Auto Workers Local 244 (Massey-Ferguson)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 933 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 244 (MASSEY-FERGUSON)
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), Local 244 and Massey-Ferguson,
Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehouse-
men Local 43, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 30-
CD-112
14 February 1984
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 26 October 1983 by Massey-Ferguson, Inc.,
the Employer, alleging that the Respondent, Auto
Workers Local 244, herein Local 244, 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 Teamsters Local 43, herein Local
43. The hearing was held 15 November 1983
before Hearing Officer Sharon A. Gallagher.
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
The Employer, a Maryland corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of agricultural imple-
ments, maintaining in connection therewith a parts
distribution warehouse in Racine, Wisconsin.
During the past year the Employer purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from suppliers located outside the State of Wiscon-
sin. The partes 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
244 and Local 43 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II1. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer's operations at its Racine ware-
house consist of receiving, storing, and packing
repair parts for distribution to dealers and to its re-
gional parts distribution centers. Work at the ware-
house is divided among two groups or units of em-
ployees: the Local 244-represented production and
268 NLRB No. 142
maintenance employees who handle the day-to-day
operations of the warehouse, and the Local 43-rep-
resented over-the-road drivers who transport the
repair parts in semi-tractor-trailers to and from the
warehouse.
The dispute arose when an over-the-road driver
filed a grievance charging that certain "trailer
switching"' and local intracity cartage work 2
being performed by the Local 244-represented pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Racine
warehouse should be assigned to employees repre-
sented by Local 43. On 7 September 1983 a hearing
was held before the Wisconsin Joint State Area
Grievance Committee and the grievance was de-
cided in favor of the work being assigned to Local
43.3 Local 244 was not a party to the grievance
proceeding.
Upon learning of this decision Local 244 sent a
telegram to the Employer threatening "appropriate
contractual and legal action" should the work be
reassigned to employees represented by Local 43.
This telegram was later followed by a letter to the
Employer, dated 5 October 1983, threatening
"strike action" to enforce Local 244's jurisdiction
over the switching and local cartage work. It was
this strike threat which gave rise to the present
proceedings.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves trailer switching
and local intracity cartage work at the Employer's
Racine, Wisconsin warehouse.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the area practice,
its own past practice, the skill required, and the
continued efficiency of its operations support an
award of the work to Local 244.
Local 244 cites all these factors, as well as its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employ-
er, in support of an award to the employees it rep-
resents.
Local 43 contends that the employees it repre-
sents are entitled to the disputed work by virtue of
its collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
"Trailer switching" involves using a "switching tractor" (resembling
an over-the-road tractor except that it has a weaker suspension system
designed for only short runs and has an automatic rather than 13-speed
overdrive transmission) to move trailers which have been dropped by the
over-the-road drivers at the warehouse holding or "staging" area to the
warehouse dock for loading or unloading.
s The local intracity cartage work involves pickups and deliveries to
the bus station, post office, and to the Employer's other facility in Racine
located about 5 minutes away. The switching tractor is often used for this
local cartage work as well as for the actual switching work.
3 Under art. 44 of Local 43's Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement
with the Employer all grievances may be taken to a joint state area griev-
ance committee for resolution.
933
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer and the Joint Grievance Committee's deci-
sion. It also asserts that the factors of company-
wide practice, the skill required, and efficiency
support an award to employees it represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act it must be satisfied that there is. reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and that there is no agreed-upon method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
Based on Local 244's strike threat, the record as
a whole, and the parties' stipulation that there
exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute, we find that there is rea-
sonable 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 the 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 the disputed work
after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electri-
cal Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcast-
ing), 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 experi-
ence, reached by balancing those 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. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both Local 244 and Local 43 have collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer and both
contend that these agreements cover the disputed
work. Local 244 cites a classification in its contract
for a "semi-tractor trailer driver" and contends that
this classification was intended to cover the em-
ployees who drive the switching tractor in doing
switching and local cartage work. This contention
is supported by the uncontroverted testimony of
Gary Navis, the Racine warehouse manager, that
this classification has been included in every con-
tract with Local 244 since 1947 with the exception
of a period between 1957 and 1968 when loading
was done with railcars rather than semi-tractor-
trailers. Navis also testified that from 1957 to 1968
local cartage was done by the warehouse employ-
ees with a straight (single piece) truck rather than
with a semi-tractor-trailer.
Local 43 argues that the recognition clause of its
current local cartage supplemental agreement with
the Employer, its first such contract with the Em-
ployer, explicitly gives this work to the employees
its represents. That clause states:
Article 40
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Section 1
Operations Covered
a) The execution of this Supplemental Agree-
ment (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement")
on the part of the Employer shall cover all
truckdrivers, helpers, dockmen, warehouse-
men, checkers, powerlift operators, hostlers,
and other such employees as may be presently
or hereinafter represented by the Union, en-
gaged in local pickup, delivery, and assem-
bling of freight within the area located within
the jurisdiction of the Local Union, not to
exceed a radius of fifty (50) miles ...
b) Employees covered by this Agreement shall
be construed to mean, but not limited to, any
driver, chauffeur, or driver helper operating a
truck, tractor, motorcycle, passenger or horse-
drawn vehicle, or any other vehicle operated
on the highway, street or private road for
transportation purposes when used to defeat
the purposes of this Agreement. The term em-
ployee also includes, but is not limited to, all
employees used in dockwork, checking, stack-
ing, loading, unloading, handling, shipping, re-
ceiving, assembling and allied work.
In addition Local 43 emphasizes the Joint Griev-
ance Committee's award.
We find that both Unions have colorable con-
tractual claims to the disputed work and that the
factor of collective-bargaining agreement does not
favor an assignment to either.4
2. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the disputed work to
employees represented by Local 244 since 1947 and
prefers that this work continue to be performed by
them. Although the over-the-road drivers might
occasionally do switching work, this occurs no
more than once a year when the switching tractor
breaks down. Accordingly, we find the factors of
4Inasmuch as Local 244 was not a party to the Joint Grievance Com-
mittee's proceeding, nor agreed to be bound by it, we have considered
the award only for the limited purpose of interpreting Local 43's contract
with the Employer.
934
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 244 (MASSEY-FERGUSON)
employer assignment and preference favor an
award to the employees represented by Local 244.6
3. Area practice
The other major agricultural implement ware-
house in Racine, the J. I. Case Company, also as-
signs its switching and local cartage work to its
production and maintenance employees rather than
to its over-the-road drivers. The area practice thus
favors an award of the work to employees repre-
sented by Local 244.
4. Efficiency of operations and job impact
The Employer argues that it is more efficient to
assign the switching and local cartage work to em-
ployees represented by Local 244 because these
employees also perform the other warehouse work,
work which Local 43 does not claim in this pro-
ceeding. Warehouse Manager Navis testified that
they could not in fact combine only the switching
and local cartage work because of scheduling, de-
livery, and pickup times. He also testified, without
challenge, that awarding the disputed work to
Local 43 would cause layoffs in the production and
maintenance unit. Accordingly, we find that both
efficiency of operations and job impact favor an
award to the employees represented by Local 244.
' We reject Local 43's contention that the evidence it presented as to
the Employer's practice at its other facilities throughout the country is
sufficient to discount these factors. The only evidence presented was that
at the Employer's operations in Detroit, Michigan, and Des Moines,
iowa, the disputed work has, at least since 1979, been assigned to over-
the-road drivers. There was no evidence presented as to whether those
operations were identical to those at the Racine warehouse. Thus we find
the evidence insufficient to establish that the practice at the Racine ware-
house is contrary to the companywide practice.
5. Relative skills
Based on the similarities between the switching
and over-the-road tractors it is clear that both
groups of employees are equally capable of per-
forming the switching and local cartage work. We
find that this factor does not favor an award of the
disputed work to either.
Conclusions
After considering all relevant factors we con-
clude that employees represented by International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
Local 244, are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Em-
ployer's assignment and preference, the area prac-
tice, and considerations of efficiency and job
impact. In making this determination we are
awarding the work to employees represented by
Local 244, not to that union or its 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 Massey-Ferguson, Inc., represent-
ed by International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), Local 244, are entitled to per-
form the work of trailer switching and local intra-
city cartage at the Employer's Racine, Wisconsin
warehouse.
935