Customized Transportation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1998

327 N.L.R.B. 296 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 274
Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No.
40, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO and Customized Transportation, Inc.
and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), Region 2, and its Local
Union No. 101. Case 8–CD–465
December 14, 1998
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND
BRAME
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
on June 8, 1998, by Customized Transportation, Inc.
(CTI or the Employer), alleging that the Respondent,
Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 40,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO
(Respondent or Teamsters Local 40) violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engag-
ing in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the
Employer to assign certain work to employees it repre-
sents rather than to employees represented by Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Region
2, and its Local Union No. 101 (UAW Local 101). The
hearing was held on August 11 and 12, 1998, before
Hearing Officer Susan Fernandez.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error.1 On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, with a place of
business in Huron, Ohio, is a contract carrier engaged in
the interstate transportation of freight. In the course and
conduct of its business operations, the Employer annu-
ally derives gross income in excess of $50,000 from the
transportation of automotive parts from suppliers in
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio to Ford Motor
Company (Ford) plants located in Northeast Ohio. We
accordingly find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. We further find, based on the stipulation of the par-
ties, that Teamsters Local 40 and UAW Local 101 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
In 1996, the Employer maintained two facilities in
Ohio. The first facility was located in Lorain, Ohio.
Drivers represented by UAW Local 101 worked exclu-
sively out of this location. The UAW-represented driv-
ers performed, inter alia, “milk runs” by picking up
automotive parts from various suppliers and delivering
the parts directly to a Ford assembly plant in Lorain. The
Employer’s Lorain facility had no dock or warehouse but
was only a dispatch location. The UAW-represented
employees, therefore, did not perform dock work.

1 We grant the Employer’s motion to correct the transcript.
The second facility operated by the Employer was lo-
cated in Mansfield, Ohio. Drivers represented by Team-
sters Local 40 worked exclusively out of this location.
The Teamsters-represented drivers performed milk runs
by delivering automotive parts to a Ford assembly plant
in Avon Lake, Ohio. The Mansfield terminal had a dock
and a warehouse, and Teamsters-represented employees
performed the dock work. Ford accounted for 100 per-
cent of the Employer’s business at its Mansfield and
Lorain locations.
In August 1997, the Employer closed its Lorain facility
and informed UAW Local 40 that the drivers would be
transferred to the Mansfield location. The closure was
essentially at the behest of Ford, and was based on two
considerations. First, Ford was ceasing production of
certain automobile models at its Lorain plant. The Em-
ployer’s UAW-represented drivers had delivered parts
for those models from the Employer’s Lorain facility.
Second, Ford sought to eliminate duplicative milk runs
by UAW-represented drivers and Teamsters-represented
drivers to the same suppliers. In order to reduce costs,
Ford desired that only one truck stop at a particular sup-
plier regardless of whether the parts were ultimately des-
tined for the Lorain or Avon Lake plant; that the parts all
be delivered to the Employer’s Mansfield facility; and
that the parts then be sorted for delivery to the respective
Ford plants under a process known as “cross docking.”
The Employer’s Mansfield location had cross dock capa-
bility while, as noted above, the Employer’s Lorain facil-
ity did not have a dock.
1. Assignment of milk runs at Mansfield
Employer personnel along with a Ford engineer de-
vised a method to divide the Mansfield milk runs be-
tween the two groups of employees. The Employer de-
termined that the percentage of freight bound for the
Ford plants would be the determinative factor as to
whether the milk run would be driven by a UAW-
represented driver or a Teamsters-represented driver. A
UAW-represented driver would perform the milk run if
the majority of the freight was bound for the Ford Lorain
plant (formerly serviced by UAW-represented drivers). A
Teamsters-represented driver would perform the milk run
if the majority of the freight was bound for the Ford
Avon Lake plant (formerly serviced by Teamsters-
represented drivers). Following the milk run, the parts
would be brought to the Employer’s Mansfield facility
for cross-docking and delivery to the appropriate Ford
327 NLRB No. 60
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 40 (CUSTOMIZED TRANSPORTATION) 275
plant. Teamsters-represented employees continued to
perform the dock work at Mansfield.
2. The Employer closes the Mansfield facility and opens
the Huron facility
In March 1998 the Employer closed its Mansfield fa-
cility and transferred drivers represented by both Unions
to a newly acquired facility located in Huron, Ohio. This
move was made at Ford’s directive as a cost reduction
measure. The Employer bills Ford on a cost-per-mile
basis, and Huron is located closer to Ford’s plants than
the Employer’s Mansfield facility. In assigning milk
runs at the Huron location, the Employer used the same
percentage of freight/point of delivery method it had util-
ized at the Mansfield facility after the closure of its
Lorain facility. Teamsters-represented employees con-
tinued exclusively to handle the dock work at Huron, as
they had done at the Mansfield location.
In April 1998, UAW Local 101 filed a grievance as-
serting that the Employer was assigning dock work and
driving duties in violation of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the UAW. The
grievance was pending at the time of the hearing in this
proceeding. By letter to the Employer dated May 29,
1998, Teamsters Local 40 President Givens asserted that
the UAW by its grievance was claiming Teamsters’
work, and warned that Teamsters Local 40 would take
immediate economic action against the Employer if it
assigned that work to UAW Local 101.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute concerns the assignment of the
dock work at the Employer’s Huron, Ohio facility, and
the assignment of milk run driving routes out of the
Huron facility.2
C. Contentions of the Parties3
1. The Employer
The Employer contends that, by measuring the major-
ity of freight based on point of delivery, it has developed
a fair and neutral method for determining which set of
union-represented employees would be awarded the dis-
puted milk runs at the new Huron facility. The Employer
requests that the Board make an award affirming its cur-
rent method of assigning the disputed milk run work.
The Employer argues that such an award is supported by
past practice, Employer preference, and economy and
efficiency of operations.
The Employer argues that an award of the disputed
dock work to Teamsters-represented employees is sup-

2 The work in dispute is broader than that set forth in the Board’s no-
tice of hearing, which referred only to driving assignments. The Board
may after examining the evidence, broaden the work in dispute beyond
what is contained in the notice of 10(k) hearing. Construction & Gen-
eral Laborers Local 146 (Modern Acoustics), 267 NLRB 1123, 1124
(1983). The evidence showed that the dispute was not limited to driv-
ing assignments but also encompassed dock work.
3 Teamsters Local 40 did not file a brief with the Board.
ported by past practice, skills and training, and Employer
preference. It points out that Teamsters-represented em-
ployees have exclusively performed dock work at the
Mansfield and Huron locations, while UAW-represented
employees have never performed dock work at any of the
three locations implicated in this proceeding. Further,
the Teamsters-represented dock employees have received
forklift training and are certified to operate that equip-
ment, while there is no evidence that UAW-represented
employees possess those qualifications.
2. UAW Local 101
UAW Local 101 argues that the disputed dock work
and milk run driving work should be awarded to UAW-
represented employees based on the factors of certifica-
tion and its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. UAW Local 101 further argues that the fac-
tors of Employer preference and past practice should not
be relied on in this proceeding, because the method the
Employer devised for assigning the milk runs is neither
fair nor accurate. Finally, UAW Local 101 contends that
the selection of UAW-represented or Teamsters-
represented employees has no impact on the Employer’s
economy and efficiency of operations because the Em-
ployer need only satisfy Ford’s directive to eliminate
redundant milk runs and cross dock parts.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, two jurisdic-
tional prerequisites must be met. First, the Board must
find reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act has been violated. Second, the Board must
find that the parties have failed to agree on a method for
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
These jurisdictional prerequisites have been met in this
case. Both Teamsters Local 40 and UAW Local 101
claim the work in dispute.4 Further, the invocation of
grievance-arbitration procedures by UAW Local 101
against the Employer constitutes a demand for the dis-
puted work. See, e.g., Iron Workers Local Union 8 (Sel-
mer Co.), 291 NLRB 222 (1990). Teamsters Local 40
thereafter threatened that it would take immediate eco-
nomic action against the Employer if the work of Team-
sters-represented employees were reassigned to UAW-
represented employees. We accordingly find reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has
been violated. Further, the parties stipulated that they
have not agreed on a method to adjust this dispute volun-
tarily. We thus find that the Board has jurisdiction to
resolve this dispute.
4 Although Teamsters Local 40 claims all the dock work, it is willing
to accede to the Employer’s current method for the assignment of the
milk runs. UAW Local 101 claims all the dock work and all the milk
run work.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 40 (CUSTOMIZED TRANSPORTATION) 276
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Co-
lumbia Broadcasting), 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 experience,
reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular
case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J.A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402, 1410–1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
The bargaining unit descriptions in the Employer’s
contracts with both Unions include both drivers and dock
workers. The recognition clause in the collective-
bargaining agreement between the Employer and UAW
Local 101 provides that the Employer “frequently
changes locations” and that “work covered under this
Agreement is recognized as within the jurisdiction of the
UAW and is covered under this agreement.” The recog-
nition clause in the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Employer and Teamsters Local 40 provides
that the “terms of this Agreement shall apply to all em-
ployees in the classifications set forth herein located at
792 Fifth Avenue, Mansfield, Ohio,” and further states
that “the provisions of this Agreement shall remain con-
sistent with the growth of Employer’s Ford Motor Com-
pany business in the State of Ohio.” Thus, the Em-
ployer’s contracts with both Unions contain provisions
extending recognition to new locations in the event that
the Employer’s business grows and changes, which is
what occurred here when the Employer relocated to
Huron. We accordingly find that the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements is not helpful in awarding the
disputed milk run work or the disputed dock work.
Both Unions have been certified by the Board as the
collective-bargaining representative of their respective
bargaining units. Each certification covers drivers. Ac-
cordingly, the factor of certifications does not favor an
award of the disputed driving work to either group of
employees.
The certification of Teamsters Local 40 additionally
specifically covers warehousemen, who perform the dis-
puted dock work, while the certification of UAW Local
101 is limited to drivers. UAW Local 101 nevertheless
asserts that the description of the bargaining unit in its
contract specifically includes dock workers as well as
drivers, and thus the factor of certifications should not be
construed as favoring an award of the disputed dock
work to Teamsters Local 40. We must reject this conten-
tion because only the certification of Teamsters Local 40
specifically encompasses the employees actually per-
forming the dock work and the UAW-represented em-
ployees have never performed that work. Accordingly,
we find that the factor of certifications favors an award
of the disputed dock work to Teamsters-represented em-
ployees.
2. Area and industry practice
No evidence was adduced at the hearing regarding the
area and industry practice with respect to the work in
dispute. We accordingly find that this factor is not help-
ful in determining the dispute.
3. Employer’s past practice
It is undisputed that Teamsters-represented employees
have exclusively performed the dock work at both the
Employer’s Mansfield and Huron locations. There is
also no dispute that UAW-represented employees never
performed dock work at either of those locations, or at
the Lorain location which did not have a dock. The Em-
ployer’s past practice accordingly favors an award of the
disputed dock work to the Teamsters-represented em-
ployees.
With respect to the disputed milk run driving work, the
Employer’s past practice prior to the closure of the
Lorain facility was that UAW-represented drivers pri-
marily made deliveries to the Ford Lorain plant, and
Teamsters-represented drivers primarily made deliveries
to the Ford Avon Lake plant. After the closure of the
Lorain facility, the Employer began using a percentage of
freight/point of delivery assignment method. This sys-
tem of work assignment is consistent with the Em-
ployer’s past practice, because milk runs with majority
freight bound for Ford’s Lorain plant are assigned to
UAW-represented drivers, and milk runs with majority
freight bound for Ford’s Avon Lake plant are assigned to
Teamsters-represented drivers. When the Employer
closed the Mansfield operation and opened the new facil-
ity in Huron, the Employer continued to use the same
system for assigning milk runs. Accordingly, we find
that the factor of past practice favors an award of the
disputed milk run work to both groups of employees ac-
cording to the Employer’s percentage of freight/point of
delivery method.
4. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer’s vice president of administration, Fred
Griffiths, testified at the hearing that the Employer’s sole
issue with respect to economy and efficiency was that it
comply with Ford’s directive that it cross dock parts and
eliminate duplicative milk runs. The clear implication of
Griffiths’ testimony is that the work in dispute may be
assigned to employees represented by either Union so
long as these efficiency objectives are accomplished. We
accordingly find that this factor does not favor an award
of the disputed milk run work or the disputed dock work
to either group of employees.
5. Employer preference and current assignment
The Employer’s current assignment and preference is
that the disputed dock work be performed by employees
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 40 (CUSTOMIZED TRANSPORTATION) 277
represented by Teamsters Local 40. These factors ac-
cordingly favor assignment of the disputed dock work to
Teamsters-represented employees.
The Employer’s current assignment and preference is
that the disputed milk run driving work be allocated be-
tween the UAW-represented employees and the Team-
sters-represented employees pursuant to the Employer’s
percentage of freight/point of delivery method. These
factors accordingly favor assignment of the disputed
milk run driving work to both groups of employees util-
izing that method.
6. Relative skills and training
The Employer’s vice president for administration Grif-
fiths testified that drivers represented by both Unions
possess the same qualifications. We accordingly find
that this factor is not helpful in determining assignment
of the disputed milk run driving work.
Griffiths further testified that all Teamsters-repre-
sented dock workers have received training in operating
a forklift and are certified to do so. There is no record
evidence that UAW-represented employees possess such
qualifications. We accordingly conclude that the factor
of relative skills and training favors an award of the dis-
puted dock work to employees represented by Teamsters
Local 40.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that CTI’s employees represented by Teamsters Local 40
are entitled to perform the dock work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on the factors of certifica-
tions, past practice, skills and training, current assign-
ment, and Employer preference.
We further conclude after considering all the relevant
factors that the disputed milk run driving work should be
assigned to employees represented by Teamsters Local
40 and to employees represented by UAW Local 101
according to the Employer’s percentage of freight/point
of delivery method. We reach this conclusion relying on
the factors of past practice, current assignment, and Em-
ployer preference.5

5 Although the Board usually awards disputed work to the employ-
ees represented by one union to the exclusion of employees represented
by the other union, “it is within the Board’s power to preserve in the
In making these determinations, we are awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by the above
Unions, not to those Unions or their members.
Scope of the Award
The Employer asserts that a broad award is necessary
to avoid future jurisdictional disputes regarding the milk
runs. The record, however, does not support the granting
of a broad award under the factors we traditionally apply.
See, e.g., Teamsters Local 104 IBEW (Standard Sign),
248 NLRB 1144, 1148 (1980) (evidence that the work in
dispute has been a continuous source of controversy in
geographic area, evidence that similar disputes may re-
cur, and evidence that charged union has a proclivity to
violate the Act to obtain similar work). Accordingly, we
find that a broad award is not warranted, and the deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy that gave
rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Customized Transportation, Inc., repre-
sented by Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union
No. 40, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO, are entitled to perform dock work at the Em-
ployer’s Huron, Ohio facility.
Employees of Customized Transportation, Inc., repre-
sented by Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union
No. 40, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO, and employees of Customized Transporta-
tion, Inc., represented by International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), Region 2, and its Local
Union No. 101, are entitled to perform milk run driving
routes out of the Employer’s Huron, Ohio facility ac-
cording to the Employer’s percentage of freight/point of
delivery assignment method.

Employer the right to assign the work, in accordance with its past prac-
tices, to employees represented by either Union . . . depending on the
circumstances confronting the Employer when the work must be done.”
Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 234 NLRB 1121, 1124 (1978), citing
Machinists, Lodge 70 (General Electric Co.), 233 NLRB 356, 359
(1977). For the reasons set forth above, we find such an award to be
appropriate in the unusual circumstances of this case.