Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, District No. 10

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, District No. 10, AFL-CIO' and Miller Brewing Company and Local 494 , Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO-CLC.' Case 30-CD-64 February 2, 1976 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,' as amended, follow- ing charges filed on June 2, 1975, by Miller Brewing Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, District No. 10, AFL-CIO, herein called Machinists, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining the Employer with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by Ma- chinists rather than to employees represented by Lo- cal 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called Electricians. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Larry Brennan, on August 11 and 12, 1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following findings: $500,000 from said operation; and that annually in the course and conduct of its business the Employer both ships and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 to and from points located directly outside the State of Wisconsin. Accordingly, 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 jurisdi- cation herein. If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Ma- chinists and Electricians are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the electrical repair work on battery-powered forklift trucks. B. Background The Employer uses these trucks in the course of its operations. At the facility involved herein, the Em- ployer operates a vehicle repair shop manned by me- chanics represented by the Machinists and an elec- trical shop staffed by employees represented by the Electricians. Prior to 1973, the Employer had from three to five battery-powered trucks. In 1973, the Employer purchased and put into operation approxi- mately 34 additional battery-powered trucks. On Oc- tober 9, 1973, the Electricians filed a grievance over the Employer's award of the electrical repairs on these trucks to the machinists and, in late 1974, sub- mitted the dispute to arbitration pursuant to its col- lective-bargaining contract with the Employer. On May 15, 1975, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to assign the work to the electricians immediately. Upon notification of this award, the Machinists, by letter dated May 27, 1975, threatened a work stop- page should the Employer award the work to the electricians. 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Wis- consin corporation, operates breweries and related facilities throughout the United States, including its herein involved Milwaukee, Wisconsin, facilities; that during the past year, a representative period, the Employer realized gross revenues in excess of 1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing. C. Contentions of the Parties The Electricians claims the disputed work by vir- tue of the qualifications and experience of its mem- bers, past practice and area practice, the arbitrator's award of the work to its members under its contract with the Employer, and overall efficiency. Both the Employer and the Machinists contend that the disputed work should be awarded to the ma- 222 NLRB No. 107 INT'L ASS'N OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT NO. 10 689 chinists because they have, without interruption, per- formed the electrical maintenance and repair work on these vehicles since they were first used by the Employer, they possess the skills required to perform this work, the contract between the Machinists and the Employer awards this work to the machinists, and economy and plant efficiency dictate that the work be performed by the machinists. D. Applicability of the Statute The Board is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio- lated and that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary settlement of the dispute. As to the latter, the record does not show the existence of any private means of adjustment of the dispute 2 and, as set forth above, the Machinists threatened a work stoppage if the work were assigned to the electricians. Accord- ingly, we conclude that the dispute is properly before us for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute In accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act the Board -has given consideration to various relevant factors in reaching its conclusion as to the award of the disputed work. 1. Prior National Labor Relations Board certifications On November 2, 1950, the National Labor Rela- tions Board in Case 13-RC-1101 certified the Ma- chinists as the exclusive representative of all employ- ees in the appropriate unit therein. The unit included, inter alia, those employees who performed "mechani- cal repairing, and the making, assembling, erecting, dismantling and repairing of all machinery of all de- scriptions and parts thereof, including gasoline, die- sel, and electric trucks and automobiles ...." There is no outstanding certification of the Electri- cians. Inasmuch as the certification appears to cover machinists engaged in the repairing of electric trucks, albeit no specific reference is made to electrical re- pair work on such vehicle, it seems that this factor supports the award of the work in dispute to the ma- chinists. 2 The record indicates that a chapter 20 proceeding has been instituted before the dispute council of the AFL-CIO However, no evidence shows that the Employer, a necessary party to any voluntary settlement, had agreed to any such procedure To the contrary, none of the parties contends that there exists an "agreed upon method for voluntary settlement of the dispute " 2. Collective-bargaining agreements The collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Machinists defines the jurisdiction of that Union in terms identical to the unit descrip- tion in the Machinists certification. Thus, on its face, the Machinists contract would appear to support the award of the work in dispute to the machinists. The Electricians contends, however, that its collec- tive-bargaining agreement assigns to electricians "all work coming under the jurisdiction of the Union, as recognized by the American Federation of Labor covering this locality...." In addition, the Electri- cians asserts that in June 1958 the - Employer, by posted notice, awarded the work of repairing "elec- trical parts such as switches, relays, coils, contact fin- gers, control and power wiring" on battery-operated lift trucks to the electricians, thereby giving them jur- isdication over the work in dispute. Thus, notwithstanding which group may have ac- tually performed the work in dispute, the jurisdic- tional provisions of these contracts appear to provide both the Electricians and Machinists with a colorable claim to the work in dispute.' 3. Area and industry practice The evidence on area and industry practice is in- conclusive. The record shows that at the Schlitz and Pabst breweries, the other two employers in the Mil- waukee Brewery Proprietors Association, the electri- cians perform electrical repairs on the lift trucks at the Schlitz brewery, while the machinists are assigned the electrical repair work on the electric lift trucks at the Pabst brewery. 4. Skills and safety The record shows that both electricians and ma- chinists have the necessary skills and training to do the work in dispute. 5. Employer assignment and preference The disputed work is now being performed by em- ployees represented by the Machinists 4 pursuant to 3 Inasmuch as the Machinists was not a party to the 1974 -75 arbitration proceeding in which the work in dispute was awarded to the electricians, the award cannot bind it We have considered the award only for the limited purpose of interpreting the Electricians contract with the Company Interna- tional Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23 (J R. Condon & Sons, Inc.). 148 NLRB 356, 359, In 5 (1964) 4 Notwithstanding the aforementioned 1958 award of the work in dispute to the electricians, the testimony shows that for the past several years me- chanics have been performing almost all of the repairs on the battery-pow- ered lift trucks, with only occasional repairs being done by electricians It Continued 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Employers assignment. The Employer prefers that the work be performed by machinists. The Employer's current assignment and preference thus favor the award of the work to these employees. 6. Economy and efficiency The electricians are currently stationed in an elec- trical repair shop located in a building across the street from the garage repair shop. There are no elec- tricians located in the garage. The Employer's wit- nesses testified that the assignment of the disputed work to the electricians would require the estab- lishment of a separate vehicle repair facility for the electricians to make electrical repairs with additional or rearrangement of supervision to provide on-the- job supervision within the electricians' unit. The Employer's garage has the responsibility to maintain all of the Employer's rolling stock. In line with this responsibility, the mechanics have been doing all of the "electrical" repairs on trucks, cars, and other vehicles, including the power-operated lift trucks. There is no question but that, if any part in the electrical system of a gasoline- or propane-pow- ered truck required adjustment or replacement, the mechanics would perform this work without claim or dispute by the electricians. However, if now the same adjustments or replacements are involved on the bat- tery-powered trucks, the work is claimed by the Elec- tricians. Award of this work to the electricians would entail inefficient divisions of work and likely delays concerning battery-powered lift trucks brought into the garage for repairs. Mechanics would perform var- ious inspections and tests on these trucks, including the use of electrical testing equipment, and make all repairs but "electrical" ones, which would have to be referred to electricians. For example, if it were de- termined that the points needed adjusting, an electri- cian would have to be summoned to do it. Thus, a mechanic would have, to notify his foreman to re- quest an electrician and the foreman would have to contact the electrical foreman regarding the request. Next, the latter would have to find an available elec- trician. Only then would an electrician go to the ga- rage and make the adjustment-the same adjustment mechanics would make on any of the other types of vehicle in the garage. Similarly, the removal of the electric drive motor in a battery-powered truck would involve several hours of work by the mechanic who would then have to call for an electrician to disconnect and tag the wires before the motor could was not until the Employer substantially increased the number of battery- powered trucks that the Electricians made its claim for all of the work in dispute be lifted out, a job that would take no more than 15 minutes and one the mechanics are qualified to per- form. In addition to the above , awarding this work to the electricians would necessitate the Employer's chang- ing its garage parts room operation which is currently within the mechanics' work jurisdiction. The Employer's witnesses testified that the existing parts room stocks over $250,000 worth of "electrical" parts for all of its various types of vehicles, and that, if the work in question was awarded to the electricians, a separate parts section or room would have to be maintained for the electrical parts necessary to repair and maintain the battery-powered trucks. In these circumstances, we conclude that an award of the work in dispute to the electricians would result in expenditures for additional facilities, increased costs in repairs , and probably increased downtime for disabled vehicles. Accordingly, we find that econ- omy and efficiency of operation favor the award of the work in dispute to employees represented by the Machinists. Conclusions Upon the entire' record, and after full consider- ation of all relevant factors here involved, we find that-employees represented by the Machinists are en- titled to perform the work in dispute. This award is supported by the Machinists 1950 certification, the Employer's assignment of the work in dispute to the machinists, the Employer's preference, and the econ- omy and efficiency of operations which would result from the machinists rather than the electricians mak- ing electrical repairs on the battery-powered lift trucks. In making this award, we are assigning the work to employees represented by the Machinists rather than to that organization itself or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding. 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 pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Miller Brewing Company who are represented by International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, District No. 10, AFL- CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work of making electrical repairs to battery-powered lift trucks at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, fa- cility.