General Teamsters, Local 470

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 592 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local 470, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America ' and Philco-Ford Cor-
poration and Local 102, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO2
Case 4-CD-304
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
May 15, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as afnended, following
charges filed by Philco-Ford Corporation hereinafter
called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section
8(b)(4XD) by General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers , Local 470 , affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , hereinafter
called Teamsters . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was
held on January 24, 1973, at Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia, before Hearing Officer Allen Baron Roberts. The
Employer, Teamsters, and Local 102, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called IUE Local 102, ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the is-
sues. The Employer and IUE Local 102 thereafter
filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority 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 briefs and the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Dela-
ware corporation engaged in the manufacture of con-
sumer electronic and defense equipment . Annually,
the Employer does business outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania in excess of $50 ,000 per year.
We find, accordingly, that the Employer is engaged in
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters
and IUE Local 102 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer's headquarters are located in Blue
Bell, Pennsylvania, but it has manufacturing facilities
in the Delaware River valley at various places, includ-
ing Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, the location in-
volved in the instant case.
Willow Grove is one of several locations in the
Delaware River valley to which employees are as-
signed to perform transportation functions under the
terms of the Philadelphia Local Cartage Supplemen-
tal Agreement of the National Master Freight Agree-
ment . The Employer is a party to this agreement with
Teamsters. Four employees represented by Teamsters
are assigned to the Willow Grove facility currently
comprising Buildings 35A and 35B. Additionally, at
this facility, IUE Local 102 represents approximately
246 employees who are assigned to production and
services functions under the contract between the Em-
ployer and IUE Local 102. Teamsters and IUE Local
102 represent employees now situated at Willow
Grove who were previously assigned to work at the
Employer's Philadelphia facility (commonly referred
to as Plant 50) until the facility discontinued opera-
tions in December 1972.
In April 1972, the Employer began to relocate Plant
50 to a newly constructed building (Building 35B) at
Willow Grove. Building 35B was constructed about
100 feet from an existing structure (Building 35A)
which had been in operation since 1960.3 In May
1972, the Employer began limited manufacturing op-
erations at Willow Grove in Building 35B. The move-
ment of material and equipment between Buildings
35A and 35B by means other than licensed motor
vehicles was at that time assigned to employees repre-
sented by IUE Local 102. However, on May 19, 1972,
Teamsters filed a grievance alleging a contract viola-
tion in Employer's assignment of this work to employ-
ees other than Teamsters.
Thereafter, in July 1972, the Employer began using
Name appears as amended at the hearing Building 35A is a research and development center while Building 35B2 Name appears as amended at the hearing . is a production plant
203 NLRB No. 99
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 470 593
an asphalt pad situated outside of Buildings 35A and
35B as a storage area for material and equipment.
Employees represented by IUE Local 102 were as-
signed to move the material and equipment , unless
licensed motor vehicles were used, in which event
employees represented by Teamsters were assigned to
do the work. It is this work by the use of other than
licensed motor vehicles (usually by electric forklift
vehicles) which is the subject of the instant dispute.
Meanwhile, during this time Teamsters grievance,
filed in May, continued to be processed through the
various steps of the contractually provided grievance
procedure between the Employer and Teamsters. On
October 25, 1972, the Employer and Teamsters pre-
sented their respective positions to the Eastern Con-
ference Joint Area Grievance Committee and the
decision of that committee, which is the final step
provided in the grievance procedure, was that "move-
ment of material between buildings requiring the use
of forklifts or other wheeled transportation equipment
shall come under the jurisdiction of Local 470 [Team-
sters]."
On November 10, 1972, the Employer proceeded to
implement the decision of the Eastern Conference
Joint Area Grievance Committee. The Employer reas-
signed the movement of material and equipment be-
tween Buildings 35A and 35B from IUE Local
102-represented employees to those represented by
Teamsters. At this time also, Teamsters began to pro-
test the Employer's continued assignment to employ-
ees represented by IUE Local 102 of the movement of
material and equipment to and from the storage area
outside Buildings 35A and 35B. Teamsters claimed
that the Joint Area Grievance Committee' s decision
awarded this work also to Teamsters represented em-
ployees.4
On November 29, 1972, Thomas McCaffrey, an
official of Teamsters, threatened that Teamsters
would strike the Employer if the work of moving ma-
terial and equipment between the outside storage area
and Buildings 35A and 35B was not assigned to em-
ployees represented by Teamsters.' On November 30,
1972, the Employer, under this strike threat, did reas-
sign the work of moving material and equipment be-
tween the outside storage area and Buildings 35A and
35B from IUE Local 102-represented employees to
the employees represented by Teamsters .6
On November 14, 1972, IUE Local 102 filed a grievance under its con-
tract with the Employer alleging that the Employer violated that contract
when it reassigned the movement of material and equipment between Build-
ings 35A and 35B to employees represented by Teamsters. We have no
evidence as to the outcome of this grievance proceeding.
5 In answer to a question by one of the Employer' s officials , the threat was
repeated on December 15, 1972, by McCaffrey and Teamsters Secretary-
Treasurer William Gormley.
6 On this same date , IUE Local 102 verbally expanded its previously filed
On January 15, 1973, Region 4 of the Board, the
Employer, and Teamsters entered into a stipulation
approved by a United States District Court Judge that
stated that Teamsters should refrain from strike
threats concerning the movement of material and
equipment between the outside storage pad and
Buildings 35A and 35B by employees represented by
IUE Local 102. On the same day, the Employer and
Teamsters entered into a memorandum of under-
standing which stated that if the Employer should
reassign the movement of material and equipment
between storage pad and Buildings 35A and 35B to
IUE Local 102-represented employees and if Team-
sters subsequently were awarded this work by the
Board,' then four Teamsters-represented employees
would receive retroactive pay for the period of time
the work was performed by IUE Local 102-repre-
sented employees.
Thereafter, on January 17, 1973, the Employer did
reassign the work of moving material and equipment
between the storage area and Building 35A and 35B
to IUE Local 102-represented employees.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the movement of mater-
ials 8 by hand or equipment other than by licensed
motor vehicles between outside storage areas and
plant buildings located at the Employer's facility at
Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.9
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer takes the position that its assignment
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
IUE Local 102 is proper because of past practices and
because such is the most economical and efficient
method of assignment.
IUE Local 102, in agreement with the Employer as
to who should be awarded the work, cites the
Employer's past practices, the relative skills of the
employees represented by it vis-a-vis those repre-
sented by Teamsters, and the relative efficiency and
cost of the assignment as reasons that award should
be made to it.
Teamsters, at the hearing, claimed the disputed
work based on the grievance award of the Eastern
Conference Joint Area Committee regarding the
grievance to include as an alleged contract violation the reassignment to
Teamsters-represented employees of the movement of material and equip-
ment between the storage pad and Buildings 35A and 35B.
r The instant charge had been filed by that time.
8 At the time of the hearing the materials located on the storage pad
consisted of flammable chemicals , cable, packaging materials , and pallets.
9 If this work necessitated the use of licensed motor vehicles, the parties
agree that such work would properly be assigned to Teamsters represented
employees.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
movement of materials between Buildings 35A and
35B and its alleged performance of similar work in the
past.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(bX4XD) has been violated and
that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. As to the latter, the record
establishes that there is no agreed -upon method for
settling the dispute.
All the parties stipulated that on November 29,
1972, an official of the Teamsters 10 threatened to
strike the Employer if the movement of material and
equipment to and from storage areas outside of Build-
ings 35A and 35B at Willow Grove were not assigned
to Teamsters-represented employees. Further, John
Roberts , Employer's hourly personnel manager , testi-
fied without contradiction that on December 15,
1972, in answer to a question by him as to what would
be Teamsters position if the work in dispute were
reassigned from Teamsters to IUE Local 102, Team-
sters' officials McCaffrey and Gormley stated that
Teamsters would strike the Employer.
Based on the record we thus conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that there has been a vio-
lation of Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act and that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
E. The Merits of the Dispute
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company," we shall determine the appropriate assign-
ment of disputed work in each case presented for
resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after
taking into account and balancing all relevant factors.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
By article I, section 1, of its contract with IUE
Local 102, the Employer recognizes that union as the
sole and exclusive bargaining representative for all
employees on an hourly basis in production and ser-
vice . The agreement in relevant part also provides
broadly that certain practices or customs, called "past
practices," which have come into existence in the
course of the relationship between the parties, shall ,
10 Later revealed to be Thomas McCaffrey , vice president and business
manager of Teamsters.
n International Association ofMachinists , Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
to the extent they are not inconsistent with the terms
of the contract , be binding on the parties except as
noted.
The Local Cartage Agreement between the Em-
ployer and Teamsters states at article 40 , section 2,
that the employees covered by that agreement include
in relevant part ". . . employees used in dock work,
checking, stacking, loading, unloading, handling, ship-
ping , receiving , switching, forklift, Teamster Rigger,
and assembling or drag line and allied work." (Em-
phasis supplied.) The same section also provides that:
It is understood , however, that the term employ-
ee shall be construed to mean those employees of
the Employer employed directly and indirectly
by and/or under the control of the Employer,
and who are represented by the Local Union or
during the life of this Agreement may come to be
represented by the Local Union.12
The Board will rely on a contract 's provision if the
assignment of the work in dispute is made in clear and
unambiguous terms in that contract . Such is not the
case with IUE Local 102's contract which broadly
covers production and service work at the Employer.
And while the Teamsters contract states it covers
"forklift" work, it also states that it covers loading,
unloading, shipping and receiving , which jobs have
traditionally been done by IUE Local 102 with no
claim ever having been made to that work by Team-
sters. Also, this work jurisdiction clause only applies
where the employees performing the work are repre-
sented by Teamsters . The employees performing the
work in dispute were represented by IUE Local 102.
On balance we find that the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements weighs in neither IUE Local
102's nor Teamsters ' favor.
2. Employer's assignment and past practice
The storage pad area between Buildings 35A and
35B was completed in July 1972. From that time until
November 30, 1972, when such work was reassigned
under Teamsters strike threat, the disputed work was
assigned by the Employer to IUE Local 102.13 Addi-
tionally, Edward Chapin, Employer's supervisor of
material handling at the Willow Grove facility, testi-
fied (1) that there was no distinction between the work
12 Additionally, the National Master Freight Agreement , to which the
Employer and Teamsters are signatories and to which the Local Cartage
Agreement is a supplement, states that the master agreement is not applicable
to "those operations of the Employer where the employees are covered by
a collective bargaining agreement with a Union not signatory to this agree-
ment or to those employees who have not designated a signatory Union as
their collective bargaining agent."
13 There was also evidence that in 1970 at Building 35A (then simply
Building 35), the Employer had stored materials in a number of large cargo
containers some 1,000 feet from Building 35A. These materials were moved
from these containers to Building 35A by forklifts which were operated by
employees represented by IUE Local 102.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 470 595
functions assigned to IUE Local 102 at Willow Grove
and at its predecessor Plant 5014 and (2) that at' Plant
50 Teamster-represented employees were never in-
volved in the operation of forklift or material han-
dling equipment." Such work, according to Chapin,
was assigned to employees represented by IUE Local
102.16
Teamsters evidence that it has done some of the
work in dispute in the past for the Employer demons-
trated that it had done so (1) only when licensed motor
vehicles were used or (2) at a plant where IUE Local
102 did not represent employees or (3) as noted in
footnote 15 above.
We find that it has been the practice of the Employ-
er to assign the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by IUE Local 102. Such a practice, which the
Employer wishes to continue, is a factor favorable to
the continued performance of the work by these em-
ployees.
3. Economy and efficiency
The Employer and IUE Local 102 state that assign-
ing the work in dispute to IUE Local 102-represented
employees is the most efficient and economical meth-
od of handling the work in dispute.
Employer's representative Chapin testified that in
the period from November 30, 1972 to January 17,
1973 (that time in which Teamsters handled the work
in dispute) the Employer had incurred delays in the
movement of materials from the storage pad area to
the requested production area . He stated the delays
resulted because an IUE Local 102 represented em-
ployee would have to drive his vehicle to the receiving
area and then wait until a Teamsters represented em-
ployee was available to accompany him out to the
pad." Once at the pad, the IUE Local 102-represented
employee would then select the material and the
14 The materials now stored on the outside storage pad at Willow Grove
facility were stored within the confines of Plant 50 itself when that plant was
operational . Chapin testified , however, that the location of the material, i.e.,
whether it be inside or outside the plant , was not determinative of which
union-represented employees were to perform the work . Prior to Chapin's
present position he was a supervisor of production planning and control at
plant 50.
15 A Teamsters witness did testify that in 1946 he saw Teamsters -repre-
sented employees driving forklift trucks in Plant 50 . The witness was not
specific as to the full extent of the assignment of work at that time , however,
and could recall no such further assignment at Plant 50.
16 However , at the hearing it was revealed that a small portion of the work
of moving materials at Plant 50 was done by employees represented by IUE
Local 101 , not IUE Local 102. Further , the evidence showed that IUE Local
101 continues to represent certain employees at the Willow Grove facility.
IUE Local 101 represented at Plant 50 , and represents , at the new facility,
maintenance employees. Its members transported maintenance materials
such as paints and oils at Plant 50 and continues to do so at the Willow Grove
facility . IUE Local 101 is not a party to these proceedings and therefore any
award of work does not encompass it or any work to which it may have claim.
17 There are four Teamsters -represented employees at the Willow Grove
facility.
Teamsters-represented employee would then move
the material to the appropriate building while the IUE
Local 102-represented employee would walk back.
Chapin testified that even when Teamsters was as-
signed this work, it was necessary that an IUE Local
102-represented employee go along in order to select
the desired materials. There are certain flammable
materials in the storage area for which there are cer-
tain handling requirements. IUE Local 102-repre-
sented employees had a familiarity with the
requirements of the various materials that Teamsters
did not possess.
Commenting further, Chapin testified that no de-
lays occurred when the work in dispute was assigned
to IUE Local 102-represented employees and that de-
lays were caused when Teamsters-represented em-
ployees were assigned to the work in dispute could
affect production operations with a cumulative effect
that would result in some cost penalties and would
affect delivery deadlines of the Employer's products
to its customers including the United States Depart-
ment of Defense, to which the Employer ships certain
defense related items.
We find the factors of economy and efficiency fa-
vor the assignment of the disputed work to employees
represented by IUE Local 102.
4. Board certifications and prior awards
There is no evidence indicating that a Board certifi-
cation covers the disputed work.
Teamsters has claimed the work in dispute here on
the basis of an award to it by the Eastern Conference
Joint Area Grievance Committee regarding the move-
ment of materials between Buildings 35A and 35B.
We note that the grievance on which the award was
based was filed on May 19, 1972, some 2 months
before the storage pad area here in question became
operational. We note also that the individual who
stated that he filed that grievance testified that, at the
time he filed the grievance, he did not contemplate
that the grievance encompassed jurisdictional claims
to materials stored on the outside storage pad.
Further, we note that, although the pad had been
operational for some 3 months at the time the area
grievance committee issued its award, there is no evi-
dence that the work in dispute had been a topic of the
grievance. The final award of that committee specifi-
cally states that the claim of the Teamsters be upheld
"in that movement of material between buildings re-
quiring the use of forklifts or other wheeled transpor-
tation equipment shall come under the jurisdiction"
of Teamsters and makes no mention of the work in
dispute here.
As importantly, we note that IUE Local 102 was
5% DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not a party to the grievance proceedings before the
area grievance committee and, that there are no spe-
cific reasons listed in the area grievance committee's
statement of award detailing the rationale for that
award being made to Teamsters.
On the basis of the foregoing, we deem the award
of related work to Teamsters by the Area Grievance
Committee of no significance here.
Conclusions
Upon the entire record, and after full consideration
of all relevant factors here involved , we believe that
employees represented by IUE Local 102 are entitled
to perform the work in dispute . This award is support-
ed by Employer's assignment of the work to employ-
ees represented by IUE Local 102, the relative
efficiency that results and the concurrent economies
of such an assignment . 1$ In making this award, we are
assigning the work to employees represented by IUE
Local 102 rather than to that organization itself or its
members. Our present determination is limited to the
particular controversy which gave rise to this proceed-
ing.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
" As noted supra, fn. 16, IUE Local 101 was not a party to these proceed-
ings and therefore the award of work here to IUE Local 102 does not cover
any work which arguably may be that of WE Local 101
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Philco-Ford Corporation who
currently are represented by Local 102, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of moving
materials by hand or equipment, other than by li-
censed motor vehicles, between outside storage areas
and plant buildings located at the Employer's facility
at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.
2. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Local 470, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, is not and has not been
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act to force or require Philco-Ford Corporation,
to assign the above-described work to its members or
employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 470,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, shall notify the Regional Director for Re-
gion 4, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pros-
cribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the
work in dispute to employees represented by it rather
than to employees represented by Local 102 , Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO.