Graphic Communications Local 670 (Reynolds Metals)

GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 670 (REYNOLDS METALS) Bellwood Printing Pressmen, Assistants' and Speci- alities Union No. 670, Subordinate to the Graphic Communications International Union (Reynolds Metals Company) and Ronald E. Evans and International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 10. Case 5-CD-288 July 19, 1988 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed on January 19, 1988, by Ronald E. Evans, an individual, alleging that the Respondent, Bellwood Printing Pressmen, Assistants' and Specialities Union No. 670, Subordinate to the Graphic Com- munications International Union (Local 670), vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Re- lations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing Reynolds Metal Company, the Employer, to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, Lodge No. 10 (IAM). The hearing was held on February 25, 1988, before Hearing Of- ficer Steven John Anderson. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. 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 Reynolds Metals Company, a Delaware corpora- tion, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of aluminum products from its facility known as the Bellwood printing plant which is located in Richmond, Virginia. The Employer annually sells and ships goods directly from its Bellwood printing plant to points located outside the State of Virgin- ia, which goods are valued in excess of $50,000. The parties stipulate, and we find, that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Local 670 and IAM are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The Employer manufactures aluminum foil- backed labels, paper, and cartons at its Bellwood 289 NLRB No. 129 947 printing plant. The Employer currently has collec- tive-bargaining agreements with both Local 670 and IAM. Local 670 was certified by the Board on May 21, 1958, as exclusive representative of the Employer's hourly production and maintenance employees, including its electricians. The electri- cians perform both new construction and repair electrical work at the plant. On August 22, 1958, pursuant to an agreement reached between the two Unions, Local 670 delegated the representation of certain employees engaged in the "manufacturing, erecting, repairs and dismantling of all machines and the work done by employees assigned to the machine shop" to IAM. The machinists perform all the mechanical repair work at the plant. They also build and install machines and piping, do rigging work for large equipment, and perform all the welding at the plant. IAM has never been certified by the Board, but since 1958 the Employer has vol- untarily recognized IAM as the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees who perform the work of manufacturing, erecting, repairing, and disman- tling of all machines. The electrical panels in the Bellwood plant are typically affixed to brackets that can be mounted on the floor, on walls, or on existing platforms. These electrical panels can be mounted on brackets by themselves or on brackets holding other panels such as hydraulic, pneumatic, or mechanical panels. The brackets can be made out of steel or aluminum channel or angle iron, perforated channel iron known as "kindorf," and wood. The brackets made out of channel or angle iron are fabricated by the machinists at the plant. The brackets made out of kindorf are prefabricated. The installation of brack- ets for electrical panels can range from a simple procedure of mounting kindorf brackets by clamps or bolts to the more complex procedure of welding or milling of the channel or angle iron brackets and then mounting them. In July 1987 a grievance was filed by Roger Young, an electrician represented by Local 670, claiming that certain work which belonged to Local 670 was being performed on overtime by the machinists represented by IAM. According to Young, he had been installing an electrical panel which required that brackets be attached to a plat- form on which to hold the panel, but after he left at the end of his shift, a machinist hung the brack- ets and was paid overtime as a result. This griev- ance was processed through the last step of the grievance procedure. The Employer denied the grievance because the machinist had been assigned to do the installation before Young started the project. The grievance did not go to arbitration. 948 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By letter dated January 6, 1988, Thomas Smith, Local 670's business representative, informed R. D. Kroniser, the Employer's plant personnel manager, that Local 670 intended to establish an "informa- tion picket . . . for the purpose of resolving the work jurisdiction dispute" between Local 670 and IAM concerning the assignment of the electrical bracket work. B. Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the installation of brackets for electrical panels at the Employer's Bellwood printing plant.' C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the status quo should be maintained and that, in conformance with the historical plant practice, employees repre- sented by either or both Unions should be assigned the work in dispute, as determined by the Employ- er based on considerations of skill, efficiency, and availability of manpower. Local 670 contends that the disputed work should be awarded to the electricians whom it rep- resents. In this regard, Local 670 claims that the in- stallation of electrical panel brackets has always been the electricians' work; is more closely related to recognized electrical work; and does not consti- tute the machinists' work as described by the cur- rent IAM collective-bargaining agreement. Local 670 further contends that the disputed work should not be awarded to both Unions because such action would create grievances relating to the allocation of overtime between the two bargaining units. IAM contends that the machinists whom it rep- resents should be awarded the installation of all electrical brackets with the exception of the instal- lation of the kindorf brackets, because, inter alia, only the machinists perform welding work. IAM states that it does not oppose sharing the work of installation of the kindorf brackets with the electri- cians represented by Local 670 because, according to IAM, this is consistent with the Employer's past and current practices. The Charging Party contends that the disputed work should be awarded to the electricians repre- sented by Local 670 because this work involves in- stallation of electrical equipment which has been performed by electricians in the past. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the ' No dispute exists as to the Employer's assignment to the machinists represented by IAM of bracket fabrication work that requires welding. Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute. As noted above, Local 670 threatened the Em- ployer on January 6, 1988, that it would picket unless the jurisdictional work dispute was resolved. We find that an object of Local 670's threat was to force or require the Employer to assign the disput- ed work to employees represented by it. We, there- fore, find reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and there is no contention that there is an agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act.2 Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. 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 (Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute. 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements It is undisputed that the 1958 Board certification does not define in specific terms Local 670's work jurisdiction. Similarly, Local 670's current collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Employer does not contain a provision delineating the scope of the Union's work jurisdiction except to indicate that the Union is the representative of all production and maintenance employees excluding the machin- ists and certain other employees. Although the 1958 memorandum agreement between the Unions is more illuminating, it likewise does not specifical- ly mention electrical bracket installation work in its description of each Union's work jurisdiction. Ac- cording to this memorandum, Local 670 has juris- diction over "the testing, making ready, and oper- ating and adjusting machines," while IAM has ju- risdiction over "the manufacturing, erecting, re- pairs and dismantling of all machines and the work ° It was stipulated that there does not exist an informal dispute resolu- tion mechanism agreed to by all the parties. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 670 (REYNOLDS METALS) to be done by employees assigned to the machine shop."3 Article III, section 2, of IAM's current collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer defines a covered "employee" in a fashion compa- rable to the description of IAM's work provided by the 1958 memorandum agreement. Our review of the Board's certification of Local 670, the 1958 memorandum agreement executed by the two Unions, and Local 670's and IAM's collec- tive-bargaining agreements reveals that these docu- ments are sufficiently broad to encompass the type of work in dispute and that there is no specific ref- erence to the installation of electrical panel brack- ets. In addition, none of these documents specifical- ly indicates that the installation of electrical panel brackets is the work of employees represented by one of the Unions to the exclusion of the other. Accordingly, we find that the factors of certifica- tion and collective-bargaining agreements are in- conclusive. 2. Company preference and past practice The Charging Party, employed as an electrician at the Bellwood plant for 14 years, testified that he has seen electricians and machinists, separately and together, perform the disputed bracket installation work for electrical panels. He testified that he was not aware of any pattern relating to how this work is assigned to the employees, but that it is assigned to whomever "the supervisors want." In contradic- tion to the above testimony, the Charging Party also testified that Local 670 has never given up its exclusive right to the disputed work and recalled an incident of 8 years ago when George South- worth, a supervisor at the Bellwood plant, asked him, as the shop steward, for permission to have a machinists instead of an electrician perform the dis- puted work. Local 670 presented two witnesses, Keith Grady and Roger Young. Keith Grady, a trustee and shop steward of IAM and a machinist at the Bellwood plant for 30 years, testified that bracket installation work has always been the sole responsibility of the machinists, but that he did not object to assigning the installation of brackets using kindorf to the electricians. He testified, primarily based on his own experience, that 95 percent of the bracket in- stallation work is performed by the machinists and the remaining 5 percent by the electricians. When recalled as a witness for IAM, Grady indicated that he has performed bracket installations using kindorf, but individually prefers to use a stronger metal. Roger Young, an electrician employed 2 S In view of the conflicting and inconclusive evidence, we do not con- strue "machines" to include or exclude brackets for electrical panels 949 years at the Bellwood plant, testified that he has in- stalled kindorf and angle iron brackets for electri- cal panels several times. Wiley Via, the plant manager, George South- worth, currently a maintenance foreman, and Jessie Shelton, a mechanical maintenance supervisor, tes- tified on behalf of the Employer. Their testimony reveals that since at least 1963 the Employer has had a practice of having employees represented by either Union perform the disputed bracket installa- tion work. The Employer's witnesses testified that the Employer's selection for the assignment de- pends on the circumstances involved, including the skills needed, the availability of employees, and overall efficiency concerns. No contrary evidence was presented. Southworth testified that both the electricians and the machinists have been assigned the disputed work and any welding that may be in- volved is done separately by the machinists. In this respect, Southworth's testimony is consistent with testimony from the Charging Party and the Unions' witnesses. The IAM's claim that the electricians worked only with kindorf brackets was refuted by the Em- ployer's witnesses. The Employer's witnesses testi- fied that the electricians had also used channel and angle iron. This was corroborated by Roger Young, an electrician. Young testified that he had recently installed a bracket built from angle iron. Young's testimony on this point was not specifical- ly refuted. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the installations of electrical panel brackets using kindorf have been performed by both the electri- cians and the machinists. The more complex instal- lations, which usually require welding, are often performed by the machinists alone because they have the welding skills and the electricians do not, but that the electricians sometimes perform a com- plex bracket installation with the welding portion of the assignment being done by the machinists. The preponderance of the evidence further shows that, during the last 25 years, the Employer's prac- tice is to assign the installation of brackets for elec- trical panels at its Bellwood printing plant to the electricians represented by Local 670 or to the ma- chinists represented by the IAM depending on the circumstances involved, including the skills needed, the availability of employees, and overall efficiency concerns. Accordingly, the factor of the Employ- er's past practice supports an award to employees represented by both Unions and does not favor an exclusive award of the work in dispute to employ- ees represented by either Union. The record reflects that the Employer's prefer- ence is to continue assigning the disputed bracket 950 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD installation work to employees represented by either Local 670 or IAM depending on the nature of the work and the circumstances involved. Con- sequently, we find that the factor of employer pref- erence also favors an award of the electrical panel bracket installation work to employees represented by both Unions rather than exclusively to one par- ticular group of employees. 3. Relative skills Plant Manager Via testified that to install brack- ets for electrical panels the following skills are needed generally: measuring and cutting materials; drilling holes; and sometimes tapping holes, weld- ing, and milling of slots. He indicated that the elec- tricians do not possess the welding and milling skills. The record reflects that the machinists have all these skills. There is no dispute that both the electricians and the machinists have the requisite skills to perform installations involving kindorf brackets. There is also no dispute that the machinists have the requi- site skills to perform installations of brackets made out of heavier materials. The dispute centers on whether the electricians have the requisite skills to perform the installations involving the heavier ma- terials. The Charging Party and witnesses for the Em- ployer and Local 670 testified that the electricians possess the requisite skills to perform the installa- tions of brackets made out of heavier materials. Their evidence was supported by further testimony indicating specific examples of bracket installations involving heavier materials which were performed by electricians. No contrary evidence from IAM was presented.4 Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find the factor of relative skills favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by both Unions and does not favor an exclusive award of the work in dispute to employees represented by either Union. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation The Employer's witnesses presented evidence that economy and efficiency are best promoted by the assignment of the disputed bracket installations to either the electricians or the machinists, depend- ing on the circumstances involved. In this regard, Plant Manager Via testified that the Employer as- signs the installations of electrical panels based on 4 IAM presented testimony to the effect that because brackets using heavier materials usually are fabricated and welded by the machinists (work not in dispute), the electricians cannot perform the entire bracket work. Based on the record as a whole, we do not fmd persuasive this attempt to have the assignment of the disputed work dictated by what skills are needed to perform work not in dispute the complexity of the job, employee availability, and sometimes the skills required to do the job. His testimony was corroborated by Foreman South- worth. According to Via's testimony, it is more ef- ficient for the Employer to make the selection be- tween electricians and machinists on a case-by-case basis to achieve a more efficient utilization of man- power and less employee idle time because the number of electricians and machinists on the job fluctuates. Via explained that the Employer does not assign only the kindorf bracket installations to the electricians or all the bracket installations to the machinists because the electricians can perform installations besides those involving kindorf and the machinists are not always available when all the brackets need to be installed. Via also testified that no accidents or safety problems have arisen in con- nection with the performance of the disputed work. The Unions and the Charging Party did not present any evidence to refute the Employer's evi- dence relating to this factor. Therefore, the consid- erations of economy and efficiency favor allowing the Employer to use its discretion in assigning the disputed bracket installation work to either the electricians or the machinists represented by the Unions, rather than making an exclusive assign- ment. Conclusions After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that none of the factors favors an award of the disputed work involving the installation of brackets for electrical panels to employees repre- sented by one Union to the exclusion of other em- ployees to whom the Employer has assigned such work in the past. In these circumstances, we con- clude that employees represented by either Union are entitled to perform the work in dispute and that the Employer has the right to assign the work, in accordance with its past practice, to employees represented by either Union, depending on the cir- cumstances involved.5 We reach this conclusion re- lying on the factors of company preference and past practice, relative skills, and economy and effi- ciency of operation. In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represent- ed by either Union, not to the Unions or their members. The determination is limited to the con- troversy that gave rise to this proceeding. 5 Machinists District 118 (Meredith Printing), 243 NLRB 892 (1979); Harley Davidson Motor Co., 234 NLRB 1121 (1978), Machinists Lodge 70 (General Electric Co.), 233 NLRB 356 (1977) GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 670 (REYNOLDS METALS) 951 DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. Employees of Reynolds Metals Company rep- resented by Bellwood Printing Pressmen, Assist- ants' and Specialities Union No. 670, Subordinate to the Graphic Communications International Union and employees of the Employer represented by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 10, are entitled to perform the work of installing the brackets for electrical panels at the Bellwood printing plant lo- cated in Richmond, Virginia. 2. Bellwood Printing Pressmen, Assistants' and Specialities Union No. 670, Subordinate to the Graphic Communications International Union is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Reynolds Metals Company to assign the disputed bracket installation work exclusively to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from this date, Bellwood Printing Pressmen, Assistants' and Specialities Union No. 670, Subordinate to the Graphic Com- munications International Union shall notify the Regional Director for Region 5 in writing whether it will refrain from forcing the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the dis- puted work in a manner inconsistent with this de- termination.