Brewery Workers Local Union No. 3, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 665 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, TEAMSTERS 665
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that, if the Union comes in, we will
"integrate" the plant, or permit Negro employees to work together with white
employees in the same functions and departments.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above-named or any other
labor organization by changing our vacation policy or practices or by chang-
ing the employees ' work rules , or in any other manner discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in any other concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act
VIKING BAG DIVISION, SHURFINE-CENTRAL CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office,
746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee 38103,
Telephone 534-3161.
Brewery Workers Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, ' Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Rheingold Breweries , Inc. and Local 56, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Firemen , Oilers, and Maintenance Me-
chanics, AFL-CIO. Case 29-CD-f8. October 31, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Rheingold
Breweries, Inc., herein referred to as Rheingold or the Employer,
alleging that the Brewery Workers Local Union No. 3, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein referred to as Local No. 3 or the Respondent, had
induced and encouraged employees of Rheingold to strike for the
purpose of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign particular
work to members of Local 3 rather than to members of Local 56,
International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers, and Maintenance
161 NLRB No. 52.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mechanics, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 56. A hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Stephan A. Weiss on July 1, 1966, at
Brooklyn, New York. All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence on the issues. The rulings of the
Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free of prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The parties did not file briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Rheingold is a New York corporation engaged in the brewing,,
sale, and distribution of beer and related products. It maintains au
office and place of business in Brooklyn, New York, herein called the
Brooklyn plant, which produces products valued in excess of $50,000,
which are shipped from said plant in interstate commerce.
We find that the Employer has been at all times material herein
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert-
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated that Local 3 and Local 56 are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in dispute
The work in dispute is the initial painting of the outside surfaces
of new large steel storage tanks, and the insulated walls and new
structural beams located in what formerly was a racking room of
the Company which is being converted into a "government cellar"
for the storage of beer.
B. The basic facts
The work in dispute is located in the main brewing building in-
Rheingold's Brooklyn plant. Prior to the time Rheingold decided to.
install a new government cellar in the main brewing building, it
had used the area as a racking room where beer was stored in barrels
for shipment. In the government cellar, the beer is stored in large
steel tanks prior to its being pumped into barrels or processed into,
cans or bottles.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, TEAMSTERS 667
To convert the racking area into a government cellar, it was
necessary to install new beams for the purpose of supporting the
tanks, and to insulate a portion of the room's walls. The two new
steel storage tanks were constructed elsewhere in the plant and
moved to the government cellar area. In order to transfer the tanks
into the government cellar, the walls of the room had to be removed.
Once the tanks were installed, the walls were repaired and reinforced
with large structural beams. Four layers of brick were used in the
reconstruction of the brick walls for approximately 4 feet above the
floor. Above that point two layers of brick and insulation were
installed.
The dispute involves only the painting of the prime coat on the
outside surface of the new steel storage tanks, the initial painting
of the insulated portions of the reconstructed walls, and the initial
painting of the new beams used to reinforce the walls. Local 56
asserts that it only claims the initial painting work and that it does
not seek jurisdiction over future repainting of these surfaces.
Separate collective-bargaining agreements are in effect between
the Employer and these two unions. In these agreements the parties
have attempted to define the jurisdiction of each union with respect
to painting in the Brooklyn plant. The agreement in effect between
Local 56 and the Brewers Board of Trade, Inc., of which Rheingold
is a member, provides that, " . . . the Employer will employ only
employees represented by Local 56 to do the painting and other
work done by members of Local 56 in the last prior agreement."
The pertinent clause in the Local 3 contract provides that:
Employees shall continue to perform the maintenance, painting
and wooden cooperage duties which they customarily performed
in their respective department in their respective plants . .. All
painting of equipment and surrounding departmental areas in
the Brewing and Bottling Departments shall be performed by
employees in the respective departments provided that the per-
formance of such work does not impinge upon the jurisdiction
of other unions whose members are employees of the Employers
and provided further that the present practice respecting new
construction painting shall be continued.
In an attempt to further define "present practice respecting new
construction" in the Local 3 agreement, the vice president of Rhein-
gold wrote a letter in 1952 to the business agent for Local Union
No. 69 of the Brewery Workers (the predecessor to Local 3) stating
that:
.. . it will be the policy of Rheingold to assign members of
Brewers Union Local 69 to all painting operations with respect
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the present structure and equipment of the Brewing Depart-
ment with the following exceptions :
Electric Motors
Pumps and their automatic controls
Sweet Water Rooms with their present equipment
Open conveyors
Drivers
At the time Local 3 members were preparing the beams in the
converted government cellar for painting, the business representative
for Local 56 contacted the vice president of industrial relations of
Rheingold and stated that on the basis that the conversion of the
racking room to a government cellar was new work, Local 56 had
jurisdiction over it, and that if Local 3 were allowed to continue
performing the new work, Local 56 would engage in a work stoppage.
Subsequently, all of the parties met and each local claimed the paint-
ing as a matter of past practice. Rheingold had no preference as to
which union performed the work in question. Subsequently, Local 56
appealed the disputed painting work to arbitration pursuant to its
contract with Rheingold. The pertinent section of that contract
follows :
In the event that a dispute should arise during the term of this
Agreement, between any other Union having a legitimate con-
tract with the Brewers Board of Trade, Inc., and Local 56, then
the dispute shall be referred in the first instance to the business
representatives of the respective local unions involved for settle-
ment. If the business representatives fail to reach a settlement
within ten days, then the matter shall be referred to arbitration
in accordance with the Voluntary Arbitration Tribunal of the
American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall be
selected only by the two Unions involved in the dispute and he
shall be a person acceptable to both of them. Pending the final
determination of such dispute, the status quo ante shall be
maintained.
Local 3 was not a party to the arbitration, and took the position
that they would not be bound by any award since there was no
contractual provision in either the Local 3 or Local 56 contracts for
arbitration without the consent of all interested parties. Local 3
advised Rheingold that if the painting work in dispute were assigned
to Local 56, Local 3 would engage in a work stoppage. Rheingold
thereupon filed the instant 8(b) (4) (D) charge. Although there
has been no actual work stoppage by either union, Rheingold has
held up the initial painting of the government cellar until the dispute
is resolved.
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, TEAMSTERS 669
C. Contentions of the parties
Local 3 alleges that a proper construction of its contract and the
letter referred to above, particularly in view of the past practice of
the Employer in assigning new painting work to members of Local
3, requires the conclusion that the painting of all brewery house
structures and equipment , whether old or new, in buildings or areas
presently in use, is within the jurisdiction of Local 3 members. It
contends that the 1952 letter was intended to insure only that Local
3 would not claim jurisdiction over the painting done by outside
contractors on new buildings.
Local 56 also contends that its members have customarily been
assigned new painting work in the plant, and since it is stipulated
that the contested structure and equipment are new, the work prop-
erly belongs to its members. Although Local 56 contends that it is
not bound by the 1952 letter between Rheingold and Local 3, it
alleges that a literal construction of the letter indicates only that
Rheingold intended to grant to Local 3 jurisdiction over painting of
existing present structures and equipment, and not new structures
installed in the plant.
D. Applicability of the statute
In a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board is only
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before making a determination of the
dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practice has arisen.
Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe, from
the work here in issue to Respondents' members rather than to the
coerced, and restrained Rheingold in an attempt to force it to assign
the work here in issue to Respondent's members rather than to the
members of Local 56. We accordingly conclude that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act has been
violated, and that this dispute is properly before us for 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 the
various relevant factors disclosed by the evidence.
1. Existing contracts and other agreements
It is clear from the record that the parties are not in agreement
over the meaning of the pertinent terms of their collective -bargaining
agreements and the allegedly explanatory 1952 letter, and that the
Employer has not consistently construed and applied the terms of
,670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these agreements in instances where disputes have arisen in the past
between these two unions. Although the 1952 letter evidences an
attempt by Rheingold and Local 3 to define Local 3's jurisdiction
with regard to painting work in the brewery, its language, as well as
the language in the basic agreements, is sufficiently ambiguous to
create controversy over its interpretation and applicability to par-
ticular work disputes. In fact, this controversy has arisen over the
applicability of the terms of these agreements to this dispute. Thus,
although the agreements involved herein have been utilized by the
parties in defining the jurisdiction of the two unions in many instan-
ces, they are not sufficiently clear to be dispositive of the issue herein.
2. Classification of employees and emyloyees' skills
The record indicates that there are no special skills required for
the initial painting of the structure and equipment contained in the
new government cellar, and that both the members of Local 3 and
Local 56 can equally perform the disputed work.
3. Custom and past practice
The record indicates that ordinarily all painting work in the
brewery, including the installation of new structures and equipment,
has been assigned to members of Local 3. In a few instances, Rhein-
gold assigned certain initial painting work in the brewery to mem-
bers of Local 56, or to outside contractors; however, upon the protest
of Local 3, the record indicates that generally the painting ;pork was
reassigned to the members of Local 3.
In one dispute in 1962, the work involved was essentially similar
to the disputed work in this instance. Rheingold at that time
installed a government cellar in another plant which required the
installation of large steel tanks and the destruction and snl.segneni
rebuilding of the walls to the room with structural supporting
beams. Rheingold assigned the initial painting work to members of
Local 3, and Local 56 protested the assignment of the work and
engaged in a work stoppage. The issue of the work stoppage was
brought to arbitration pursuant to an emergency arbitration agree-
ment, and the arbitrator ordered the Local 56 members back to work.
The Local 3 members were permitted to complete the painting of
the new government cellar, and although Local 56 indicated that it
intended to arbitrate the work assignment issue, it never brought it
to arbitration. In another instance, apparently in 1964, Rhein-old
installed a new automatic room for pumping keg beer designated
as a keg beer control room. A great deal of new structural work was
done, including the building of new walls and ceiling, and new
structural beams to support the tanks. As in the above-noted instance,
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, TEAMSTERS 671
the job of painting the room and equipment was assigned to the
members of Local 3.
Local 56 alleges that in three instances its members have been
assigned the job of painting new equipment installed in the brewery.
It claims that in 1959 its members painted new acetylene tanks which
were installed in the brew house; however, Local 3 alleges that it
objected to the assignment, and that, subsequently, the painting of
these tanks was reassigned to its members. Local 56 alleges that in
1960 its members were assigned the work of painting a new air tank
in the filter teller. Local 3 did not dispute this allegation. Lastly, in
1964, Rheingold assigned the initial painting of a new solution tank
in the brew house to members of Local 56. Although Local 56
acknowledges that Local 3 protested the assignment, it claims that
it completed the initial painting job. Local 3 contends, however, that
the painting job was completed by its members.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the evidence in this proceeding, we shall
assign the work in dispute to the members of Local 3. This conclusion
is based primarily on the past practice of the Employer in making
such assignments, including particularly its past assignments made
with respect to the construction of a government cellar in 1962, and
in addition, upon the collective-bargaining agreement and the 1952
letter which may reasonably be construed to grant to members of
Local 3 initial painting work in the brewery. However, in view of
the fact that the language in these agreements is ambiguous, we are
not making a broad assignment of all initial painting work to be done
in the brewery to Local 3, but are limiting such assignment to the
particular painting job where the instant dispute arose. In making
this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the emp]oy-
ees of the Employer who are represented by Local 3, 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 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following determination of the dispute :
Brewery workers employed by the Employer, who are represented
by the Brewery Workers Local Union No. 3, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, are entitled to perform the work of initially painting the out-
side surfaces of the steel storage tanks, the insulated walls, and
structural beams in the new government cellar in the Employer's
Brooklyn plant.