the rack between the two wheels, oscillates them for a predetermined length of time-approximately 45 seconds-and then lifts the rack out of contact with the wheel. The grinding and polishing are done on separate machines; when the grinding is finished, the operator removes the rack from the grinding machine and inserts it in the polishing machine. When the polishing is also finished, the operator removes the rack and unloads it. This function was previously performed on a polishing lathe, where the operator held the flat face of the wrench against the circumference of the wheel and oscillated it vertically and from side to side to achieve a parallel face. Only one side of one wrench could be done at a time on the polishing lathe, whereas the rack on the Porter-McLeod polishing machine holds 10 to 20 wrenches at once and grinds or polishes both faces of each wrench simultaneously. The operator makes minor adjustments, such as changing the wheel pressure, the rate and amount of oscillation, and the distance between the wheels. He also places new rollers in the machines once a day, putting glue and grit on the grinding rollers at that time and spraying a buffing compound on the polishing rollers several times an hour while the machine is in operation. The machinist working foreman makes major adjustments such as replacing the racks; the metal polisher leadman generally lacks the skill to do this. The vibrating machines were acquired by the Employer within the past 5 years, although similar work has been done on burnishing machines since before World War II. The Employer has six of these machines, which are operated as three units of two machines apiece. They are operated by members of the Machinists' unit. The machine vibrates a cutting compound against the surface of wrenches to remove sharp cutting edges and burrs and to give the surface of the wrench a smooth effect, to remove forging scale from wrenches which have been forged, and to blend in with the natural, unground part of the tool grinding marks on a wrench which has been through the Ryman edge grinder. This function was not done before the installation of the vibrating machine; the machine's other functions were performed primarily by a subcontractor or in grit blasting machines in the Employer's plant rather than by hand on the polishing lathes. The operator inserts wrenches in vibrating hoppers, loads the hoppers with a grinding medium (usually some kind of stone), puts water into the hopper, adds a little grinding pumice, then pushes a button to start the machine. The industrial engineer determines what kind of grinding compound is to be used and how much of that compound and pumice should be used. The machine runs from 2 to 12 hours, depending on the type of work being ground, and then automatically shuts itself off, whereupon the operator uses a chute to unload it. Thereafter, further polishing is done on the Porter-McLeod or Harper machine or by hand on the polishing lathe. Apart from changing the grinding compound, the operator does not make adjustments on the vibrating machine; if the machine fails to operate properly, a maintenance machinist repairs it. The Employer has one Harper polishing machine, introduced in 1967 and operated by a member of the Machinists' unit. This machine grinds and polishes the circumference of round heads on the ends of box wrenches and ratchet wrenches and, to some extent, shapes the heads of the wrenches. This work was formerly done on a polishing lathe, where the operator held the wrench by hand against the circumference of a moving wheel, moving the wrench up and down the face of the wheel and rotating it on its axis. On the Harper polishing machine, the operator does not hold the tool; after putting the belt on the machine, lubricating the belt, and adjusting the tensions of the work parts to the belts, he simply places the wrench on a spindle, which moves continuously through about 40 stages. When the cycle is completed, the operator removes the wrench from the spindle and inspects the wrench to see whether it has been properly cleaned; if it is not, he puts it through the cycle again. The machine is sometimes operated by two men; one puts wrenches on the spindle at one end of the machine, while the other removes the wrenches at the other end and puts fresh wrenches on. When the wrenches are not coming out properly cleaned, the operator changes the belts; this occurs approximately every 4 hours. The operator also makes other minor adjustments, such as changing the spindles when this is necessary because of a new job involving wrenches of a different size, adjusting the tracking and tension of the belts, and adjusting the rheostat which governs the speed with which the spindle carries the tools across the face of the wheel. Major adjustments are made by the machinist working foreman, who is a journeyman machinist; it takes about 6 to 12 months to train a man to be able to make major adjustments on this machine. The Employer first obtained the Clair polishing machine in 1968 and now has two such machines but has not placed them into operation on a production basis or assigned employees to operate them. The machine is designed to perform substantially the same functions on flat tools, such as pliers or end wrenches, 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as the Harper polishing machine performs on wrench- es with round heads; it transports the tool under a grinding belt, grinding wheel, polishing belt, or polishing wheel, oscillates the tool back and forth for a predetermined number of passes, and then returns to its original position. It is anticipated that one of the machines will be used for grinding, which requires a fairly coarse grit which would be placed on a stone wheel, an emery wheel, or a belt; and the other machine will be used for polishing, for which a finer emery is sprayed or painted onto a make-up wheel. The machine will grind or polish one face of the tool at a time. Similar work has been done on the polishing lathe, where the operator holds the tool in his hand and moves it up and down on the polishing face of the wheel. On the Clair polishing machine, the operator will simply load tools onto a template which will automatically move under the wheel or belt for grinding or polishing; when the predetermined number of passes has been made, the template will automatically return to its original position, where the operator will unload it. The operator will also make minor adjustments on this machine, such as changing the spring tension on the polishing roll against the tool, adjusting the fixture holding the tools if they are loose in it, regulating the air cylinders which govern the speed with which the fixture oscillates, and changing the size of the oscillation pattern of the fixture. Major adjustments will be made by the machinist leadman; it would take 2 to 6 months to train a man to make these adjustments. The Employer obtained the Acme belt sanding machine about 2 years ago. It formerly had two of these machines, but now has only one at the Emeryville plant, and that one is not being used in production. It was operated on an experimental basis by an employee represented by the Machinists. The machine has two adjustable rolls which move in opposite directions, thereby grinding or polishing both faces of a flat wrench simultaneously. The operator places the wrench on a fixture and then pushes the fixture under the grinding or polishing wheel for a number of passes, which is predetermined but may be varied by the operator if necessary. After holding the fixture under the wheel for about 5 seconds, the operator pulls it out by hand. Similar work has been done on a polishing lathe, where the operator determines the amount of pressure and moves the work up and down the wheel by hand. On the Acme belt sanding machine, however, the tool can only go on the machine and under the grinding or polishing belt, whereas on the polishing lathe it can be moved in many directions and is thus easily spoiled. The operator makes minor adjustments on this machine, such as changing the tension on the wheel, the belt, or the polishing roll, which determines how much pressure is exerted on the grinding or polishing process. Major adjustments have been made by the machinist leadman, but apparently could be made by the metal polisher leadman. The Employer obtained an Acme circumference polisher and grinder shortly before the hearing in this case and assigned it to a machinist. This machine, like the Harper polishing machine, grinds and polishes the circumference or periphery of a round ring on the end of a handle (e.g., a box wrench or ratchet wrench). The machine has two spindles and can thus do two jobs simultaneously. On a polishing lathe, the opera- tor would do this work by making contact between the machine and the piece in his hand and moving the piece on a radius with the pivot in the center of the ring, which would polish around the radius. On the Acme circumference polisher and grinder, the opera- tor simply puts the belts on the machine, loads the spindles, and starts the machine by pushing a button; it stops automatically at the end of a cycle. While the machine is in operation, the operator loads the next rack. The operator also adjusts gauges and dials which regulate the amount of oscillation and the amount of pressure exerted on a tool and adjusts the spindle to fit the size of the wrench which is being worked on. The machinist leadman or working foreman will make major adjustments; in fact, the leadman has been operating the machine on an experimental basis. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the operation of the disputed machines should be awarded to employees represented by the Machinists, since this award would be consistent with the Employer's established practice of assigning members of the Machinists' unit to operate automatic or semiautomatic machines the operation of which requires little or no skill. In addition, it contends that the factors of efficiency and economy favor awarding the disputed work to the machinists, since most of the machines in question perform both grinding and polishing operations, both of which should be done by one individual, and the metal polishers admittedly do not do precision grinding. Moreover, the Employer contends, the metal polisher leadman or working foreman would have to undergo extensive training to be able to perform major adjustments on these machines, whereas the machinist leadman and working foreman already have the necessary experience, skill, and training. Finally, the Employer argues, assignment of the disputed work to the metal polishers would result in a substantial dislocation of the existing work force, whereas awarding the work to the machinists would have little effect on the members of either union. The Machinists is in substantial agreement with the METAL POLISHERS LOCAL 128 Employer's contentions, but also contends that its contract with the Employer covers the work done in dispute, which, according to the Machinists' constitu- tion, is work traditionally within the Machinists' jurisdiction. The Metal Polishers contends that the disputed work should be awarded to employees represented by the Metal Polishers, since the machines in question perform work previously performed by the metal polishers. In addition, the Metal Polishers contends that this work requires the superior skills of its craft, that the assignment of the work to the machinists is contrary to industry practice, and that the arbitration award with respect to the Ryman edge grinder supports the Metal Polishers' position, whereas the adverse arbitration award concerning the Porter- McLeod machine should be given no weight, since the arbitrator in that proceeding was not informed of the prior decision concerning the Ryman edge grinder. Finally, the Metal Polishers denies that efficiency, economy, or the Employer's past practice favors the Machinists and points out that these arguments and the others raised by the Employer were considered and rejected by the arbitrator who awarded the operation of the Ryman edge grinder to the metal polishers. D. Applicability of the Statute The charge filed herein alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The parties stipulated that the filing of the charge resulted from a strike of approxi- mately 3 hours' duration by members of the Metal Polishers on October 12, 1970, and that the dispute involves the operation of the machines described above. However, counsel for the Metal Polishers stated that the Ryman edge grinder-the only one of the disputed machines currently operated by the Metal Polishers-was not a subject of the strike and that its operation has not been the subject of a continuing dispute. The record indicates that the Machinists never filed a grievance concerning the operation of this machine after the Employer, in compliance with the arbitration award described supra, reassigned it to the metal polishers. There is no evidence that the Machinists have engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to compel 3 The parties agree that the Board should determine the dispute with respect to the machines not currently in operation Our doing so is consistent with past Board decisions applying determinations of disputes to work to be done in the future where it was likely that such disputes would occur on any such work E g, Local 167, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Rebel Erectors, Inc), 171 NLRB No 81, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO (Brayman Construction Company), 151 NLRB 1233, 1238 4 The arbitration proceeding commenced by the Employer and the Metal Polishers with respect to the Porter-McLeod machine, but now abandoned , does not preclude a Board determination of the dispute with 539 a reassignment of this machine to the machinists, or that the Metal Polishers have engaged in proscribed conduct to prevent such a reassignment. We therefore find that no dispute cognizable under Section 10(k) of the Act exists with respect to the operation of the Ryman edge grinder. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing with respect to this machine. On the basis of the facts stipulated by the parties, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred with respect to the remaining machines and that the dispute concerning these machines, including the Clair polishing machine and the Acme belt sanding machine, which are not presently in operation,3 is properly before the Board for determination.4 E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. The Board has held that its determination in jurisdictional dispute cases is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience in balancing various factors.5 A number of the factors often relied on by the Board are of little assistance in determining the dispute herein. Thus, while it is undisputed that both unions have been certified by the Board for many years, the certifications have not been made part of the record. Although either union's contract could conceivably be read as covering the work in dispute, neither contract clearly does so. The evidence concerning area practice is of limited significance, since it pertains to companies producing very differ- ent products; the Employer has no direct competitors in its area. The Employer's plant appears to be more automated than those of its competitors; some of the disputed machines are not utilized by any other firms in this industry, and hence there is no industry practice as to these machines. Finally, since the Metal Polishers did not participate in the arbitration proceeding which culminated in an award of the operation of the Porter-McLeod machine to the Machinists, and since the arbitrator in that proceed- ing did not consider all relevant factors, we can give little weight to the awards There are, however, other factors present in this case respect to this machine , since there is no evidence that the Machinists ever agreed to be bound by the results of that arbitration 5 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411 6 Cf Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen Local No 432, IBTCWHA (Lucky Stores, Inc), 171 NLRB No. 141, fn 12, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 13 (Princess Cruises Co), 161 NLRB 451, 456 Here the arbitrator relied solely on the Employer's past practice and his construction of the Machinists' contract He did not consider the Metal Polishers' contract, was not informed of the prior arbitration award holding that the metal polishers were entitled to operate the Ryman edge grinder, and expressly rejected as relevant factors (Continued) 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which lead us to award the operation of the Chick production centerless machine, the Engelberg center- less polishing machine, the vibrating machine, and the Porter-McLeod polishing machine to employees represented by the Machinists. Each of these ma- chines has been operated by members of the Machin- ists for more than 5 years, and two of them (the Chick and Engelberg machines) have been so operated for more than 10 years. It is clear that the Employer is fully satisfied with the manner in which the machines have been operated and wishes to continue its assignment of this work to the machinists who have long performed it. It is also apparent that very little skill is needed to operate these machines; on all of them except the Chick machine, the operator has to do little more than load and unload the machine, start it (apparently by pressing a button), and stop it at the end of a shift. On the Chick machine, the operator simply uses a foot pedal to apply and remove pressure from the regulating wheel. In addition, we note, with respect to the vibrating machine, that the operator does not have to make any significant adjustments. Furthermore, the work done by this machine is not work formerly done by the metal polishers; it has been done by the machinists for approximately 30 years. It appears that this machine performs only a grinding function; after the tools have been through it, they must be polished on another machine or by hand.? In view of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the longstanding assignment of the operation of these four machines to employees represented by the Machinists should not be disturbed. In our view, however, a different result is required with respect to the Harper polishing machine, the Clair polishing machine, the Acme belt sanding machine, and the Acme circumference polisher and grinder. We note, in the first place, that, with the exception of the Harper polishing machine, these machines are not now being operated by members of the Machinists. The Clair polishing machine and the Acme belt sanding machine are not in operation, while the Acme circumference polisher and grinder, at the time of the hearing, was being operated by a leadman who was learning about the machine, rather than by a production employee, and hence the operation of these three machines could be assigned to metal polishers without causing any loss of work for machinists. On the other hand, assignment of these machines to the machinists would plainly result in a significant loss of work for the metal polishers, since the work done on these machines has heretofore economy of operation and the fact that the Porter-McLeod machine performed work formerly done by the metal polishers 7 On the other machines, the performance of the grinding and polishing functions appears to be one continuous operation Accordingly, considerations of efficiency and economy require that the operation of each machine be assigned to one or the other of the competing unions, been performed by metal polishers on polishing lathes. In addition, it appears that the operation of all four of these machines requires the exercise of judgment by the operator in determining what steps are necessary to insure that the work on the tools is properly done. Thus, on the Harper polishing ma- chine the operator must inspect the wrenches when they come out of the machine to see whether they have been polished properly. On the Clair polishing machine, which has the same purpose as the Harper, the operator must apply the proper polishing com- pound to the make-up wheels used in the machine. The operator also performs the same functions on the Acme circumference polisher and grinder as on the Harper. On the Acme belt sanding machine the operator holds the fixture containing the tools manually while the machine is polishing the tools, and he must make a judgment as to how many times the fixture should pass under the grinding or polishing wheel. In addition, on all four of these machines the operator must make adjustments on such factors as the tension of the belts or polishing rolls and the number or speed of oscillations of the device holding the tools. Such adjustments would appear to require knowledge of what pressures, speeds, or number of oscillations are required to produce a proper finish. It is thus apparent that the superior skills possessed by the metal polishers can be effectively utilized in operating these four machines. Further, we note that one of the Employer's competitors in Los Angeles8 has an Acme belt sanding machine which is operated by the metal polishers and that when that Company had a Harper polishing machines and an Acme circumference polisher and grinder in operation, they were also operated by the metal polishers. Thus, on this record, it appears that assignment of these machines to the metal polishers is consistent with such industry practice as exists. Accordingly, we shall award the operation of the Chick production centerless machine, the Engelberg centerless polishing machine, the vibrating machine, and the Porter-McLeod polishing machine to employ- ees represented by the Machinists and the operation of the Harper polishing machine, the Clair polishing machine, the Acme belt sanding machine, and the Acme circumference polisher and grinder to employ- ees represented by the Metal Polishers. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this rather than allowing the machinists to perform the grinding function and the metal polishers to perform the polishing function on the same machine. 8 As indicated supra, there are no direct competitors of the Employer in the same metropolitan area. 9 At the time of the hearing, this company still had a Harper polishing machine, but it was not in operation METAL POLISHERS LOCAL 128 541 determination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the respective labor organi- zations but not to the labor organizations or their members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , and on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following determination of dispute: 1. Employees represented by Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 128, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of operating the Harper polishing machine, the Clair polishing machine, the Acme belt sanding machine, and the Acme circumference polisher and grinder. 2. Employees represented by International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1566, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of operating the Chick production centerless machine , the Engelberg centerless polishing machine, the vibrating machine, and the Porter-McLeod polishing machine. 3. Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 128, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Thorsen Manufacturing Company to assign the work awarded in paragraph 2 to employees represented by the Metal Polishers. 4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 128, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Thorsen Manufacturing Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work awarded in paragraph 2 in a manner inconsistent with the Board's determination herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed insofar as it concerns the operation of the Ryman edge grinder.