Teamsters Local 952 (Rockwell International)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 952 (ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL) General Truck Drivers, Office, _Food and Warehouse Local 952, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and -Helpers of America and Rockwell International Corpo- ration and - Local 887, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 21-CD-528 31 May 1985 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE- • By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS The' charge in this 'Section 10(k) proceeding was filed 12 December 1984 by the Employer, alleging that the Respondent, the Teamsters, violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the'National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with ' an • object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by the UAW. The, hearing was held 14 February 1985 before Hearing Officer Rowena Hodges. The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following find- ings. 1. JURISDICTION The; parties stipulated, and we find, that 'the Em- ployer is--a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture of electronic components at its Auto- netics Division • located in Anaheim, California. During the past 12 months,- it sold and shipped goods valued in, excess of $50,000 directly to cus- tomers located outside the State of California. On the above facts, we find that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties also stipulate, and we find, that the Teamsters and the UAW are labor organizations within'the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IL'THE DISPUTE A. Background anddFacts of Dispute The' Employer employs Teamsters' truckdrivers and chauffeurs, who are "dispatched from a man- power pool for any driving the Employer may re- quire. The Employer also employs UAW senior automotive mechanics, who- are primarily responsi- ble for maintenance and service of company vehi- 611 Iles inside the plant. I Conflicting. testimony was presented at the hearing as to the Employer's as- signment of the disputed work prior to 1981. In 'May 1981, the Teamsters filed a grievance under its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer for wages lost when the Company's in- plant carwash broke down for 2 weeks and the Employer assigned UAW-employees to drive cars off the premises to be washed. The Employer set- tled the grievance in favor of the Teamsters by paying Teamsters employees displacement pay. On -12 August . 1981 the Employer assigned a Teamsters employee to drive a company passenger vehicle to a smog inspection station to be tested and then drive'the vehicle back to the facility. On 17 August 1981 the UAW filed- a grievance (the "Benline 'grievance") under its • collective-bargain- ing agreement with the -Employer alleging that the Employer was assigning "work to Teamsters em- ployees which should have been assigned to UAW employees. At the arbitration hearing on the Ben- line grievance, the Employer -and the UAW stipu- lated that the- work in dispute therein involved driving company vehicles to and from smog in- spection stations and to auto dealers for repairs. In January 1984 the arbitrator issued his decision sus- taining the grievance and ordering the Company to assign the driving of motorized vehicles to and from dealers, repair stations, and smog stations to UAW employees. He relied, inter alia, on the job description of "garage service attendant" in the UAW agreement which includes the pickup and delivery of motorized vehicles before and after servicing and/or repair. He also noted the griev- ance was not seeking the work of regularly sched- uled over-the-road driving, but was seeking only the work of delivering for servicing and repair. Further, although noting that he did not have juris- diction over the Teamsters, he found that the Teamsters contract did not "indicate" the disputed work and therefore found "no conflict" between the work sought by the UAW and the Teamsters contract. The arbitrator's decision was confirmed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in July 1984. Following the UAW arbitration award, the Em- ployer assigned and has continued to assign UAW employees to drive all passenger vehicles off the premises for servicing and/or repair. Teamsters drivers were, however, dispatched to drive UAW mechanics back to the garage if the vehicle had to be left at the service station. On 15 February 1984 i It is undisputed that the senior automotive mechanics also perform the work of "garage service attendant," which is a lower paid classifica- tion under the UAW collective-bargaining agreement, when required. 275 NLRB No. 86 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Teamsters filed a grievance seeking lost wages for the driving it claimed would have been' done by Teamsters employees had such work not been as- signed to UAW mechanics. On 15 March 1984 the Employer denied the grievance," citing the UAW arbitration award. That grievance-did not go to ar- bitration. By letter dated - 5 December 1984, the Teamsters threatened the Employer 'with econmic action, including picketing, to enforce its asserted jurisdiction over the disputed work'. On 12 Decem- ber 1984 the Employer filed the instant charge. B. The Work, in Dispute. ' As stipulated at the hearing, the work in.dispute involves the driving of company vehicles from the Employer's Anaheim, California facility to outside points to have them serviced when the expertise 'or input of a UAW mechanic's skills is, not required at the site of the service' Servicing may include repair work, normal maintenance, warranty work, smog inspection, and the-washing of company vehicles. It was disclosed at the hearing that passenger vehi- cles are the only vehicles involved in.the instant dispute. 2 C. Contentions of the Parties . . The Employer contends that the disputed work should be assigned to the, Teamsters in accordance with the Teamsters collective-bargaining- agree ment; the Employer's practice, assignment,-, and preference; and economy and - efficiency of oper- ations. It also contends -that the arbitrator' should not have relied on the job description of a UAW "garage service attendant" in reaching, his -decision because, according to the UAW collective-bargain- ing agreement, job descriptions are not. jurisdiction- al and should not restrict the Employer's right-, to assign work to employees. - The Teamsters position is consisteiii with that of the Employer. It also argues the UAW arbitration award should have no effect on the Board's, resolu- tion of the instant dispute because--it was "not, a party to the arbitration and is. therefore not. bound by the award. The UAW argues it, should be awarded' the- dis- puted work based on the job description of a UAW "garage service -attendant" in its collect'ive-barg'ain- ing: agreement' with the Employer;' the 'January 1984 arbitration award,. and. employee. testimony that it has been the Employer's longstanding prac- tice to assign such work to UAW employees. - s It is ' undisputed that trucks have always been taken t6'outside'dealers by Teamsters dnvers • - - D. Applicability of the Statute As indicated above, the Teamsters letter of 5 De- cember ' 1984 informed ' the Employer that Local 952.would take "economic action, including picket- ing, to enforce its jurisdiction' over the work in question." It is well settled that such a -threat, which puts improper pressure on an employer to force it to assign the disputed -work to the employ- ees represented by that union, constitutes reasona- ble--cause to believe .that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred.3 All parties stipulated that there is no agreed- upon method for voluntary adjustment of this dis- pute to which' all parties are bound . The parties also agreed that they have been unable to agree, on a method voluntarily to adjust the dispute at issue here. V .. - We thefefore find reasonable 'cause to 'believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)' has, occurred and 'that there exists no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all parties are bound-. Accordingly, we find- that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion under Section.10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k)-requires the_ Board to' make an af- firmative`award`of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212. (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held-that its determination in a-jurisdictional- dispute is an act of judgment based on common. sense and experience,. reached by bal- ancing the factors -involved in a particular" case. Machinists Lodge 1743 -(J.: A._ Jones ,Construction), 135'NLRB.1402,(1962)..- _- ' , • - . The- following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute. . 1: Certification and collective-bargaining agreements - ' ' i^, , No evidence was presented-at the hearing. re- . -garding Board, certification,for•either, Union.,- -The ; .Employer's 'current.: collective-bargaining agreement4, with ,the Teamsters.:includes_ in the unit dispatchers, and_ all -!employees - regularly -assigned to operate-, licensed-. automotive equipment outside - the,plants.-.- : _,,;.,',.Addendum,A- of that-.agreement, ,.,which. details., the job-duties -of. the .yarious,classifi- 3,See, e Glasswork_e_rs Local =767 (Sacramento Metal),-,228 NLRB 200, 201 (1977) ' - - 4 The current Teamsters agreement, which became effective 15 De- cember 1984, was not submitted into evidence because it-had not yet been printed at the time of the 10(k) hearing However, the Employer presented; undisputed testimony that the-1981-1984 agreement, which-,was submitted into evidence, was identical in all material respects TEAMSTERS LOCAL-952, (ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL) cations, provides that employees classified as truck- drivers will be dispatched "to drive, deliver or pick up automobiles-' and station wagons as required ." Addendum' C provides, inter aha, that "[t]ransportation' of . . . equipment over the high- way within the -Los, Angeles, general area . . . must be assigned only to employees of Traffic-Material unless, in a particular case, it is determined by Traffic-Material that an exception to, this policy must be made." The recognition clause of the current UAW col- lective-bargaining agreements excludes "employees regularly assigned to operate licensed automotive equipment outside the plant and their dispatchers." The job description of "garage service attendant" includes "pick up and deliver automotive equip- ment before and after servicing and/or repair"; however, article XVI,5,g of the UAW agreement provides that job descriptions "shall not be con- strued so as to restrict in any mariner the rights of the Company to assign work to employees . . . ." The Employer also presented 'testimony, that the pickup and delivery duties of it garage service at- tendant have been -confined in practice to picking up and delivering vehicles within the Employer's complex' before and after servicing or repair work performed by UAW personnel in the company garage. Thus, although neither of the collective- bargaining agreements unambiguously covers the work in dispute, we find that this factor tends, to favor an award to employees represented by the Teamsters. 2. Employer. practice,- assignment, and preference' Although testimony during the hearing conflict- ed on the work assignment history, witnesses for the' Employer and the Teamsters testified that, prior to the arbitration decision in January 1984 which awarded the disputed work to UAW em- ployees, the disputed work was performed by the Teamsters. The Employer's garage supervisor, Marada, testified that, - prior to the - arbitration award; his' practice- was to contact the Teamsters dispatcher to request.- a Teamsters employee to transport " vehicles -for-- outside ' service - unless Marada determined' that the expertise of a UAW mechanic was required at the dealer or Service sta- tion or the Teamsters 'dispatcher informed him , that no Teamsters driver was, available. Marada''estimat- ed that vehicles were taken to outside dealers for servicing, and/or repair 'approximately 35 times a 5 The current UAW agreement, which is effective 4 July 1984 to 30 June 1987, was not submitted into evidence However, testimony was presented that the current agreement is identical in all-matenal respects to the 1981-1984 agreement, which was submitted into evidence 613 year, and that the skills of a UAW mechanic were required about 5 to 10 percent` of the time. Mara- da's testimony was confirmed by a Teamsters driver. - The UAW presented testimony that the Employ- er's, past practice was always to assign the disputed work to UAW employees. UAW' senior garage me- chanic Scott testified that he was responsible for preparing all work orders of vehicles leaving the, Employer's premises for service and/or repair 'from 1978 until 1981, and that the work was consistently assigned to UAW employees. However, because no work orders were entered into the record to sub- stantiate Scott's testimony and because his testimo- ny contradicts the joint stipulation of facts. from the arbitration. hearing, 6 -we find -that the preponder- ance of the evidence, indicates that the Employer's past practice prior to the UAW arbitration award was to assign the' disputed work'to Teamsters em- ployees unless the garage supervisor - determined -that'-the skills of a UAW mechanic were required or no' Teamsters .employee was available. Accord- ingly, - we - find this factor favors an award to em- ployees represented by the Teamsters. At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer ex- pressed a preference-to have the work assigned to employees represented by the Teamsters in 'accord- ance with the Employer's practice before the UAW arbitration. award and in-the interest of econ- omy and. efficiency of operations. While we do' not afford controlling weight to this factor, we find that it favors an award of the-work to employees represented by the Teamsters.' 3: 'Economy, and efficiency of operations -Marada testified that, because the budget for the garage was based 'on repair and service work done 'by UAW personnel inside the plant , man-hours were lost when UAW mechanics were assigned to transport vehicles for repair and service work out- side the plant. Using ' 1984 as an average year, he estimated that' he'sent 35 vehicles annually to out- side dealers,, 'each trip' taking approximately 1 to 1- 1'y2 hours. `- He- further testified - that, although as- - signing UAW mechanics did not result in any un- 8 At the'arl itratidii hearing the UAW stipulated that "[e]mployees'rep- resented by-the Teamsters and employees represented by the UAW have been assigned to drive company vehicles to and from `Hamilton' Smog Inspection Stations and to auto dealers for repairs" The UAW' also stipu- lated that Maiada; the Employer's.garage supervisor,' "stated that for at -least the last 7 years it, has been his general practice to assign [the driving of company vehicles to and'from Hamilton smog inspection stations and to auto dealers for repairs] to,,employees represented by the Teamsters when they are available except when he determined that there was some- thing unusual that he or one of the employees represented by the UAW would -.need to ,explain or demonstrate to service personnel at an auto dealer " 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessary overtime, it did disturb the preventive maintenance schedules. In contrast, before the UAW arbitration award Teamsters drivers were able to deliver their vehi- cles directly to an outside dealer for servicing and/or repair. The current practice thus adds' an additional step, whereby the Teamsters driver must deliver The vehicle to the garage so that it can be driven to the dealer by a UAW mechanic. In addi- tion,_under the practice prior to-the UAW arbitra- tion award, a Teamsters chauffeur who was not as- signed on a particular day to transport a company executive or who had available time during the day could be utilized to deliver vehicles for -servicing and/or repair. - - , - Accordingly, we find that- the factor of economy and efficiency of operations favors an award to em- ployees represented by the Teamsters. 4. Relative skills and training, , . Because the disputed work involves the driving of passenger vehicles, and both UAW mechanics and Teamsters drivers are required by the. Employ- er to possess a valid California driver 's license and an additional company license, there is no material difference in the relative skills or training of Team- sters or UAW employees. Accordingly, we find that this factor is not helpful to our determination. 5. Arbitration awards As indicated above, in January 1984 the UAW obtained an arbitration award in favor . of 'its claim to the work in dispute. Testimony was presented that a Teamsters official was present at the start of the hearing, but he left when it became apparent that he would not be allowed to speak. .Because the Teamsters was not party to, or bound,by, that pro- ceeding, we find that the UAW arbitration award is entitled to little or no weight in determining the instant dispute. Conclusions After .considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by the Team- sters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the factors of collective-bargaining agreements; employer assign- ment, practice, and preference; and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determina- tion, we are awarding the work in dispute to em- ployees represented by the Teamsters, not to that Union or, its members. The determination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceed- ing. • DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE . The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute.- Employees of Rockwell International Corpora- tion who are currently represented by General Truck Drivers, Office, Food and Warehouse Local 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica are entitled to perform the work of driving company passenger vehicles from the Employer's Anaheim, California facility to outside points 'for servicing when a UAW mechanic's skills are not required. Servicing may. include 'repair work, normal maintenance, warranty' work, smog inspec- tion, and the washing of,company vehicles. '