Distillery Workers Local 263

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Distillery Workers Local Union No. 2631 and
Publicker Industries , Inc.2 and Teamsters Local
470, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Independent.3 Case 4-CD-167
August 17, 1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of charges by Publicker Industries,
Inc., alleging that Distillery Workers Local Union
No. 263 had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Em-
ployer with an object of forcing or requiring the Em-
ployer to assign certain work to employees
represented by Local 263, rather than to employees
represented by Local 470. A hearing was held be-
fore Patricia E. Eames, Hearing Officer, on June 2
and 9, 1967. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing upon the issues.' The rulings of
the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs were filed by Local 263 and the Employer,
which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Publicker Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania cor-
poration with its principal place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged in manufac-
turing industrial alcohol, alcoholic beverages, and
related products. It has a complex of plants and
facilities in the Philadelphia area, one of which is at
Linfield, Pennsylvania. The Employer annually
ships goods and materials valued in excess of
50,000 from its Philadephia and Linfield plants to
customers located outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania. We find, in accordance with the stipulation
' Herein called Local 263 or Respondent.
2 Herein called Employer
9 Herein called Local 470 or Teamsters.
4 Local 470 participated fully in the hearing, but through inadvertence
failed to intervene formally Thereafter, it filed a motion with the Board to
intervene nunc pro tunc In view of the foregoing and as no objection has
been filed, the motion is hereby granted.
of the parties, that Publicker Industries, Inc., is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, that Local
263 and Local 470 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work which gave rise to this
proceeding consists of jockeying truck trailers by
means of tractors between buildings at the Linfield,
Pennsylvania , facility of the Employer.
B. Background Facts
As noted above, the Employer operates a number
of plants and facilities in the Philadelphia area.
Prior to September 1966, the relevant operations
consisted of the following: In Philadelphia, a distil-
lery for spirits at Snyder Avenue; a distillery and
other operations at Bigler Street; a bottling plant at
Jackson Street, one side of which faced the Snyder
Avenue distillery; and a traffic department or truck
yard at pier 72-1/2, three blocks northeast of the
Jackson Street bottling plant, where tractor trailers
were stored overnight and where Local 470
truckdrivers reported for work each morning; and,
at Linfield, Pennsylvania, about 40 miles from the
above-mentioned plants, a large warehouse installa-
tion. The Linfield facility occupies a site of about
190 acres and includes 21 different warehouses, as
well as a bottling plant that had been shut down
from about 1954 until September 1966, when the
Employer reactivated it. This bottling operation in-
creased until December 1966, when Linfield
became the principal bottling plant, and the Em-
ployer closed what had been the main bottling plant
at Jackson Street. With the increase of bottling at
Linfield, the volume of jockeying work also in-
creased at that site.
Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees at all its Philadelphia locations have been
represented by Local 263 for 30 years. Although its
contract describes the unit as encompassing "all
employees,"5 in fact Local 470 has represented the
Employer's truckdrivers in the truck division of the
Traffic Department for 20 years. Both Unions have
S Local 263's contract with Employer, Art. I , Sec 2, p. 2, describes the
unit as
all employees . of Publicker Industries , Inc.... except Superin-
tendents . and Supervisors . all workers actually located at and
working at the executive offices . . and in the plant offices at
Pier 72-112 .
167 NLRB No. 22
DISTILLERY WORKERS LOCAL 263
current collective-bargaining contracts with the
Employer. Local 263 was certified by the Board in
1965 (Case 4-RC-6545) pursuant to a stipulation
for certification upon consent election, in which the
stipulated unit followed that in Local 263's contract
and was described as consisting of "all employees"
at the Company's various locations. However, at
the hearing herein, the parties stipulated that the
truckdrivers did not participate in that election, and
all parties took it for granted at the time that they
would not.
- All employees classified as truckdrivers are in the
truck division (headquartered at pier 72-1/2), are
represented by Local 470, and drive mostly tractor-
trailers.6 Prior to September 1966, they performed
all the work of transporting spirits from the distil-
lery to the Linfield warehouse and from the various
warehouses and the distillery to the Jackson Street
bottling plant. When they delivered a load to Lin-
field from Philadelphia, they jockeyed trailers
between Linfield warehouses, as necessary, before
going to Philadelphia with a return load. The
truckdrivers have at all times moved trailers
between other plants and from place to place at a
single plant.
As a result of the increased amount of jockeying
at Linfield growing out of its expanded bottling
operations there, the Employer concluded that a
saving would result if drivers were not required to
report first to Philadelphia. Accordingly, an agree-
ment was reached with Local 470 that two (later
reduced to one) truckdrivers would report directly
,to Linfield instead of to pier 72-1/2; that they would
spend the largest part of their workday jockeying
trucks at Linfield, and if necessary they would drive
trucks elsewhere.
Publicker has three "straight" trucks at Linfield,
which are not under the Traffic Department, for use
in transporting maintenance equipment. However,
based on uncontradicted testimony, prior to Sep-
tember 1966, sanders in Local 263's unit spent a
part of their workweek driving the straight job
trucks to haul such production materials as full bar-
rels, empty barrels, bungs, and (during a glass
strike) empty glass. Prior to September 1966, the
sanders did 65 percent of all moving of barrels with
the straight trucks, and the truckdrivers did 35 per-
cent of such moving using tractor-trailers. Since
then all barrels have been moved in tractor-trailers
by truckdrivers in Local 470's unit. Sometime in
March or April 1967, one of the sanders who had
been driving was changed to the classification of
checker and no longer drives.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Local 263 claims that the trailer jockeying should
be assigned to members of its unit because those
111
drivers do not leave the plant premises, and all work
at Linfield belongs to its unit since the contract
covers "all employees" at Linfield. It claims that
this intra-Linfield driving between buildings is
production and maintenance unit work, without re-
gard to whether a straight or tractor-trailer vehicle
is used. It further asserts that, prior to September
1966, the work had been assigned to sanders within
its unit. It points out that the trailers used to haul
the materials between the buildings are per-
manently located at Linfield and are not licensed for
use on the open highway. It also argues that effi-
ciency and economy of operation favor assignment
of this work to employees in its unit.
The Employer contends that its assignment was
proper and the work should be awarded to
truckdrivers represented by Local 470. It asserts
that it has always assigned jockeying to
truckdrivers; such assignment is more efficient and
economical; these employees possess the skills
required to perform the work; and safety of proper-
ty and persons and security of property requires
such assignment. The Employer claims that in as-
signing the work it has acted in accordance with its
contract with Local 470 and not inconsistently with
Local 263's contract. It argues further that an as-
signment to employees represented by Local 263
would add a new job to that unit and displace a
present Local 470 truckdriver.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows that Local
263 caused a work stoppage at the Linfield,
Pennsylvania, plant on or about April 21, 1967,
because of the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work to truckdrivers represented by Local
470. There is no contention or showing by the
disputants that they have settled their disagreement
or have an agreed-upon method of settlement. Ac-
cordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
IV. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
A. Certification; Contract
Notwithstanding the fact that the stipulated unit
in the 1965 election consisted of "all employees,"
it is patent that the truckdrivers were excluded and
were not considered eligible to vote therein. How-
ever , that stipulated unit did include all employees
at the Linfield location , and Local 263 contends
6 The few "straight jobs" (U e , engine and load-carrying portions in one
unit rather than two, as in the case of the tractor-trailers) which truck divi-
sion employees drive do not go to the Linfield site
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
that the coverage of its contract, which extends to
all employees at that site , includes persons driving
within the plant complex . On the other hand, Local
470's contract covers "any driver ... operating ...
on the highway , streets, or private road ," and this
could also include employees performing the
disputed work.
In view of the understanding of the participants
in the 1965 election that truckdrivers were ex-
cluded from the unit and the conflicting coverage of
the contracts of the contending unions , it is clear
there is no Board certification covering employees
performing the work involved and no clear contract
assignment of the disputed work.
B. Company, Area, and Industry Practice
As set forth more specifically above, prior to Sep-
tember 1966, the Company followed the practice of
having its truckdrivers jockey trailers as necessary
at Linfield whenever a delivery was made there
from Philadelphia . Beginning about that time, a
regular truckdriver was stationed at Linfield to han-
dle the jockeying. At its other facilities, the Com-
pany has assigned the work of jockeying trailers to
truckdrivers. While sanders who are in Local 263's
unit did some intraplant driving, they did not handle
the tractor-trailers at any time . Thus, the Em-
ployer 's practice would appear to favor assignment
to the truckdrivers . There is no claim that there is
any area or industry practice or any arbitrator's
award of this type of work.
C. Skills
The Company does not have a training program
for drivers of tractor-trailers and hires only ex-
perienced persons. Testimony shows that it
requires considerable specialized skill to drive a
tractor-trailer , but that such skill might be acquired
in a week or might never be achieved by an in-
dividual lacking ability . While the testimony is in
the context of "driving " a tractor-trailer , the nar-
rower problem involved herein is the "jockeying"
of such rigs , which is a more complicated maneuver
than straight driving . It thus appears that the work
requires skill and that truckdrivers possess the
necessary training while production and main-
tenance employees do not.
D. Efficiency, Economy, and Safety of Operations
Local 263 argues that when employees in its unit
are not engaged in jockeying , they are doing main-
tenance or production work under the supervision
of their own supervisors . In this connection , it notes
that supervisors of the truckdrivers are at pier 72-
1/2 in Philadelphia , some 40 miles away . The Em-
ployer counters that production and maintenance
employees have limited ability and cannot perform
the full gamut of truckdriving duties, and that they
would have to be taken from their normal duties
which might cause a disruption of the operations.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends that greater efficiency and
economy result from the assignment of an ex-
perienced truckdriver , and asserts that the work
was given on this basis . It contends further that
because a great deal of work involves hauling
trailers in and out of platforms , a dangerous condi-
tion could exist if an inexperienced employee were
assigned.
Under all the circumstances , we are not per-
suaded that the efficiency , economy , or safety con-
siderations justify an assignment to Local 263's
unit, while the safety factor particularly does weigh
in favor of an award to the truckdrivers.
V. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the
entire record, we shall not disturb the Employer's
assignment of the disputed work to its truckdrivers.
We find that the disputed work is the ordinary unit
work performed by truckdrivers represented by
Local 470. We rely particularly on the facts that the
assignment is in accord with the Employer's past
and present method of functioning ; the efficiency
and safety of the Employer ' s operation ; the posses-
sion by the truckdrivers of the skills to do the
disputed work ; and the similarity of this work to
work they have performed and do perform . In mak-
ing this determination , we are awarding the
disputed work to employees of the Employer who
are represented by Local 470, but not to the 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 , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby makes the following determina-
tion of dispute.
1. Employees of Publicker Industries , Inc., cur-
rently represented by Teamsters Local 470, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Independ-
ent, are entitled to the work of jockeying trailers at
the Em^1b s Li eid, Pennsylvania , facilities.
2. Distillery Workers Local Union No. 263 is
not entitled , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require Publicker
Industries , Inc., to assign the aforementioned work
to production and maintenance employees who are
currently represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Distillery Workers
Local Union No. 263 shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 4, in writing , whether or not it
will refrain from forcing or requiring Publicker In-
dustries , Inc., by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by Local 263 rather than to
those represented by Local 470.