Aerospace District Lodge No. 837

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 913 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

AEROSPACE DISTRICT LODGE NO. 837. ET AL.
Aerospace District Lodge No. 837, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO and McDonnell Douglas Corporation
and Local No. 1, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CD-561
June 8, 1979
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Aerospace
District Lodge No. 837, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called Respondent or the IAM, had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requir-
ing the Employer to assign certain work to its mem-
bers rather than to employees represented by Local
No. I, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, herein called the IBEW.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer R. Michael Lowenbaum on November 2
and 3, 1978. All parties appeared and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduced evidence bearing
on the issues.
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 proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a Maryland corporation with its principal
place of business in St. Louis County, Missouri, is
engaped in the manufacture and nonretail sale of so-
phisticated fighter aircraft, missiles, and astronautic
equipment. During the past year, the Employer pur-
chased goods from outside the State having a value of
$50,000. The parties also stipulated and 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 jurisdic-
tion herein.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI VFt)
The parties stipulated and we find that Respondent
and Local No. I of the IBEW are labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. IE DISPUITI
A. Backgrund and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is a defense contractor which manu-
factures sophisticated aircraft, missiles, spacecraft,
and various other aero- and astronautical vehicles
and components. At its St. Louis, Missouri. facility it
employs approximately 30,000 people, of whom
11,000 are represented in five separate bargaining
units, including units represented by Respondent and
by the IBEW. Respondent represents about 10,500
employees in a production unit. The IBEW repre-
sents 268 maintenance electricians.
In the fabrication of component parts of the prod-
ucts it manufactures, the Employer has increasingly,
since the early 1950s, been using composite or bonded
materials made of nonmetallic materials to improve
the weight, strength, and heat resistence capabilities
of these parts. In the production of a particular part,
the Employer utilizes molds or bonding jigs on which
layers of these nonmetallic materials, with epoxy res-
ins between each layer, are laid out. After the lami-
nates are compressed to the contour of the bonding
jig, the laminates and the bonding jig, and the bag
which envelopes both, are put into an autoclave,
where they are subjected to high temperatures and
pressure. This causes the resins to melt and bond the
laminates together in the form of the bonding jig. In
the "cooking" process it is important to have an even
temperature distribution over the entire surface of the
part to prevent hot or cold spots with a resultant im-
perfect bond. To monitor this temperature distribu-
tion, the company places heat sensing instruments, or
thermocouples, at numerous locations on the bonding
jig.
Thermocouples are simple devices consisting of
two wires of dissimilar metals joined at one end. The
joined end is attached to the bonding jigs by various
means such as welding, tape, or screws. The other
ends of the wires are attached to a terminal block
affixed to the bonding jig. From the terminal block
other wires run through what are called "pass
throughs" on the autoclave to a heat recording device
on the outside of the autoclave. During the "cooking"
process the heat on the bonding jig causes a small
electric current to pass through the thermocouples
whereby the temperature on the various parts of the
jig can be monitored outside the autoclave.
242 NLRB No. 131
913
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In December 1975. a maintenance electrician filed
a grievance because workers other than maintenance
electricians were installing and maintaining thermo-
couples on bonding igs. That grievance culminated
in an arbitration award issued on June 3, 1977, find-
ing that the work belonged to the maintenance elec-
tricians. Shortly thereafter. the Employer assigned the
installation and maintenance of the thermocouples to
maintenance electricians represented by the IBEW.
That assignment continued until November 1977.
During the period when the electricians were assigned
this work, the IAM filed a grievance protesting that
assignment. That grievance also culminated in an ar-
bitration award issue on September 26, 1977, wherein
the arbitrator found that the work in question be-
longed to employees represented by Respondent. Fol-
lowing that decision, the Employer reassigned the dis-
puted work to the production employees represented
by Respondent. The IBEW again presented a griev-
ance to the Employer which the Employer refused to
accept.
Thereafter, when efforts failed to reach an amica-
ble resolution of the dispute over the work,' the Com-
pany informed the parties that effective October 1,
1978, it would reassign the work to the electricians.
The Company asserts that this reassignment was for
the purpose of forcing the parties, especially the
IAM, to sit down and negotiate a final resolution of
the dispute. The dispute was not settled, however,
and the IAM threatened to strike if the disputed work
was not assigned to its members. The Company
thereupon filed the charges in this proceeding.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the installation and
maintenance of thermocouples on bonding jigs which
are used in the production of parts for fighter planes
and other parts produced at the Employer's Lambert
Field facility.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work in dispute
should be appropriately assigned to its production
employees represented by the IAM, as this assign-
ment follows the customs and practice at its facility
and ilsewhere in the industry. It further contends that
the production employees possess the necessary skills
for performing this work and that it is more economi-
cal and efficient for the Company to have this work
done by them.
' In the spring of 1978, the IBEW filed suit in Federal district court to
compel the Company and the Machinists to enter tripartite arbitration. The
court has reserved ruhng pending this proceeding.
The IBEW asserts that the work is properly per-
formed by its members inasmuch as the Employer
has assigned the work to the electricians as of October
I, 1978; the electricians construct some of the ther-
mocouples which are installed; and it is an electrical
instrument and should be properly installed by elec-
tricians. It further asserts that its contract with the
Employer covers the work in question and that elec-
tricians have in the past performed the disputed work.
Respondent takes the position that the work should
be appropriately assigned to production employees
represented by it inasmuch as the disputed work is
production work which is done by its members and it
members have done the great majority of the work in
the past. It further asserts that its collective-bargain-
ing agreement and job descriptions favor the award
of the work to the production workers; that these em-
ployees possess better qualifications to perform the
work; and that it would be more efficient for these
employees to perform the disputed work.
D. ApplicabilitY of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determination
of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve 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 dispute. The evidence
here shows that by letter of August 30, 1978, and in a
personal conversation on September 18, 1978, Re-
spondent's represenatives, in response to the Compa-
ny's announcement that it was assigning the disputed
work to the maintenance electricians, did threaten to
strike and picket the Company.
The parties have stipulated that there is no agreed-
upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists
no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of
the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
due consideration to various factors.2 The Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on commonsense and
2 N.L. R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrncal Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad-
casting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
914
AEROSPACE DISTRICT LODGE NO. 837, ET AL.
experience reached by balancing those factors in-
volved in a particular case.
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both Unions claimed the work on the basis of their
respective collective-bargaining agreements. The
IBEW relies on language present in its contracts since
1966. Article XIX, section 2(b), of its current contract
states in part:
(b) Also included shall be the installation and
maintenance of electrical items, equipment and
apparatus on dies, jigs, and fixtures .... "
According to the IBEW, thermocouples are an
electrical item, equipment, or apparatus, as electricity
is generated through the wires, and bonding jigs are
included under the categories of dies, jigs, and fix-
tures.
On the other hand, the Company and the IAM
claim that the AM's collective-bargaining agreement
incorporates job classifications and job descriptions
which by reference cover the work in dispute. Thus,
they claim that thermocouples are a production tool
used in the fabrication and construction of bonding
jigs and as such fall under the job description of four
different classifications of production employees. Fur-
ther, the IAM presented evidence that the installation
of thermocouples on bonding jigs was discussed at
negotiations for the collective-bargaining agreement
and it was agreed that this work was covered under
the contract. The Company and the IAM further
claim that the IBEW's contract does not cover the
work in dispute. Rather, specific portions of that con-
tract show that production equipment that is manu-
factured for sale is not covered under the IBEW con-
tract and, according to them, a bonding jig is such an
item. In addition, the IBEW contract states that arti-
cle XIX, section 2, is not intended to enlarge or di-
minish the jurisdiction of the work performed by em-
ployees represented by the IBEW and, since the
production unit had done the majority of the thermo-
couple installation in the past, article XIX did not
entitle the maintenance electricians to the work.
There was also evidence presented that jigs other
than bonding jigs do contain electrical equipment,
such as common electrical conduit, which the bond-
ingjigs do not contain. It is therefore conceivable that
this type of jig is what is intended by the IBEW's
contract.
Neither of the contracts specifically relates to the
installation of thermocouples on bonding jigs. Al-
International Association of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743, AFL- CIO, (J. A
Jones Construction Cornpan), 135 NLRB 1402 11962).
though the IBEW contract does mention the installa-
tion of electrical equipment on jigs, in our opinion the
evidence presented does not call for a conclusion that
either collective-bargaining agreeement is determina-
tive of the dispute herein.
2. Company and industry practice
The evidence presented by the parties shows that
employees represented by both Unions have in the
past installed and maintained thermocouples on
bonding jigs. It is undisputed that, following an arbi-
tration award in favor of the maintenance electricians
in 1977, the Company assigned the work to the elec-
tricians for a short while, and that, since October
1978, this assignment has also been with the electri-
cians. The IBEW also prevented evidence that, prior
to 1977, its members installed and maintained ther-
mocouples on bonding jigs in the production of air-
craft, notably the DC-10.
The Company and the IAM contend that, except
for the temporary 1977 and 1978 awards of this work
to the electricians, and a small amount of mainte-
nance work on thermocouples on the DC-10, which
they contend was erroneously awarded to the electri-
cians contrary to company policy, production em-
ployees have installed and maintained the great ma-
jority of the thermocouples. The Company presented
evidence to show that of the thermocouples it has
utilized since the early 1950s well over 90 percent
have been installed and maintained by the production
employees.
Although the evidence does show that both groups
of employees have installed the thermocouples in the
past, it is Our opinion that the preponderance of the
evidence shows that a great majority of the work has
been done by the production employees represented
by the IAM.
Relating to industry practice the only evidence pre-
sented was the testimony of the director of personnel
services for the Company, O'Toole, who testified that,
in a survey taken of five or six other aerospace firms,
the Company learned that the practices of installing
and maintaining thermocouples on bonding jigs was
done by the major production unit and not by main-
tenance electricians.
3. Relative skills
It appears from the record that the installation and
maintenance of thermocouples is an uncomplicated
task which requires very little skill. Although the
IBEW claims that electricians' knowledge of electric-
ity and of the metals used in the wires of the thermo-
couples favors the award of the work to this group,
the evidence does not support a finding that any ap-
preciable knowledge of electricity is required to per-
915
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form the work. On the other hand, the IAM claims
that attaching a thermocouple to a bonding jig,
whether it be by welding or drilling and tappling, is
work that is within the job descriptions of the produc-
tion employees, and in line with other work they nor-
mally do.
It is our opinion that the work does not require the
knowledge of electricity possessed by maintenance
electricians and requires little skill to perform. This
weighs in favor of an award to the production unit
which does the remainder of the work on the produc-
tion of the bonding jig.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
The Employer and the IAM contend that it is more
economical and efficient to have the production em-
ployees represented by the IAM install and maintain
the thermocouples inasmuch as they are engaged in
the total production of the bonding jig, of which the
disputed work is but a very small part. Testimony was
presented by the Company that having the mainte-
nance electricians install the thermocouples entails
transferring the work from one line of supervision to
another, causing not only additional paperwork, but
also unnecessary delays in the total production time
of the bonding jig. This is caused in part by the differ-
ence in the physical locale of the two groups of em-
ployees.
5. Arbitration awards
As noted, both of the Unions have been awarded
the work in question by different arbitrators. How-
ever, in light of the fact that neither Union was af-
forded an opportunity to present evidence at the arbi-
tration hearing resulting from a grievance being filed
by the other Union, we find that the awards resulting
from those arbitrations are not determinative here.
6. Employer preference
Although at the time of the hearing employees rep-
resented by the IBEW had been assigned the work in
dispute, the Employer has made clear its preference
that the work be performed by the production em-
ployees represented by the IAM.
CONCLUSION
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, we conclude
that employees who are represented by the IAM are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the facts that the Company pre-
fers that these production employees perform this
work because of the greater efficiency and economy
enjoyed, and its assignment of this work to them a
majority of the time in the past. The record shows
that a thermocouple, although made up of wires
which conduct a small amount of electricity, is a pro-
duction tool, and a small part of the whole bonding
jig which is produced in the tooling department by
production employees. As such, it is work properly
assigned to these employees rather than to employees
whose principal responsibility is the maintenance of
the plant electrical system and equipment. It is evi-
dent that the knowledge of electricity possessed by
the maintenance electricians is far greater than that
necessary to perform the work in dispute. Accord-
ingly, we shall determine the dispute before us by
awarding the work in dispute at the Employer's Lam-
bert Field facility in St. Louis County, Missouri, to
those production employees represented by the IAM,
but not to that Union or its members.
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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following determination of dispute:
Employees of McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
who are represented by Aerospace District Lodge No.
837, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the installing and maintenance of thermocou-
ples on bonding jigs which are used in the production
of parts for fighter planes and other parts produced at
the Employer's Lambert Field facility.
916