District No. 10, IAM

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

DISTRICT NO. 10, IAM
District No. 10, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) and Local
Lodge 1862 and International Die Sinkers Confer-
ence and Milwaukee Local Lodge No. 140 and
Ladish Co. Case 30-CD-61
March 5, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Ladish Co. (herein referred to as
Ladish) on August 8, 1974, alleging that Internation-
al Die Sinkers Conference and Milwaukee Local
Lodge No. 140 (herein referred to as IDSC), and
District No. 10, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) and
Local Lodge 1862 (herein referred to as IAM), had
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was
held pursuant to notice at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on
October 1-2 and 21-24 and November 11-12, 1974,
before Hearing Officer Dana L. Hesse. Ladish,
IDSC, and IAM appeared at the hearing and were all
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the
production of forgings and other products from its
corporate headquarters located in Cudahy, Wiscon-
sin, and various production facilities, is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.'
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that IDSC and
IAM are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
I During the past calendar year , a representative period , Ladish
purchased and received goods and material valued in excess of $50,000 at its
216 NLRB No. 165
III. THE DISPUTE
881
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute,
For many years IDSC has represented diesinkers
working in Ladish's die room and IAM has repre-
sented welders working in the welding department.
Although both groups work on the dies used in
manufacturing forgings, the diesinkers have always
had exclusive jurisdiction over the work involved in
creating a die, regardless of the process used, while
assignment of the work involved in repairing dies has
been delineated by which process is selected to be
used. Thus, if repairs were to be done on a milling
machine, employees represented by IDSC did the
work, whereas employees represented by IAM did all
repairs using the welding process. The decision as to
which process is to be used in repairing dies is made
by a die review committee comprised of management
representatives, including die room and welding
department supervisory personnel. The committee's
decisions are based solely on economic and technical
criteria.
The instant dispute concerns the work involved in
using a process generally described as air arc
torching. The record indicates that as far back as
1954 welders were using an in-house manufactured
or "jury rigged" version of this process in their work.
The process involves the use of an electrode which
strikes an arc to the metal surface being worked on,
and melts away unwanted material. Connected to the
electrode is a forced air mechanism which blows
away the melted metal.
In 1967 Ladish purchased its first commercially
produced automatic piece of equipment utilizing this
process, intending that it would be useful in a variety
of tasks, including both the creation and repair of
dies. In anticipation of possible future jurisdictional
problems in using this piece of equipment, Ladish, in
January 1968, held a meeting with representatives of
both groups, at which the equipment's use was
discussed in terms of preserving traditional lines of
jurisdiction by assigning its use to either group
depending on whether the job was repair work or
creating new dies. Even though this understanding
was not totally accepted by all concerned, the
problem was obviated at that time by the fact that
that particular piece of equipment, being mounted on
a track, turned out not to be adaptable for repair
work. The problem surfaced again in the early
summer of 1974, at a time when an unusually large
amount of die repair work had accumulated due to
work scheduling problems. At that time, Ladish, in
the ordinary course of reviewing dies, determined
Wisconsin location directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin.
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the most efficient way to accomplish this large
repair job was to utilize the air arcing process, and
therefore assigned welders to air arc the repairs using
new hand-held torches. Because of the amount of
work involved and the limited space in the welding
department, some of this work was being done in
other parts of the plant, which brought it to the
attention of IDSC members and precipitated the
instant dispute.
B. The Work in Dispute
There was disagreement among the parties as to
what constitutes the work in dispute in this case,
inasmuch as none of the parties accepted the
description as stated in the Board's notice of hearing.
IAM contends that a broad order is required in line
with its description of the disputed work as including
removal of metal from dies, for whatever reason, by
any type of welding equipment-arguing that the air
arcing process is a welding technique. IDSC, on the
other hand, describes the disputed work narrowly, as
involving removal of defective metal around cracks
and checks in dies by using the air arcing process.
Ladish defines the work as removal of defective
metal or removing an existing worn out or obsolete
impression in order to prepare a die to receive
additional weld material by welders, which will, in
turn, be the metal removed by diesinkers in creating
or recreating a die impression.
As the record herein indicates some use of air
arcing by diesinkers, there is no justification for
granting a broad order as requested by IAM, nor
does the record require definition of Ladish's
processes beyond that upon which the instant
proceeding is predicated. We find, therefore, that the
disputed work is the work involved in repairing an
existing die by the use of the air arcing process.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Ladish and IAM both contend that welders can do
the disputed work more efficiently and economically,
that they possess greater skills , and that Ladish has
always assigned such work to welders.
IDSC initially contests the validity of these
proceedings , claiming any dispute over the work
involved herein has been previously settled by
agreement with Ladish .2 In the alternative IDSC
contends that diesinkers have always been assigned
the work of operating machines which Ladish uses to
remove material from dies and that the air arc torch
2 Although there is some showing in the record that Ladish's vice
president for industrial relations, during meetings following the grievance
filed by IDSC over the assignment of welders to do air arcing on June 19
and 20, may have indicated a -willingness to pay die room employees for the
time spent by welders in doing this work, it is clear that ultimately the
is merely the latest technological advance in such
machinery. In addition, it cites factors of its
collective-bargaining agreement with Ladish, as well
as various NLRB certifications, custom and practice
in the industry, greater efficiency of die room
personnel, and potential loss of jobs for diesinkers, as
favoring assignment of the disputed work to diesink-
ers.
D. Applicability of the Statute
As stated above, IDSC first became aware that
welders were air arcing repairs on dies around June
19, 1974, because the amount of backlogged work
required that some of it be done outside of the
welding department. A protest was made at that
time, and at a meeting that day between Vice
President Foley and IDSC officers, Robert Martell
and Richard Williams, Martell told Foley that his
Union was displeased with the assignment of air
arcing to welders and that if this work were not
reassigned to IDSC members IDSC might recognize
a picket line then in existence at Ladish's facilities. A
similar threat was made by IDSC representatives to
Foley on or about August 6, 1974, when he was told
that IDSC members would not do machine work on
dies that had previously been air arced by welders.
The August 6 threat was precipitated by the
assignment of Norman Easey, an IDSC unit employ-
ee, on August 5, to air arc dies in connection with
their repair. Easey's working was noticed by IAM
committeeman, Erv Kryszak, who called Foley and
stated that in "no way" will IAM allow a member of
IDSC to perform such work. Later that day Foley
received a phone call from the head of the welding
department, who relayed a remark Kryszak had
made to him that it was up to the Employer to decide
whether it wanted 1,900 IAM members on the street
or 400 IDSC employees. At 1 p.m. that day, the first
welder checked out sick and by the end of the shift at
3 p.m. 17 welders left the plant claiming illness. This
constituted the entire complement of welders present
in that part of the plant that day.
Accordingly, we find reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred
and that the dispute is properly before the Board 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 disputed work after taking
grievance was held in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding,
and was thus never finally resolved Further, inasmuch as IAM was not
involved in these meetings, any agreement reached would not, in any event,
have ousted the Board ofjunsdiction under Sec . 10(k) of the Act.
DISTRICT NO. 10, 1AM
into account the evidence supporting the claims of
the parties and balancing all relevant factors.3
We shall set forth below those factors which we
find relevant in determining the dispute herein.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements and
certifications
IAM and IDSC have collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Ladish, as well as various Board
certifications which describe the jurisdictions of the
respective Unions. IAM was first certified in 1945
and IDSC in 1948, each before the disputed work
was being done by Ladish. Board certifications are
therefore not meaningful in making an award of the
disputed work. Likewise, neither of the collective-
bargaining agreements unambiguously covers the
disputed work. We find, therefore, that this factor
does not favor an award of the disputed work to
either diesinkers or welders.
2. Employer's assignment , economy, and
efficiency
Ladish initially assigned the disputed work to
welders and its representatives stated that it prefers
that assignment based on its assessment that welders
working in their department can do the work more
efficiently and economically. In this regard the
record shows that the assignment to welders was
made by Ladish's die review committee in the
ordinary course of business, applying only technical
and economic criteria. The record also shows that
movement of the dies over greater distances within
the plant would be necessary, involving more time
and money, if the disputed work was done in the die
room as opposed to the welding department. Al-
though there is some evidence that on occasion when
dies are stored in the die room one of the movements
of the dies along the repair route would be eliminated
if diesinkers were assigned the work, there is no
evidence of the relative savings this would involve.
Accordingly, we find this factor favors awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by IAM.
3. Employer and area practice
The record contains testimony from various weld-
ing department employees who are IAM members,
that they have been doing repair work on dies using
the air arcing process since the mid 1950's, and it is
clear that welders were doing the disputed work on
June 19 and 20 when IDSC raised its complaint
which led to the instant proceedings. While the
3 N.L.R. B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting System ], 364 U.S. 573 ( 1%1); International Association of
883
record also shows that a die room employee operated
the automatic piece of air arcing equipment Ladish
purchased in 1967, the work involved there, as well
as the machinery, differed from that involved herein.
The only other evidence of die room personnel doing
the disputed work concerns that work which was
performed by Norman Easey on August 5, 1974, who
was admittedly assigned the work by the head of the
die room to "bring it [the dispute] to a head." In
addition, the evidence alluded to by IDSC that it
represents employees in similar shops throughout the
country who are performing this type work shows
that those employees are generally welders, which
does not favor awarding the disputed work to
diesinkers. Accordingly, we find this factor favors
awarding the disputed work to employees represent-
ed by IAM.
4. Relative skills
Welders receive extensive on-the-job, as well as
classroom, training in the use of all welding tech-
niques, including air arcing, as a regular part of their
induction into their craft. On the other hand, the
head of the die room testified that, although some of
his men have received some outside training in using
the air arcing process, this training is limited and no
die room supervisor is qualified to oversee air arcing
work. Accordingly, we find this factor favors
awarding the disputed work to employees represent-
ed by IAM.
5. Loss of job opportunities
IDSC contends that if the disputed work is
awarded to employees represented by IAM future
job opportunities for employees in the die room will
be limited. However, there is no evidence that the
present assignment of the disputed work to welders
occasioned any reduction in die room personnel or
that such a reduction will be necessary in the future.
There is a similar lack of evidence that additional
welders were hired to perform the disputed work.
Accordingly, we find this factor does not favor
awarding the disputed work to employees represent-
ed by either IAM or IDSC.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the
entire record, in particular the Employer's assign-
ment, efficiency and economy of operations, the
Employer's past practice and area practice, as well as
the relative skill and training of the employees
Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company),
135 NLRB 1402, 1410-11(1%2).
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved , we conclude that the employees of Ladish
who are represented by IAM, and not those
represented by IDSC, are entitled to the work in
question and we shall determine the dispute in their
favor.
Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to
those employees who are represented by IAM, but
not to that Union or its members.
Scope of Award
IAM and IDSC have argued that the dispute
extends to any use whatsoever of the air arcing
process and the award should limit such use to one
group or the other. There is, however, considerable
evidence that both diesinkers and welders have used
this process at Ladish's facilities within their own
realms of jurisdiction and that an award of work
delineated by the process used would therefore be
unwarranted. Accordingly, our determination will be
limited to the disputed work as described above.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the basis
of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following
Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Ladish Co., Cudahy, Wisconsin,
currently represented by District No. 10, Internation-
al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(AFL-CIO) and Local Lodge 1862, are entitled to
perform the work involved in repairing existing dies
by the use of the air arcing process.
2. International Die Sinkers Conference and
Milwaukee Local Lodge No. 140 is not entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
force or require Ladish Co. to assign the above work
to diesinkers represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, International Die
Sinkers Conference and Milwaukee Local Lodge No.
140 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 30,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Ladish Co., by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above
determination.