Teamsters, Local 284

390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters Local Union 284, affiliated with the Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and The Dispatch Printing Company and Columbus Mailers Union, Local 103, affiliated with Inter- national Typographical Union. Case 9-CD-386 June 4, 1981 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by the Dispatch Printing Compa- ny, herein called the Employer, alleging that Teamsters Local Union 284, affiliated with the In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent or the Teamsters, had violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forc- ing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by the Teamsters rather than to employees represented by Columbus Mailers Union, Local 103, affiliated with Interna- tional Typographical Union, herein called the Mail- ers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Damon W. Harrison, Jr., on No- vember 26, 1980. All parties appeared and were af- forded full oportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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 af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the pro- duction and sale of newspapers at its Columbus, Ohio, facility. During the past year, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and, during that same period, purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from sources located outside the State of Ohio. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Team- sters Local Union 284, affiliated with the Interna- 256 NLRB No. 63 tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, War- ehousemen and Helpers of America, and Columbus Mailers Union, Local 103, affiliated with Interna- tional Typographical Union, are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer publishes and distributes the Co- lumbus Dispatch, the Wednesday evening and Sunday morning editions of which include a sup- plement consisting of comics, advertising, and spe- cial sections. The dispute arose out of a proposed change in the procedure for handling the preprint- ed, preinserted supplements as they are transported from the mailing room to the loading dock and placed into delivery trucks. Under the present method of handling the sup- plements, employees represented by the Mailers stack the supplements on skids in the mailing room. When the Employer's trucks are ready to be loaded, the skids are moved to a chute that con- nects to a conveyor belt on the loading dock and each bundle is placed in the chute. The bundle drops onto the belt conveyor and proceeds to the appropriate truck loader where a Mailers-represent- ed employee guides the bundle onto a roller con- veyor extending into the back of the truck. Once the bundle reaches the end of the roller conveyor, the Teamsters-represented driver lifts the bundle off the conveyor and stacks it in the truck. The Employer's proposed method of loading supplements involves moving entire skids of sup- plements from the mailing room to the circulation trucks by means of forklifts and an elevator. The skids of supplements will be moved by forklift-type trucks, loaded intact on the freight elevator, and transported to the loading dock level. The skids will then be removed from the elevator by a walk- ing-type lift and placed on the edge of the loading dock. The foregoing functions are to be performed by employees represented by the Mailers. The Teamsters does not object to the Employer's pro- posed assignment of those tasks. The final step in the new process, i.e., the load- ing of the skids into the delivery trucks, is the work in dispute. A riding-type forklift located on the garage floor will lift the skids off the deck and place them into the delivery trucks which are parked some distance from the loading dock. During this procedure the prongs of the forklift will extend into the truck, but the forklift operator will not enter the vehicle. After the skid is placed TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 284 391 in the truck, the Teamsters-represented employee will be in charge of the bundles as before. Both the Teamsters and the Mailers have been certified as collective-bargaining representatives for units of the Employer's employees and both have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employ- er. The Teamsters contract states that it shall apply to employees "engaged in operating Company- owned trucks . . . and the handling and hauling of newspapers and associated newspaper-like materials .... " The Mailers contract provides for coverage of "all mailing room work . . . and includes . . . routing of papers for loading platforms, all work pertaining to the loading platform including . . . conveying of supplements, comic sections, maga- zines and supplies by push trucks, skid or lift trucks, coming into the plant or within the plant The Employer initially announced that it intend- ed to assign the work in dispute to employees rep- resented by the Mailers. However, after discussion with both Unions on October 3, 1980, the Employ- er notified the Unions that it would conduct two trials of its new procedure. The first trial was to occur on October 10 with employees represented by the Mailers operating the forklift on the garage level and the second trial was to take place on Oc- tober 17 with Teamsters-represented employees performing the disputed work. On October 6, 1980, the Teamsters threatened to strike the Employer if the operation of the forklift on the garage level were assigned to employees represented by the Mailers rather than to employees represented by the Teamsters. As a result, the Employer post- poned implementation of its proposed supplement loading procedure and, on October 24, 1980, filed a charge alleging that the Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to strike. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of the operation of forklifts or similar devices for the movement of preprinted, preinserted bundles from the dock area to delivery trucks at the Employer's facility in Co- lumbus, Ohio. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer, while specifically expressing that it has no preference as to which union is assigned the disputed work, believes the forklift work be- longs to employees represented by the Mailers. The Employer bases its belief on its interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreements and the fact that it would be more efficient for Mailers-repre- sented employees to perform the work. The Mailers contends that its contract with the Employer, and the factors of skill and training, economy and efficiency of operation, and job impact favor an award of the work to employees it represents. It also argues that Mailers-represented employees have historically been responsible for transferring papers into the threshold of the truck, that employees represented by the Teamsters do not perform any work outside the trucks, and that the Employer indicated a preference for the Mail- ers by originally assigning the work to employees represented by that Union. The Teamsters contends that the work should be awarded to employees it represents by virtue of the collective-bargaining agreements, the employees' skills in loading and positioning bundles in trucks, and their experience in operating forklifts. The Teamsters further asserts that the Mailers jurisdic- tion ends at the back of the delivery trucks and that, as a consequence, Mailers-represented em- ployees do not have the right to enter the trucks and position loads therein. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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 dis- pute. The Teamsters has continuously asserted a claim to the work in dispute; in fact, the Employer and the Teamsters stipulated that on or about October 6, 1980, the Teamsters threatened to strike the Em- ployer if the disputed work were assigned to em- ployees represented by the Mailers rather than to employees represented by the Teamsters. We there- fore find reasonable cause to believe that the Teamsters engaged in conduct which violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The parties also stipulat- ed, and we find, that the parties to this dispute are not bound by any voluntary method for adjusting the dispute. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is appropriate for resolution by the Board under Section 10(k) of the Act. 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 various factors. However, very few of the factors usually relied on by the Board are relevant or are of any assistance here. Both Unions have been certified as collective- bargaining representatives for units of the Employ- TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 284 39' 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD er's employees and have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer. We find that the contracts do not favor an award to either group of employees because neither agreement specifically refers to the work in dispute. Moreover, the record establishes that the assignment of the work to either Union will not result in any loss of jobs to employees and that employees represented by both Unions possess the necessary skills to perform the disputed work. The Employer never effectively as- signed the work to either Union and expresses no preference concerning the assignment of the disput- ed work. With regard to economy and efficiency of oper- ation, the Employer's director of production, James Tracy, testified at the hearing that it would be more efficient to assign the disputed work to em- ployees represented by the Mailers because of their familiarity in handling bundles on skids and their capability of performing tasks that could be as- signed during periods of forced idle time. Tracy further testified that the Teamsters-represented em- ployees could quickly become accustomed to the skid loading operation but that, because the bulk of the Teamsters work is located at a warehouse ap- proximately I mile from the plant, there would be no work for those employees to perform during the idle time that would regularly arise out of the natu- ral flow of the work. We find that Tracy's unrefut- ed testimony concerning the employees' availability to perform other work during periods of forced idle time favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Mailers. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by the Mailers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. In making this de- termination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by the Mailers, but not to that Union or its members. Our determi- nation is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of the Dispatch Printing Company, who are represented by Columbus Mailers Union, Local 103, affiliated with International Typo- graphical Union, are entitled to perform the oper- ation of forklifts or similar devices for the move- ment of preprinted, preinserted bundles from the dock area to delivery trucks at the Employer's fa- cility in Columbus, Ohio. 2. Teamsters Local Union 284, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Dis- patch Printing Company to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor orga- nization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Teamsters Local Union 284, affiliated with the International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employ- er, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.