Brewery Workers Local 9

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 660 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brewery Workers Union Local Union No. 9, directly
affiliated Local Union, AFL-CIO and Miller
Brewing Company and Local Union No. 113,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case 30-CD-91
June 18, 1981
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Miller Brewing Company,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Brewery
Workers Union Local Union No. 9, directly affili-
ated Local Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
the Brewery Workers, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro-
scribed activities with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the Employer to assign certain work to its
members rather than to employees represented by
Local Union No. 113, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Laborers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Barbara J. Buhai on January 19,
22, and 23, 1981. All parties appeared and were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has re-
viewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that they are free from prejudi-
cial 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 is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of beer and other malt bever-
ages at its facilities located in Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin. During the past calendar year, a representative
period, the Employer received gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 in the course and conduct of its
business and sold and shipped goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points locat-
ed outside the State of Wisconsin. The parties also
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act, it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and it will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
256 NLRB No. 96
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Brewery Workers and the Laborers are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The situs of this work dispute is the Employer's
brewery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At this brew-
ery, the Employer employs approximately 2,000
hourly workers, including members of 10 different
unions. Among these employees are more than
1,600 members of the Brewery Workers and ap-
proximately 10 members of the Laborers. The
members of the Brewery Workers work in several
departments, including the brewing, mechanical,
delivery, bottling, and general trucking depart-
ments. The instant dispute concerns the general
trucking department.
Employees represented by the Brewery Workers
and Laborers are covered by separate collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer. The
Brewery Workers' contract contains distinct provi-
sions for employees in each department, detailing
wages and certain working conditions. According
to the terms of the current agreement, the work to
be performed by employees in the general trucking
department is governed by a "work list" dated Oc-
tober 31, 1955.
The present dispute arose from a series of griev-
ances filed by members of the Brewery Workers
beginning in May 1980.2 These grievances alleged
violations of the contract in that employees repre-
sented by the Laborers were performing various
tasks that should have been assigned to members of
the Brewery Workers. The Employer denied all of
these grievances, asserting that its work assign-
ments to Laborers members had been proper. On
August 1, 1980, representatives of the Employer,
the Brewery Workers, and the Laborers met in an
unsuccessful attempt to resolve this dispute. Fol-
lowing this meeting, the Employer prepared a list
detailing the different tasks that were in dispute,
but continued to insist that its work assignments
had been correct. Subsequently, the Brewery
Workers filed additional grievances against the
Employer concerning work assigned to employees
i The Employer negotiates these agreements as a member of the Brew-
ery Proprietors of Milwaukee, a multiemployer association. The contracts
involved herein are between the two Unions and this association.
2 An additional, related grievance, dated February , 1979, was pre-
sented as an exhibit at the hearing.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9 661
represented by the Laborers. 3 These grievances
were also denied by the Employer. On December
4, 1980, the Brewery Workers threatened the Em-
ployer with a work stoppage if its members were
not awarded the disputed work.4 On December 15,
1980, the Employer filed a complaint with the
Board, claiming that this threat violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties did not stipulate as to the work in
dispute. The notice of hearing states that "[t]he dis-
pute concerns the assignment of the various work
tasks described in 'Exhibit A,"' the aforementioned
list of the disputed tasks compiled by the Employ-
er. Exhibit A, as amended by agreement of the par-
ties at the hearing, lists the following items:
1. Transportation of unmarked hops and grain
to the lab.
2. Transportation of janitorial supplies for sani-
tation-maintenance to Buildings 40 and 35.
3. Transportation of hot and cold cups to the
following specific areas: Brewhouse, Fer-
menting, Finishing, Guard Office, Labs-
Building 36, Pipe Shops, Tapomatic, Kego-
matic, Carpenter Shop, Building 29 Mezza-
nine, Building 63 Engineer, Supervisor Of-
fices in Buildings 60, 29 and 58.
4. Transportation of coffee supplies (including
cups, sugar and cream) from corporate
building No. 66 to MIS in Building No. 35.
5. Transportation of garbage cans, ladders,
dock plates, banding strips, crowbars, pry
bars, come-alongs, flashlights and batteries
(when new from receiving to first point of
use) if they have been ordered by the main-
tenance supervisor.
6. Transportation of ink from receiving to
three storerooms.
7. Transportation of ink solvents from receiv-
ing to three storerooms and electrical shop.
8. Transportation of stationery supplies (except
to Building 55 dispatch).
9. Transportation of gas tanks to labs for use in
testing products.
10. Cleaning of the Miller Mall.
11. Transportation of sta-dri oil absorbents to
the oiler room and the machine shop along
with empty and full drums.
12. Transportation of boiler room cleaning
compounds.
13. Cleanup of tour center and all automobile
parking lots and perimeter fences.
3 The Employer presented a total of 22 grievances which were filed by
the Brewery Workers as exhibits at the hearing.
4 The parties stipulated as to the existence of this threat
14. Transportation of muriatic acid to clean
fountains.
15. Cleaning of streets.
16. Transportation of garbage containing ad-
vertising materials.
During the second day of the hearing, at the sug-
gestion of the Brewery Workers, the Hearing Offi-
cer ruled that the work in dispute includes the sub-
ject matter of the 22 grievances filed by the Brew-
ery Workers, as well as the items listed in Exhibit
A. The Hearing Officer, in announcing this change,
noted that Exhibit A was prepared by the Employ-
er and that the Brewery Workers never conceded
that it listed the work in dispute in its entirety.
Both the Laborers and the Employer immediate-
ly objected to the Hearing Officer's ruling. Howev-
er, in its post-hearing brief, the Laborers has with-
drawn any objections to broadening the scope of
the work in dispute. The Employer has not specifi-
cally withdrawn its objection, but concedes in its
brief that the work in dispute includes the work
listed in the Brewery Workers grievances. Accord-
ingly, we find that the work in dispute includes the
tasks that are the subjects of the 22 grievances filed
by the Brewery Workers, as well as those 16 items
included in Exhibit A. These grievances were pre-
sented at the hearing as Employer Exhibits 2(a)-(v).
The grievances specifically concern the following:
2(a) hauling janitorial supplies, beer and coffee
cups, and filling salt barrels; (b) hauling hand soaps
and paper towels to building 54; (c) hauling cups to
building 29; (d) handling advertising materials; (e)
transporting ink to building 29; (f) delivering truck
shipment tickets to the dispatch office; (g) and (h)
hauling petri dishes to the laboratories; (i) a general
pattern of Employer work assignments which al-
legedly contravenes the general trucking work list;
(j) hauling paper towels and toilet articles; (k) haul-
ing plastic garbage bag liners; (1) alleged continu-
ous Employer violations of the contract; (m) haul-
ing laboratory equipment to building 15; (n) haul-
ing paper cups to the brewhouse; (o) hauling paper
cups to the finishing supply room; (p) hauling
cleaning solvent to the engine room; (q) hauling
drinking cups to building 29; (r) hauling beer cups
to the brewhouse; (s) hauling petri dishes to build-
ing 36; (t) hauling oil absorbents to building 58; (u)
hauling oil absorbents to building 60; and (v) haul-
ing laboratory equipment to the laboratories.
The vast majority of the Brewery Workers
grievances, specifically 2(a), (c), (d), (e), (j), (k),
(m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (t), (u), and (v), concern
tasks that are listed in Exhibit A. In addition, there
are two tasks which are not directly includable in
items listed in Exhibit A but which are substantial-
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9 !
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ly similar to them. Specifically, grievance item 2(b)
may be dealt with along with Exhibit A, item 2,
and grievance items 2 (g), (h), and (s) may be treat-
ed similarly to Exhibit A, item 9. No testimony as
to grievance items 2(f), (i), and (1) was elicited at
the hearing. 5
Accordingly, the work tasks which are in dis-
pute may be categorized as follows:
1. Transportation of equipment and supplies from
the receiving area to various locations throughout
the plant. 6
2. Outdoor cleaning in specified locations.7
3. Transportation of garbage containing advertis-
ing materials."
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and the Laborers contend that
the work items in dispute should be assigned to em-
ployees represented by the Laborers based on past
practice. In addition, they assert that, with respect
to the transportation of unmarked hops and grain
to the laboratories and the transportation of gar-
bage containing advertising materials, it would be
more efficient and economical for Laborers mem-
bers to be assigned the work.
The Brewery Workers contends that the work
tasks in dispute should be assigned to its members
based on past practice and the 1955 worklist.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D)
charge has arisen. However, before the Board pro-
ceeds with a determination of the dispute, 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, binding on all par-
ties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As indicated above, on December 15, 1980, the
Brewery Workers threatened the Employer with a
work stoppage unless the Employer agreed to its
demand to assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by it. In view of this conduct, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. As
b Accordingly, we will not discuss or assign these work tasks in our
decision herein. These items include the delivery of truck shipment tick-
ets to the dispatch office, which involved a dispute between the Brewery
Workers and the Employer's messengers, and grievances alleging a gen-
eral pattern of improper work assignments by the Employer.
6 This category includes Exh. A, items I through 9, II, 12, and 14.
7 This category includes items 10, 13, and 15.
8 This category includes only item 16, which is unrelated to any other
tasks in dispute herein. It refers to advertising materials after they have
been discarded and mixed with other trash.
9 International Longshoremen's Association. AFL-CIO. its affiliated
Locals 799, 800, 805 and 1066. and its Boston District Council (Coldwater
Seafood Corporation), 237 NLRB 538 (1978); Sheet Metal Workers' Inter-
there is no contention that an agreed-upon method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute exists,
we find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for a determination under Section 10(k) of
the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to relevant factors.' °
The Board has held that its determination in a ju-
risdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on
commonsense and experience, reached by balanc-
ing those factors involved in a particular case.
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements and Board
decisions
The Brewery Workers collective-bargaining
agreement with the Brewery Proprietors, of which
the Employer is a member, states, inter alia:
PART I, ARTICLE XVI, JURISDICTION
4. It is specifically understood that the storage
and handling of brewery materials . . .
comes within the coverage of this agreement
6. The loading or unloading of advertising ma-
terials at the brewery . . . shall be per-
formed by members of the Union, provided
however, that such jurisdiction does not
conflict with jurisdiction over such work
which is performed by members of another
Union recorganized [sic] by the Employer.
In addition, the Brewery Workers agreement
outlines the work of each department in a separate
section of the contract. With respect to the general
trucking department, part VI, article I, states:
The work of General Trucking shall consist of
work as described in work lists which shall be
brought up-to-date after the completion of ne-
gotiations between the Union and each Em-
ployer on an individual plant basis.
The 1955 general trucking department work list,
which is the most current, includes, inter alia: haul-
ing materials used in the making or packaging of
national Association. Local Union No. 4. AFL-CIO (B & W Metals Com-
pany. Inc.), 231 NLRB 122 (1977)
"' N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Colum-
bia Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
' International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9 663
the beer; handling mechanized street sanitation
work; and miscellaneous intraplant hauling, includ-
ing hauling cleaning agents and materials in ac-
cordance with past practice, and hauling advertis-
ing materials as required.
The Brewery Workers asserts that the work list
requires that its members be awarded all outdoor
street cleaning work. However, the list refers only
to "mechanized street cleaning" [emphasis sup-
plied]. At present, the Employer owns no mecha-
nized equipment for this purpose. Therefore, the
work list does not require an assignment of this
task to employees represented by the Brewery
Workers.
The Brewery Workers also contends that the
collective-bargaining agreement and the work list
require that its members be awarded the work of:
transporting garbage containing advertising materi-
als, hauling unmarked hops and grain, and trans-
porting janitorial supplies to buildings 40 and 35.
We find, however, that the relevant provisions are,
at best, ambiguous with respect to these specific
tasks.
The Laborers collective-bargaining agreement
with the Brewery Proprietors includes, in article I,
a union-security provision which requires that
"[w]ork which is or has been exclusively per-
formed by members of the Union will not be as-
signed to employees of any other bargaining unit of
the Employer." We find that this provision is not
determinative of the instant dispute.
In 1970, the Board decided a jurisdictional dis-
pute involving the same parties. 2 However, the
work in dispute in that case differed from the work
contested herein,' 3 and the Board's findings and
conclusions in that matter are not relevant to the
instant dispute.
Accordingly, as noted above, we conclude that
the collective-bargaining agreements are, at best,
ambiguous, and that they, as well as the past Board
decision, are not helpful to a determination of this
dispute.
2. Skills
No evidence was presented indicating that mem-
bers of either Union are more capable of perform-
ing the work in dispute than are members of the
other Union. Accordingly, we find that this factor
does not favor an assignment to employees repre-
12 Local Union No. 113. Laborers International Union of North America.
AFL-CIO (Miller Brewing Company), 184 NLRB 233 (1970).
13 The work in dispute therein included: hauling tank tubes, beer
cocks, hose couplings. portable beer pumps, and hop carts for repair;
hauling yeast boxes; hauling lumber used for storing hop bales; removing
rubbish from Miller Inn and the administration building; and hauling
gloves and boots None of these tasks are involved herein.
sented by either the Brewery Workers or the La-
borers.
3. Employer and area practice
The record reveals that there is a general prac-
tice at the plant that members of the Brewery
Workers transport items relating to the production
of the Employer's product, and members of the La-
borers transport items utilized by craft union em-
ployees; i.e., members of the Carpenters and the
Machinists. However, the record reveals that this
rule has been subject to numerous exceptions, and
the Employer will assign work in accordance with
past practice if it dictates a different result.
Several witnesses presented by the Employer
and the Laborers testified that, for at least the past
15 years, members of the Laborers have been pri-
marily responsible for transporting the items listed
in Exhibit A, items 1 through 9, 11, 12, and 14,
from the receiving area to storerooms, boilerrooms,
and other specific areas throughout the plant. The
Brewery Workers witnesses testified, to the con-
trary, that members of the Brewery Workers have
been responsible for transporting the listed items.
However, the record reveals that members of the
Brewery Workers have only performed this duty in
isolated instances; i.e., following the conclusion of
the work shift of Laborers members. 4 While the
record is not entirely clear on this matter, it ap-
pears that it has been the Employer's consistent
practice to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by the Laborers on a regular basis.
With respect to transportation of laboratory
equipment, supplies, and materials from the receiv-
ing area to the laboratories, the record indicates
that this work has been apportioned according to
the size of the item. Specifically, members of the
Brewery Workers have hauled the smaller items
and members of the Laborers have transported the
larger packages. Gas tanks and petri dishes are
transported in volume in large boxes and therefore
have been hauled by Laborers members.
One exception to this general practice is that
members of the Brewery Workers have hauled all
hops, grain, and other ingredients. However, when
these ingredients have arrived in unmarked, uni-
dentifiable boxes that are similar to boxes that La-
borers members regularly haul, it has been the Em-
ployer's practice to assign the work to Laborers
members.
With respect to outdoor cleaning functions, in-
cluding street cleaning, cleaning of the Miller Mall,
14 Members of the Laborers work a single shift, which ends at ap-
proximately 4:30 p.m., while members of the Brewery Workers work
three shifts, spanning the entire day.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and cleaning of the tour center, parking lots, and
perimeter fences, the record indicates that members
of the Laborers have traditionally performed these
tasks using handtools. 5 Since the Employer has no
mechanical equipment to use for this purpose, the
Employer's practice has been to assign this work
exclusively to employees represented by Laborers.
With respect to the hauling of garbage contain-
ing advertising materials, the record reveals that
members of the Laborers have performed this task
whenever the trash was mixed and could not be
identified as solely containing advertising materials.
In contrast, pursuant to the contract and work list,
members of the Brewery Workers have hauled dis-
carded advertising materials when these materials
were not mixed with other trash.
No evidence has been presented to us with re-
spect to area practice other than at the Employer's
facilities.
Based on the above, we find that the factor of
Employer practice favors an assignment of the dis-
puted work to employees represented by the La-
borers.
3. Efficiency and economy
With two exceptions, this factor does not favor
an award to the members of either Union. Howev-
er, efficiency and economy of the Employer's oper-
ations favors an assignment of items 1 and 16 to
employees represented by the Laborers.
With respect to item 1, the Employer has as-
signed the work of transportation of unmarked
hops and grain to the laboratories to employeees
represented by the Laborers only when the dis-
patcher at the receiving area has been unable to de-
termine the contents of the package and it appears
similar to packages normally hauled by Laborers' 6
members. If this task were assigned to employees
represented by the Brewery Workers, the dispatch-
er would need to open every package at the receiv-
ing area in order to ascertain that it does not con-
tain hops or grain.
The record further indicates that an award of the
work of transporting garbage containing advertis-
ing materials to brewery workers would require
that this trash be separated from the trash to be
transported by laborers.' 7 The extra task would
serve to delay the handling of the trash.
15 On several occasions, the Employer has hired an outside contractor
to perform this work using mechanical equipment. At these times, in def-
erence to the 1955 work list, a member of the Brewery Workers rode
"shotgun" on the truck alongside the operator of the vehicle.
' A witness for the Brewery Workers, Union Steward William
Nuoffer, conceded that at times it is impossible to identify the contents of
an unmarked box without opening it.
17 Historically, laborers have been responsible for hauling trash
thoughout the plant.
Accordingly, we find that the factors of econo-
my and efficiency of operation favor the award of
items 1 and 16 to employees represented by the La-
borers. These factors do not favor the assignment
of any other work in dispute to members of either
Union.
5. Employer preference
The Employer continues to assign the work in
dispute to employees represented by the Laborers.
The record reveals that the Employer is satisfied
with and maintains a preference for this assign-
ment. Accordingly, we find that the factor of em-
ployer preference favors an award to employees
represented by the Laborers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole and after full consid-
eration of all relevant factors involved, we con-
clude that employees represented by the Laborers
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on past practice, Em-
ployer preference, and, with respect to items 1 and
16, efficiency and economy of operation. In making
this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to employees of the Employer who are rep-
resented by the Laborers, but not to that Union or
its members. The present determination is limited
to the particular controversy which gave rise to
this proceeding.
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
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
1. Employees of Miller Brewing Company who
are represented by Local Union No. 113, Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform the following work: trans-
porting unmarked hops and grain to the laborato-
ries; transporting janitorial supplies, including but
not limited to cleaning compounds, hand soaps,
paper towels, toilet articles, and plastic trash bag
liners, from the receiving area to buildings 35, 40,
and 54; transporting hot and cold cups to the bre-
whouse, fermenting cellars, finishing cellars, guard
office, laboratories in building 36, pipe shops, kego-
matic area, tapomatic area, 8 carpenter shop, build-
ing 29 mezzanine, building 63 engineering area, and
supervisory offices in buildings 29, 58, 54, and 60;
18 All locations listed herein are at the Employer's brewery in Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9 665
transporting coffee supplies including cups, sugar,
and cream, from building 66 to the management in-
formation systems area in building 35; transporting
garbage cans, ladders, dock plates, banding strips,
crowbars, pry bars, "come-alongs," flashlights, and
batteries ordered by the maintenance supervisor,
from the receiving area to the point where the item
is first used; transporting ink from the receiving
area to three storerooms; transporting ink solvents
from the receiving area to three storerooms and
the electrical shop; transporting bulk stationery
supplies from the receiving area throughout the
brewery with the exception of building 55; trans-
porting gas tanks and petri dishes to laboratories
for use in testing products; cleaning the Miller
Mall, streets, tour center, parking lots, and perim-
eter fences using handtools; transporting "sta-dri"
oil absorbents from the receiving area to the boiler-
room and machine shop along with empty and full
oil drums; transporting boilerroom cleaning com-
pounds from the receiving area to the boilerroom;
transporting muriatic acid from the receiving area
to the fountains; and removing trash in which ad-
vertising materials are mixed with other trash from
building 54.
2. Brewery Workers Union Local Union No. 9,
directly affiliated Local Union, AFL-CIO, is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require Miller Brewing
Company to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Brewery Workers
Union Local Union No. 9, directly affiliated Local
Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 30, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsist-
ent with the above determination.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL 9