Teamsters Local 158 (Holt Cargo)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 158 (HOLT CARGO) Teamsters Union 158 , a/w International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Holt Cargo Systems, Inc and International Long- shoremen's Association Local 1291, AFL-CIO Local Lodge 724 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO and Holt Cargo Systems, Inc and International Longshoremen's Association , Local 1291 and Local 1566, AFL-CIO Cases 4-CD-639 and 4-CD-640 April 28, 1989 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act On October 18, 1984, the Employer, Holt Cargo Systems, Inc (Holt), filed a charge in Case 4-CD-639 alleging that the Respondent, Teamsters Union 158, affili- ated with the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Teamsters Local 158), violat ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in proscribed conduct with an object of forcing Holt to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by the Inter- national Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291, AFL-CIO (ILA Local 1291) Also on October 18, 1984, Holt filed a charge in Case 4-CD-640 alleg- ing that the Respondent, Local Lodge 724 of the International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM Local 724), vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in proscribed conduct with an object of forcing Holt to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291, AFL-CIO, or by International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1566, AFL-CIO (ILA Local 1291 and ILA Local 1566, respectively) An order consolidating cases and notice of hearing issued November 21, 1984 The hearing was held on vari ous dates from January 17 to May 10, 1985, before Hearing Officer Marina A Pavluk The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board finds the hearing officer's rulings free from prejudicial error On the entire record, the Board makes the following findings I JURISDICTION 917 Holt, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in war- ehousing, trucking, and stevedoring at its pier and warehouse facility in Gloucester City, New Jersey During the calendar year preceding the hearing, it derived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and purchased and received materials and supplies valued at more than $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of New Jersey Based on these stipulated facts, we find that Holt is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act Teamsters Local 158, IAM Local 724, and ILA Locals 1291 and 1566 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 1 II THE DISPUTE A Background and Facts of Dispute Holt began operating its marine terminal (pier) and warehouse on the Delaware River at Glouces- ter City, New Jersey, in 1967 It has had successive collective-bargaining agreements with Teamsters Local 158 The bargaining unit consists of various employee classifications, including, inter alia, dock side crane operators and overhead crane operators Holt also has had successive collective bargaining agreements with IAM Local 724 Additionally, Holt as a member of the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association (PMTA) has had a series of col- lective-bargaining agreements with the Internation- al Longshoremen's Association In August 1984, Holt had two Kocks container cranes installed at its Gloucester City, New Jersey pier These Kocks cranes are sophisticated state-of the-art cranes specifically designed for the efficient loading and unloading of container ships and fully containerized cargo Each crane costs about $3 5 million Before the installation of the Kocks cranes, all loading and unloading of ships with any types of cargo, including containerized cargo, had been done by crane operators represented by Teamsters Local 158 Yet, since beginning operation of the Kocks cranes on December 24, 1984, employees represented by ILA Local 1291 have operated only the Kocks cranes In late fall 1984, labor represent ed by ILA Local 1291 was assigned the work pending this proceeding Holt's established practice has been to utilize labor represented by IAM Local 724 for the main- tenance and repair of all cranes, containers, and 'Although omitted from the stipulation no party disputes that ILA Local 1566 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act Fur ther we note that in Teamsters Local 158 (Holt Cargo) 278 NLRB 360 (1986) the Board found that ILA Local 1566 was a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 293 NLRB No 112 918 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD chassis The Kocks crane maintenance and repair work was assigned by Holt to IAM Local 724 labor about December 24, 1984 By letter of June 29, 1984, ILA Local 1291 indi- cated to Holt its desire to discuss the operation and maintenance and repair of the container cranes (Kocks cranes) and chassis During a subsequent meeting in the summer of 1984, ILA Local 1291 demanded the assignment of this work to labor it represented On October 10, 1984, ILA Local 1291 filed a grievance with the PMTA regarding the work assignment This grievance was not proc essed to arbitration Neither Teamsters Local 158 nor IAM Local 724 are parties to the agreement between the PMTA and ILA By letter of October 3, 1984, Teamsters Local 158 informed Holt that it objected to the arbitra- tion of the ILA's claim for the work as it was not a party to the PMTA agreement, it further stated that if the work of operating the container cranes was not assigned to Teamsters Local 158, it intend- ed "to take all necessary action against you includ mg a strike ' By letter dated October 9, 1984, IAM Local 724 informed Holt that the work being performed on containers, trailers, power chassis, and material handling equipment was the sole jurisdiction of IAM Local 724, and that " it intends to take what- ever action is necessary to protect our membership including economic action " In addition, on December 19, 1984 , ILA Local 1566 filed a grievance with the PMTA for mainte- nance of "reefer" or refrigerated containers per formed by Holt for ABC Shipping Lines ILA Local 1566 wrote a clarifying letter dated February 6, 1985, claiming only certain aspects of the work (1) plugging, unplugging, and monitoring an elec- tric unit, (2) plugging and unplugging a diesel unit from a generator, and (3) hanging a nitrogen unit to a container ILA Local 1566 currently claims the refrigeration service work, as defined in its February 6, 1985 letter, to all ACT Line refrigerat- ed containers at Holt The grievance has not been processed to arbitration IAM Local 724 has per- formed all maintenance and repair work at Holt The disputed work in Case 4-CD-639 is current ly assigned to employees represented by ILA Local 1291 All of the disputed work in Case 4- CD-460 is currently assigned to employees repre sented by IAM Local 724, except for the hanging of nitrogen units on to refrigerated containers for ACT Lines, which is assigned to employees repre sented by ILA Local 1566 B Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of two categories (1) Case 4-CD-639, the operation of the dock- side Kocks container cranes at Holt's Gloucester City, New Jersey facility, and (2) Case 4-CD-640, the maintenance and repair of the Kocks container cranes, containers, chassis, and trailers, including the hanging and monitoring of refrigerated units on some containers at Holt's Gloucester City, New Jersey facility C Contentions of the Parties Holt contends that the work in dispute in Case 4-CD-639, operation of the Kocks cranes, should be awarded to employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 , it contends that the work in dispute in Case 4-CD-640, the maintenance and repair work, should be awarded to employees represented by IAM Local 724 Holt asserts that the factors usual ly considered by the Board in resolving jurisdic- tional disputes without question require the award of the work to these groups of employees Further, Holt argues that IAM Local 724 labor has per- formed all aspects of maintenance and repair of its equipment at its facility pursuant to contractual rights found in successive collective-bargaining agreements between Holt and IAM Local 724 Lastly, Holt contends that before the arrival of the Kocks cranes Teamsters Local 158 labor operated all of its dockside cranes and equipment, except for the rare instance when a rental crane was neces- sary and an operator was provided, as covered in successive collective bargaining agreements be- tween Holt and Teamsters Local 158 Teamsters Local 158 concedes that the agree- ments between the PMTA and the ILA do provide for crane operators, but notes that since the incep- tion of Holt's operation in 1967 at Gloucester City, New Jersey, ILA Local 1291 never attempted to assert jurisdiction until this dispute Pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between Holt and Teamsters Local 158 dating from the present back to 1967, employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 have performed the operation of all dockside cranes Teamsters Local 158 asserts that ILA Local 1291 labor was assigned the disputed work because Holt was faced with a devastating work stoppage in the event that ILA Local 1291 labor was not as- signed the operation of the Kocks cranes All other dockside crane operations are performed by Team- sters Local 158 labor According to Teamsters Local 158, its claim is contractually superior be- cause ILA Local 1291 waived any right that ILA Local 1291 might have had to the disputed work by the failure to act until now Accordingly, Team- sters Local 158 contends that the disputed work should be awarded to employees it represents TEAMSTERS LOCAL 158 (HOLT CARGO) 919 ILA Local 1291 argues that ILA longshoremen have historically handled bulk, break bulk, and containerized cargo in the port of Philadelphia as evidenced by collective-bargaining agreements dating back to the 1970s negotiated between PMTA and the ILA As a long -time member of PMTA, Holt is bound by the ILA-PMTA agree- ment ILA Local 1291 further asserts that ILA labor has a particular work relationship with con- tainer cargo and related activities , including, inter alia, crane operators, mechanics, and maintenance and repair employees According to ILA Local 1291, there are enormous differences between the sophisticated Kocks cranes operated by ILA 1291 labor and the cranes operated by Holt 's employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 ILA opera- tors lost jobs due to Holt's installation of the new Kocks cranes causing shipping lines serviced by ILA operators in the port of Philadelphia to be at- tracted away from another terminal to Holt's Gloucester City, New Jersey facility ILA Local 1291 further asserts that container and chassis maintenance and repair has also been work per- formed by ILA Local 1291 labor in the port of Philadelphia Due to the state-of-the-art character of the Kocks cranes, IAM Local 724 labor is not necessarily qualified to repair and maintain Kocks cranes As a result of the attraction of new ship- ping lines to Holt by its Kocks cranes , ILA Local 1291 asserts that six employees represented by it have been laid off in the port of Philadelphia According to IAM Local 724, its successive col- lective-bargaining agreements with Holt more clearly delineate relevant mechanic categories, which more expressly apply to the work in dispute IAM Local 724 argues that employees represented by it have historically been assigned the disputed work by Holt The ILA has never grieved the as- signment of most of the disputed work to IAM Local 724 labor before the recent contractual chal lenges to the assignment relating to the mainte- nance of containers , chassis, spreader, and to the hanging and monitoring of `reefer" units It further asserts that the only reason that ILA Local 1566 labor is currently hanging and monitoring "reefer" units is that, at the threat of an ILA work stop- page, Holt agreed to hire four ILA carpenters ILA Local 1566 argues that under the collective- bargaining agreement between it and the PMTA, employees it represents had been continuously per- forming "reefer" container servicing for ACT Line at the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal until ACT Line, attracted by Holt's new Kocks cranes, moved to Holt's facility ILA Local 1566 stresses that its claim solely involves the servicing of refrigerated units attached to ACT Line containers and that there is no conflict between its claim and that of ILA Local 1291 ILA Local 1566 claims that Holt is bound by the ILA-PMTA contract and that the move of ACT Line caused employees it represent- ed to lose their jobs ILA Local 1566 asserts that a worker has the right to protect his traditional work against efforts to take it away by any means, in- cluding relocation of work operations, as in this case D Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed under Section 10(k) of the Act to determine a jurisdictional dis- pute, it must find that there is reasonable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that there is no agreed-on method for resolving the dispute It is undisputed that by its October 3, 1984 letter Teamsters Local 158 informed Holt that it would "take all necessary action against you including a strike," if its labor did not perform the disputed work in Case 4-CD-639 It is also undisputed that by its October 9, 1984 letter IAM Local 724 in- formed Holt that the disputed work in Case 4-CD- 640, work being performed on container trailers, chassis, and material-handling equipment, was the sole jurisdiction of IAM Local 724 and that it would "take whatever action is necessary to pro- tect our membership including economic action" Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that Teamsters Local 158 and IAM Local 724 have violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act See New York Typographical Union No 6 (New York Times Co), 225 NLRB 1311 (1976) (expression of "readiness to strike' suf ficient), Lithographers & Photoengravers (Beacon Journal), 185 NLRB 464 (1970) (union in posses- sion of work threatened to resist reassignment by "appropriate means, including a strike") In addition, there is no evidence of a mutually agreed-on method for voluntarily resolving this dis- pute 2 Accordingly, we conclude that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination 3 2 ILA Local 1566 was not party to a stipulation that there was no such agreement that was received prior to its intervention in these proceed rags 3 ILA Local 1566 claims reefer unit work based on a work preserva non theory However Local 1566 never before performed this work for Holt The concept of work preservation contemplates a union s effort to retrieve lost jobs not the securing of new ones Here ILA Local 1566 s claim is missing the sine qua non for work preservation i e the posses lion of the work in the first place (See discussion infra of the Employ er s past practice) Under these circumstances ILA Local 1566 s claim of work preservation is without merit 920 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af- firmative award of disputed work after considering various factors Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting) v NLRB, 364 U S 573 (1961) The Board has held that its determina tion in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular case Machinists Local 1743 (J A Jones Construc- tion), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962) The following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute 1 Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements The only evidence of Board certification in- volves IAM Local 724 and Holt Motor Express, Inc, under which name Holt functioned as a freight hauling company prior to its physical move and expansion into its present form On September 23, 1965, in Case 4-RC-6617, IAM Local 724 was certified as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative in a unit of all truck mechanics, mechanics' helpers, and service employees of Holt Motor Express, Inc, Philadel phia, Pennsylvania, but excluding office clerical, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisory employees as defined in the Act The Teamsters Local 158 contract and the ILA- PMTA contract lack specific coverage of the dis- puted Kocks crane operation Article II of the Teamsters Local 158 contract states that Holt rec- ognizes it as the bargaining agent "for the bargain- ing unit which shall include those categories of em- ployees (including maintenance/construction) spec ified in Exhibit "A' Exhibit A lists various classifi- cations including overhead crane operator, forklift operator, locomotive operator, and dockside crane operator The ILA PMTA contract Preamble covers "all mechanics, lockermen, gearmen who work on longshoremen's equipment, including those who do rigging, crane operators who are employed by members of the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association " The Containerization Agreement annexed to the ILA-PMTA contract states Management and the Carriers recognize the existing work jurisdiction of ILA employees covered by their agreements with the ILA over all container work which historically has been performed by longshoremen and all other ILA crafts at container waterfront facilities Carriers, direct employers and their agents covered by such agreements agree to employ employees covered by their agreements to per- form such work which include but is not limit- ed to (a) The loading and discharging of con- tainers on and off ships (b) The receipt of cargo (c) The delivery of cargo (d) The loading and discharging of cargo into and out of containers (e) The maintenance and repair of con- tainers (f) The inspection of containers at water- front facilities (TIR men) 2 Management, the Carriers, the direct em- ployers and their agents shall not contract out any work covered by this agreement Any vio lations of this provision shall be considered a breach of this agreement Record testimony establishes that employees rep resented by Teamsters Local 158 performed all dockside crane operation work, except for the rare instances involving Holt's use of a rental crane, prior to the erection of the two Kocks cranes De- spite the ILA-PMTA contract, which Holt is a party to as a member of the PMTA, ILA labor never operated cranes at Holt's facility Holt's president testified that the assignment to ILA Local 1291 labor of the disputed Kocks crane oper anon work was solely to avoid a work stoppage With regard to the disputed maintenance and repair work, neither the IAM Local 724 contract nor the ILA contracts specifically cover the disput- ed Kocks cranes The additional disputed mainte nance and repair work, which includes containers, chassis, and trailers, is referred to generally in terms of employer categories in the IAM Local 724 contract ILA Local 1566 Carpenters' Agree ment lacks any specific reference to the "reefer" service work it claimed The Preamble referred to crane work done by marine carpenters and ceilers The Containerization Agreement, as noted earlier, generally referred to covered work, including the maintenance and repair of containers While neither of the ILA Locals' agreement excluded this disput- ed work, both agreements recognized that concur- rent work jurisdiction over certain types of work existed Article I of the IAM Local 724 contract states that Holt recognizes it as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent "for the employees set forth in Appendix 'A' attached hereto " Appendix A lists various classifications in two general groups of 1st class mechanic and mechanic B,' plus the classifi cation of tire repair man and utility mechanic or trainee The two groups of classifications are TEAMSTERS LOCAL 153 (HOLT CARGO) 921 broken down as to truck mechanic, trailer mechan- ic, fork lift mechanic, and maintenance mechanic As described above, the Preamble of the ILA- PMTA contract covers "all mechanics " The pre- viously mentioned Containerization Agreement covers the "maintenance and repair of containers " Testimony establishes that all maintenance and repair of the cranes, trailers, chassis, and other dis- puted work has been performed at Holt's facility by the IAM Local 724 labor Prior to these pro- ceedings ILA labor has not claimed any mainte- nance and repair work at Holt's facility 4 Under these circumstances, we find that this factor is neutral in the award of either the Kocks crane operation work or the maintenance and repair work 2 Employer preference Holt prefers to use its employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 in the operation of the dock side Kocks cranes rather than employees represent- ed by ILA Local 1291 Holt, further, prefers to use its employees represented by IAM Local 724 for the maintenance and repair of the Kocks cranes, containers, chassis, and trailers, including the hang- ing and monitoring of refrigerated units on some containers, rather than employees represented by either ILA Locals 1291 or 1566 Employer prefer- ence favors an award of the disputed work to the employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 and IAM Local 724 3 Employer past practice Holt spent millions of dollars in the erection of the two sophisticated state-of-the-art Kocks cranes These cranes are specifically designed for the effi- cient loading and unloading of container ships and full containerized cargo Holt officials testified that the disputed Kocks crane operation work was given to employees represented by ILA Local 1291 to avoid threatened work stoppages Holt's past practice since the inception of its Gloucester City, New Jersey facility's operation has been to have all of its dockside cranes operated by employees rep resented by Teamsters Local 158 The maintenance and repair of the Kocks cranes has been performed by IAM Local 724 labor Testimony established that repair of cranes, trailers, containers, chassis, and the "reefer" service work has been performed at Holt's facility for years by mechanics represent- ed by IAM Local 724 The record further indicates that Holt assigned the "reefer" unit work to ILA 4 As noted before pending the resolution of these proceedings Holt as signed the reefer unit work to four ILA Local 1566 carpenters to avoid a work stoppage by the ILA Local 1566 labor sometime during the hearing be- cause of an ILA threat of work stoppage The Board has long refused to accord much weight to a factor or preference that may not be representative of a free and unencumbered choice See Longshoremen Local 50 (Brady-Hamilton Steve- dore Co), 223 NLRB 1034 (1976) Here, Holt's as- signment of the Kocks crane operation to employ- ees represented by ILA Local 1291 was not an as- signment of work evidencing a free and unencum- bered choice, instead, it was an assignment of work to prevent a labor dispute involving a threatened work stoppage 5 Likewise, Holt's assignment of the "reefer" unit work to ILA Local 1566 labor and its assignment of the Kocks crane maintenance and repair work to IAM Local 724 labor were not as- signments of work evidencing free and unencum- bered choices because both assignments were to avoid threatened work stoppages In light of these circumstances, we accord no weight to these cur- rent assignments by Holt Prior to the instant dispute, Holt's past practice was that Teamsters Local 158 labor operated any and all cranes The record indicates that the skills required to operate other type cranes are not so dissimilar to those required to operate Kocks cranes so as to preclude the use of the Employer's past practice involving non Kocks cranes in the de- termination of this factor Accordingly, based on Holt's practice prior to the instant dispute, we find that the factor of employer past practice favors an award of the Kocks crane operation to employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 As men- tioned, Holt's practice prior to the instant dispute was to have all maintenance and repair of cranes, trailers, containers, and chassis, including "reefer" unit work, performed by IAM Local 724 labor Based on Holt's practice prior to the instant dis pute, we find that the factor of employer past prac- tice favors an award of the maintenance and repair of the containers, chassis, and trailers, including the `reefer" unit work, to employees represented by IAM Local 724 5 We recognize that Teamsters Local 158 as well had conveyed a threat of possible strike action in a letter to Holt regarding the Kocks cranes but we see no reason not to take at face value the testimony of Holt officials who avowedly preferred to have the Teamsters operate the cranes that their assignment of that work to ILA Local 1291 was the consequence of their fears that Local 1291 would otherwise carry through on its threat to disrupt operations through work stoppages The soundness of the Holt officials judgment concerning the relative serious ness of the two threats is supported by the fact that Teamsters Local 158 did not in fact engage in a strike after the work was assigned to ILA Local 1291 922 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 Area practice The record indicates that in the port of Philadel phia there are seven or eight container cranes of the Kocks crane type, including the two at Holt's facility The record reveals that these container cranes are operated by ILA labor at the Packer Avenue and Tioga Terminals, and by non-ILA labor at the Beckett Street, South Jersey terminal The record reveals that the complex nature of the maintenance and repair work on the Kocks cranes necessitates a team approach involving me- chanics and electricians The evidence fails to es tabhsh that the work was traditional longshoremen work The record establishes that ILA and IAM mechanics perform maintenance and repair of con- tainer cranes, containers, chassis, trailers, and re frigerated units throughout the port of Philadel- phia The record lacks evidence as to the number of ILA mechanics as compared with IAM mechan- ics, and the Board has held that the mere number of employees performing the disputed work is in conclusive for the determination of area practice Longshoremen Local 1332 (Trailer Marine Trans- port), 264 NLRB 319 (1982) In sum, area practice does not favor an award to employees represented by the ILA Local 1291 or Teamsters Local 158 because both ILA and non ILA labor are performing Kocks-type crane oper- ation Further, area practice is a neutral factor fa voring neither ILA nor IAM labor in the assign- ment of maintenance and repair of the disputed work, including the "reefer" unit work 5 Economy and efficiency of operation The record establishes that the ILA contracts contain certain limiting work rules, including man- ning requirements (minimum number of employees for crews, i e, employers must hire ILA crane op- erators in pairs) In addition, limiting work rules not found in any contract exist concerning a `guar antee" (minimum hour requirements) Labor repre sented by Teamsters Local 158 and IAM Local 724 are not constrained by these requirements Holt and Teamsters Local 158 agree that the use of Teamsters operators allow for the cross-utihza tion of the operator on other cranes or machines when there is not enough Kocks crane work Both assert that ILA labor will only work on Kocks cranes ILA Local 1291 contends that this cross- utilization is a smoke screen because, as time spent on the Kocks cranes increases, the work available for the other cranes decreases It asserts that the "fatigue factor," which debilitates the operators over a period of sustained operation, also negative ly impinges on this cross-utilization agreement Also, ILA Local 1291 asserts that its operators are capable of cross utilization but that Holt has never requested the cross-utilization of the presently em- ployed ILA Local 1291 operators While the ability to cross-utilize a crane operator clearly is beneficial with regard to efficiency and economy, the record is ambiguous whether cross- utilization favors Teamsters Local 158 labor or ILA Local 1291 labor The record does disclose that cross-utilization of Teamsters Local 158 labor is available, but the record does not conclusively establish that cross-utilization of ILA Local 1291 labor is not available The record does indicate that the assigning of the disputed Kocks crane oper- ation work to ILA Local 1291 labor, rather than to Teamsters Local 158 labor, would require Holt to utilize a greater number of employees, given the ILA manning requirements With regard to economy and efficiency of oper ation, we conclude, based on the fact that the ILA manning requirements would require Holt to utilize a greater number of employees, that the record favors the award of the disputed Kocks crane oper- ation work to labor represented by Teamsters Local 158 However, we find that the record fails to favor the award of any of the disputed mainte- nance and repair work to labor represented by IAM Local 724 or ILA labor 6 Relative skills The record establishes that the Kocks cranes are complex and sophisticated machines requiring a depth of skill and dexterity in excess of, but not unlike, that found necessary to operate other dock side cranes The record also indicates that each Kocks crane is slightly different from another Kocks crane so that an operator must, essentially, learn the skills of operation on the job While ILA Local 1291 operators may have experienced oper- ating other Kocks-type cranes, until operating these specific Kocks cranes purchased by Holt the opera tors possessed no unduly advantageous skills The Teamsters Local 158 operators were trained on Holt's Kocks cranes by the manufacturer and, not unlike the ILA operators, learned the relative skills necessary for operation on the job The record fails to indicate that either union has a specific training program or certification procedure for Kocks cranes This factor is neutral in the determination to award the disputed Kocks crane operation work In regard to the maintenance and repair Kocks crane work, the record indicates that, like opera- tors, maintenance employees essentially acquire the necessary skills on the job None of the competing unions have a specific training program or certifi- cation procedure for the maintenance and repair of Kocks cranes Employees represented by IAM TEAMSTERS LOCAL 158 (HOLT CARGO) Local 724 were trained to some extent by the man- ufacturer during the installation of the cranes and have performed their duties to the satisfaction of Holt While IAM Local 724 labor now possesses the necessary relative skills to repair and maintain Holt's Kocks cranes, the record indicates that ILA labor would have to acquire the relative skills, or at the least enhance their present skills , to be able to repair and maintain Holt's Kocks cranes In light of these circumstances, we find that this factor tends to favor an award of the disputed mainte- nance and repair Kocks crane work to employees represented by IAM Local 724 The record establishes that the skills necessary to perform the remaining disputed maintenance and repair work, including "reefer" unit work, are pos- sessed by labor represented by all three unions We find that, with regard to this work, this factor does not favor ILA labor or IAM labor Conclusion After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 are entitled to perform the disputed Kocks crane operation work, employees represent- ed by IAM Local 724 are entitled to perform all the disputed maintenance and repair work We reach this conclusion, as to the operation of the Kocks cranes, relying on employer past practice, 923 economy and efficiency of operation, and employer preference In regard to the maintenance and repair work in dispute, we reach our conclusion relying on Holt's preference, relative skills , and past prac tice In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by Teamsters Local 158 and IAM Local 724, not to those Unions or their members The determination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute Employees of Holt Cargo Systems, Inc, repre sented by Teamsters Union 158, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform Kocks crane operation work at Holt's Gloucester City, New Jersey facility Employees of Holt Cargo Systems, Inc, represented by Local Lodge 724 of the Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the maintenance and repair of the Kocks cranes, con- tainers, chassis, and trailers, including the hanging and maintaining of refrigerated units on the disput- ed containers at Holt's Gloucester City, New Jersey facility