IAM, District Lodge No. 27

IAM, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 27 333 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 27 and Anaconda Aluminum Company, a Division of Ana- conda Company and Local 130, Aluminum Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Dispute. Case 9-CD-282 November 14, 1973 DECISI,N AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE located at 4451 Robards Lane. During the past year the Employer had gross sales in excess of $500,000, of which at least $50,000 represented sales and shipment to customers located outside the State of Kentucky. The parties have stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Anaconda Aluminum Compa- ny, a Division of Anaconda Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 27, herein called Respondent, had violated Section 8(b)(4XD) of the _ Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by Respondent rather than to employees represented by Local 130, Alumi- num Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, here- in called the Aluminum Workers. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Douglas J. Muir on July 9, 1973, at Louisville, Kentucky. 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 upon the issues. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer and the Aluminum Workers. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a Montana corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anaconda Company, and has its principal offices in New York City. It is engaged in the manufacture and .sale of aluminum and aluminum products at three plants in Louisville, Kentucky, including the only one here involved i A 1966 amendment to this, agreement allows more than one machine adjustor to work the same shift on weekends, providing that the work performed is work which could be done on his regular shift. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Respondent and the Aluminum Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The present dispute involves machine adjustors and machinists working in the Packaged Foil Department of the Container and Packaged Foil Division where aluminum foil of different degrees of thickness is cut in various lengths and widths, rolled, boxed, and cartoned for shipment to customers. In 1961, the division was moved to the Robards Lane plant in Louisville, Kentucky. At that time the Foil Department used only machines known as single-roll Schultz Spoolers. The Employer was then in collec- tive-bargaining relationships with both the Respon- dent and the Aluminum Workers. The collective- bargaining agreement with Respondent covered the classification "machinist," and that with the Alumi- num Workers covered the classification "machine adjustor." Both classifications claimed the work of adjusting and changing over the Schultz machines. In order to resolve the dispute the three parties in 1961 entered into the following agreement: 1. Machine adjustors may perform adjustments necessary to production operations and may make adjustments on all machinery, necessary to the changing of length or width of rolls. 2. , One machine adjustor will be on duty at all times- during production operations. Machinists may perform adjustments on machinery, but, not in such a way as to replace the machine adjustor. 3. The machinist will perform all maintenance on equipment; such as, the removal, repair and replacement of all worn and broken parts, etc.' Beginning in 1962, the Employer began adding more modern, sophisticated equipment to the Pack- aged Foil Department.,2 This rapid-stroke equipment was installed by machinists who thereafter also 2 The department now has, in addition to 11 single-roll Schultz Spoolers, 6 Green Bay multiroll slitter and rewinders, 3 Jones cartoning machines, 5 in-line packer machines, and 3 tube winders. 207 NLRB No. 39 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD received orientation and initial training from factory representatives and adjusted it during production. Machine adjustors continued to do the adjusting on the less complex Schultz Spoolers as well as such work assignments on the new equipment as were determined by the Employer. Until recently, the Aluminum Workers had made no claim to the adjustment work on the new machines. However, beginning in 1969, the machine adjustors began filing grievances protesting the training of machinists on new equipment. In an arbitration award dated November 21, 1972, the arbitrator ruled that ma- chine adjustors should be trained on all equipment in the" Packaged Foil Department. Since the award, the Aluminum Workers have filed grievances claiming all the adjusting work. In April 1973, the Employer met with both labor organizations in an attempt to resolve the issue created by the 1972 arbitrator's award. No settlement was reached. The Aluminum Workers claimed the work under the arbitrator's decision; the Respondent said the work belonged to its members and that it would take whatever action was necessary, including economic, to keep the work. On June 11, 1973, the Respondent reiterated this position in a written notification to the Employer. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the making of all necessary machine adjustments for size to size changeovers during nonproduction and production periods on Green Bay winding machines, Jones cartoning machines, tube winding machines, and in-line packer machines used in the Employer's Packaged Foil Department in its Container and Packaged Foil Division at 4451 Robards Lane, Louisville, Kentuc- ky - C. The Contentions of the Parties The Aluminum Workers contends that pursuant to the 1961 'agreement with the Employer and the Respondent it has the right to maintain one machine adjustor on each shift at the Robards Lane plant to perform changeover and adjustment work on all machines in the Employer's Packaged Foil Depart- ment. The Respondent contends that under the express terms of its current collective-bargaining contract with the Employer changeover and adjustment work on all machines in the aforementioned department except the Schultz Spoolers, including particularly all 3 See Local 1228, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A FL-CIO (Providence Journal Company), 205 NLRB No 167. 4 N L.R.B v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia maintenance of equipment, such as the removal, repair, and replacement of all worn or broken parts, should be performed solely by machinists. The Employer contends that changeover and adjustment work on all machines in its Packaged Foil Department should be performed according to established and well understood job duties, estab- lished by the Employer over a 12-year period, which would result in machine adjustors performing the changeover and adjustment work on Schultz Spool- ers, and the machinists doing the changeover and adjustment work on all other machines in the Packaged Foil Department. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The parties have submitted no evidence that they have adjusted or agreed upon any method for the adjustment of the present work dispute. The arbitra- tion award favorable to the Aluminum Workers is not dispositive of the dispute since Respondent was not a party to the arbitration proceeding. As to a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D), Respondent threatened orally and in writing to take whatever action was necessary, economic or otherwise, to protect its jurisdiction. We find that, on the basis of such threat, there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the case is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act .3 E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors.4 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience reached by balancing those factors involved in a particular case.5 1. The parties' agreements The Employer has current collective-bargaining agreements with both the Respondent and the Aluminum Workers covering, respectively, the ma- chinists and the machine adjustors. The Respon- Broadcasting System], 364 U S. 573 (1961) s International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. IAM, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 27 335 dent's agreement with the Employer provides in pertinent part in section 1 as follows: (a) The jurisdiction of this bargaining unit shall cover all making, assembling, dismantling, erect- ing, repairing, and moving of machinery in and around the plant; the removing, replacing and adjusting of parts of machinery... . The Aluminum Workers relies on its 1961 agree- ment with Respondent and the Employer, particular- ly upon the language thereof which provides that "machine adjustors ... may make adjustments on all machinery (in the Packaged Foil Department) necessary to the changing of length or width of rolls"; and the further provision that, "machinists may perform adjustments on machinery, but not in such a way as to replace the machine adjustor." 2. Company practice The Employer's present plant began operating in or about 1950. Until 1961, only single-roll Schultz Spoolers were used in its Packaged Foil Department. Size to size changeovers and adjustments on these machines were made by machine adjustors represent- ed by Aluminum Workers. In 1962 more modern automatic rapid stroke machinery, such as the Green Bay multiroll rewinder machine, was acquired and placed in operation. Since 1962, the significant duties of removing, repairing, and replacing parts on the more modem automatic machines, and making meaningful adjustments which affect the efficiency of their rapid stroke capacity (and prevent waste) have all been uniformly assigned to machinists by the Employer. It is thus clear that despite the parties' 1961 agreement providing that machine adjustors "may make adjustments on all machinery necessary to the changing of length or width of rolls" the Employer in practice has confined machine adjustors to making such adjustments on the Schultz Spoolers. desirable in adjusting the more complicated machin- ery. 4. Economy and efficiency The Employer has assigned only machinists to install the modern machinery added in recent years, and to receive brief but comprehensive orientation and training on them from factory sales and service representatives. The training of machine adjustors on the more modern production machinery has not been previously undertaken by the Employer and would now involve considerable expense and offer no promise of more efficient operation. Conclusion Having considered all pertinent factors, including particularly the background of the present dispute between the machinists and the machine adjustors as it has developed since about 1950; the contracts, agreements (and amendments) entered into by the Employer, Respondent, and the Aluminum Workers; the complexity of the more intricate rapid stroke automatic machinery acquired by the Employer in recent years; the Employer's regular practice in making installation, training, and work assignments with respect to its various machines; the relative skills and aptitudes required to properly adjust such equipment; and the effect on the economy and efficiency of the Employer's operations that would result in now changing the training and work assignments of machine adjustors and machinists; we conclude that machinists are entitled to perform the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees represented by Respondent, but not to that Union or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to the proceeding. 3. Skills and aptitudes The single-roll Schultz Spoolers are relatively uncomplicated machines which require little skill in order to make the minor settings and adjustments needed for their production runs. The more modern rapid stroke equipment introduced into the plant since 1962, such as the Green Bay multiroll ma- chines, is more complex and requires the greater skills ordinarily acquired only through established apprenticeship programs or through long experience as a journeyman. In addition, a knowledge of precision tools and their proper use is highly 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 Dis- pute: Employees employed by the Employer who are represented by International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 27, are entitled to perform the work of making all necessary machine adjustments for size to 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD size changeovers during nonproduction and pro- Foil Department of the Employer's Container and duction periods on Green Bay winding machines, Packaged Foil Division located at its 4451 Robards Jones cartoning machines, tube winding machines Lane, Louisville, Kentucky, plant .6 and in-line packer machines used in the Packaged 6 The Board in making this Determination of Dispute does not intend to respect to machinery in the packaged foil department which do not deal deprive the machine adjustors from performing in the future any of the with the work in dispute. incidental duties customarily assigned to them by their Employer with