Local 675, Machinists

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 675 of District Lodge 76, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and F. N. Burt Company, Inc. and Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, Local 261, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CD-446 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. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED February 13, 1974 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 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 F. N. Burt Company. Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 675 of District Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, herein called the I.A.M., had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The charge alleges, in substance, that the I.A.M., by threats and economic action, violated the Act in that one of the purposes of such conduct was to force the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to members of Graphic Arts Internation- al Union, Local 261, AFL-CIO, herein called the G.A.I.U. or Graphic Arts. Pursuant to a notice, a hearing was held in Buffalo, New York, before Hearing Officer Raymond J. Ratajczak on October 29 and 30, 1973. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer and the G.A.I.U. filed briefs. These briefs have been duly considered by the Board. 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 case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OE THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a Delaware Corporation with its principal office and place of business in Cheektowa- ga, New York, is engaged in the manufacture of paper boxes and packaging products. The parties stipulated, and we find, that during the past year the Employer has received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of New York. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce 209 NLRB No. 13 The parties stipulated, and we find, that the G.A.I.U. and the I.A.M. are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer operates a plant which manufac- tures folding cartons and rigid boxes. The Employ- er's plant houses two separate manufacturing divi- sions, the Folding Carton Division and the Set Up Box division. Approximately 285 production employ- ees of the Folding Carton Division are represented by the G.A.I.U., and approximately 325 employees of the Set Up Box division are represented by the I.A.M., which also represents shipping and receiving employees servicing both divisions. Pursuant to the new-equipment provision of its contract with the G.A.I.U., the Employer assigned to members of the G.A.I.U. the operation of its new roll board sheeter machine. In May 1973, the Employer notified the I.A.M. that the roll board sheeter, which had not previously been utilized by the Employer, would be brought into the plant in August 1973 for the purpose of sheeting board to be processed into cartons by its Folding Carton Division and that it would be operated by employees who were represented by the G.A.I.U. At a subsequent meeting, in June 1973, the I.A.M.'s president told the Employer's officials, "You'll meet with me one way or another, either here or in the street." The roll board sheeter began operation on Septem- ber 24, 1973, manned by employees represented by the G.A.I.U. On September 28, 1973, members of the I.A.M. established a picket line at the plant entranc- es, carrying signs which read "unfair to labor." B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the operation of the Employer's new roll board skeeter machine. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the assignment was made pursuant to its collective-bargaining agreement with the G.A.I.U. covering employees of the Folding Carton Division and that the roll board sheeter here in issue was designed and purchased for the specific purpose of producing sheeted hoard with the quality, LOCAL 675, MACHINISTS grade, and specifications required for the production of folding cartons by the Folding Carton Division. Further, the Employer and the G.A.I.U. contend that the assignment of the disputed work was based on considerations of efficiency and economy of opera- tion, in that, inter alia, the roll board sheeter was installed in an area of the plant immediately adjacent to the Folding Carton Division's lithographic press- room and staging area where that division's sheeted board is stored prior to moving on to the presses. The I.A.M. contends that the disputed work belongs to employees which it represents because there is a sheet cutter classification agreement in its contract with the Employer. D. Applicability of the Statute The charge herein alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The facts show that the Employer assigned the work to its employees who are members of or are represented by the G.A.I.U. The I.A.M. demanded that the Employer take the work away from members of the G.A.W. and assign it to its members. In support of its demand, the I.A.M. picketed and caused a work stoppage. Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. The three parties have not agreed upon a method of settling this jurisdictional dispute. As the G.A.I.U. is not a party to an agreement to be bound by an arbitration proceeding in this matter, it is unneces- sary to consider whether the I.A.M. and the Employer are bound by such an agreement.' It is thus clear from the foregoing, and we find, that at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-upon or approved method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all parties to the dispute were bound. 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 involved. The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us. 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements There is no Board certification determining the bargaining representative for the employees assigned to perform the work in dispute. The I.A.M. was certified by the Board in 1965 as the collective- i San Diego Stereoiipers ' Union No 82, affiliated with the International SiereotVper% and Elertronpers Uniun of North 4merica (Union-Tribune Publishing Company), 20] N LRB 893 Offset Workers, Printing Pressmen & 33 bargaining representative for the following unit of the Employer's employees: All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Eric County, New York plant, truck drivers, stock-handlers, inspectors, factory record clerks (timekeepers) and stationary engi- neers, excluding machine shop employees and all office clerical employees, employees of the Fold- ing Carton Division comprised of the lithograph and creaser departments, professional and engi- neering employees. The record shows that the Employer is a party to collective-bargaining agreements with each of the two labor organizations claiming the disputed work herein. The Employer's collective-bargaining agreement with the G.A.I.U. recognizes the G.A.I.U. as the exclusive bargaining representative for all lithograph- ic production employees, encompassing the Folding Carton Division, specifically excluded from the I.A.M.'s certification and collective-bargaining agreement. Further, article 12 of the G.A.I.U.'s agreement specifically spells out jurisdiction over new machines or processes involving the method and manner of the G.A.I.U.'s work production. Unlike the G.A.I.U. contract, however, the I.A.M.'s contract with the Employer contains no such protective contract provision regarding intro- duction of new machines or processes. Moreover, the G.A.I.U. and the Employer execut- ed a memorandum of agreement providing for the assignment and payment of the G.A.I.U. members relative to work on the roll board sheeter. 2. Employer's assignment and past practice Based on the Employer's purchase of the equip- ment involved specifically for use by its Folding Carton Division for the purpose of sheeting board to be processed into cartons by the division and the fact that such equipment had not been previously utilized by the Employer, the Employer assigned the work here involved to its employees represented by the G.A.I.U. pursuant to article 12 of its agreement with the G.A.i.U., which covers the employees of the Folding Carton Division. 3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of operations The Employer strongly favors an award to its employees represented by the G.A.W. because of Asvitams' Union No 39 (7he Craftanan Press, Inc', 193 NLRB 577, Local 1184, Southern California District Council of Laborers (H M Robertson Pipeline ('onsiruciors). 192 NLRB 1078 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their skills in performing the disputed work, the proximity of the disputed work to their other duties, and the resulting efficiency and economy of opera- tions. The roll board sheeter is located in an area of the plant immediately adjacent to the lithographic pressroom and also adjacent to the staging area where the sheeted board utilized by the Folding Carton Division is temporarily stored before moving on to the presses. This new equipment, designed to overcome problems of shortage, storage, and use of sheeted board, is used exclusively by the Folding Carton Division to satisfy one-third of its sheeted board requirement. The Employer's assignment of the lithographic floor help to the operation of the roll board sheeter utilizes the familiarity and skills which those helpers have already acquired in handling and processing sheeted board for the Folding Carton Division. In contrast, the I.A.M. has never performed cutting in the manner and form of the roll board sheeter. Paper-sheet cutting, performed by its members classified as "sheet cutters," is dissimilar and unrelat- ed to the nature of roll board cutting. Nor can the I.A.M.'s "stockhandlers" provide the skills necessary for jogging or curling stock essential to folding box operations. Further, due to the similarity of size and complexi- ty of the roll board sheeter to the presses and cutting and creasing equipment already utilized by the Folding Carton Division, and because all of the equipment utilized by that division processes sheeted board from the beginning to the end of the manufacturing process, the skills acquired on the roll board sheeter will prepare an employee for advance- ment to the other pieces of equipment utilized by the Folding Carton Division. Thus, if required to assign this work to Respondent I.A.M., the Employer would bear the burden and expense of training I.A.M. employees to properly perform the work now performed efficiently by employees represented by the G.A.I.U. Additionally, the interrelated duties of the employees of the Folding Carton Division would be unnecessarily interrupted, and time would be needlessly wasted and expense created. We are, therefore, persuaded that the factors of skill and training, location of the work involved, and efficiency and economy of operations dictate the award of the work to the Employer's employees who are represented by the G.A.I.U Conclusion Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after full consideration of all of the relevant factors, in particular the contractual relationship between the Employer and the G.A.I.U., the nature and location of the work here in dispute, the skills involved, and the efficiency and economy of operations, we conclude that the employees of the Employer who are represented by the G.A.I.U. are entitled to the work in question, and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. In making this determination, we award the work to the employees of the Employer who are represented by the G.A.I.U., but not to that labor organization or its members. 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: 1. Employees employed by F. N. Burt Company, Inc., who are represented by Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, Local 261 , AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work in dispute which involves the operation of the Employer's new roll board sheeter machine. 2. Local 675 of District Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require F . N. Burt Company, Inc., Cheektowaga, New York, to assign the above work to machinists represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local 675 of District Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring F. N. Burt Company, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.