Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, District No. 10

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 688 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, District No. 10 , AFL-CIO' and
Miller Brewing Company and Local 494 , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO-CLC.' Case 30-CD-64
February 2, 1976
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act,' as amended, follow-
ing charges filed on June 2, 1975, by Miller Brewing
Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, District No. 10, AFL-CIO, herein
called Machinists, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining the
Employer with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign certain work to employees represented by Ma-
chinists rather than to employees represented by Lo-
cal 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called Electricians.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Larry Brennan, on August 11 and
12, 1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties
filed briefs.
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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings:
$500,000 from said operation; and that annually in
the course and conduct of its business the Employer
both ships and receives goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 to and from points located directly
outside the State of Wisconsin. Accordingly, we find
that the Employer is 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 jurisdi-
cation herein.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Ma-
chinists and Electricians are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the electrical repair work on
battery-powered forklift trucks.
B. Background
The Employer uses these trucks in the course of its
operations. At the facility involved herein, the Em-
ployer operates a vehicle repair shop manned by me-
chanics represented by the Machinists and an elec-
trical shop staffed by employees represented by the
Electricians. Prior to 1973, the Employer had from
three to five battery-powered trucks. In 1973, the
Employer purchased and put into operation approxi-
mately 34 additional battery-powered trucks. On Oc-
tober 9, 1973, the Electricians filed a grievance over
the Employer's award of the electrical repairs on
these trucks to the machinists and, in late 1974, sub-
mitted the dispute to arbitration pursuant to its col-
lective-bargaining contract with the Employer. On
May 15, 1975, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to
assign the work to the electricians immediately.
Upon notification of this award, the Machinists, by
letter dated May 27, 1975, threatened a work stop-
page should the Employer award the work to the
electricians.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Wis-
consin corporation, operates breweries and related
facilities throughout the United States, including its
herein involved Milwaukee, Wisconsin, facilities;
that during the past year, a representative period, the
Employer realized gross revenues in excess of
1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Electricians claims the disputed work by vir-
tue of the qualifications and experience of its mem-
bers, past practice and area practice, the arbitrator's
award of the work to its members under its contract
with the Employer, and overall efficiency.
Both the Employer and the Machinists contend
that the disputed work should be awarded to the ma-
222 NLRB No. 107
INT'L ASS'N OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT NO. 10 689
chinists because they have, without interruption, per-
formed the electrical maintenance and repair work
on these vehicles since they were first used by the
Employer, they possess the skills required to perform
this work, the contract between the Machinists and
the Employer awards this work to the machinists,
and economy and plant efficiency dictate that the
work be performed by the machinists.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The Board is satisfied that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio-
lated and that there is no agreed-upon method for
voluntary settlement of the dispute. As to the latter,
the record does not show the existence of any private
means of adjustment of the dispute 2 and, as set forth
above, the Machinists threatened a work stoppage if
the work were assigned to the electricians. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that the dispute is properly before
us for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
In accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act the
Board -has given consideration to various relevant
factors in reaching its conclusion as to the award of
the disputed work.
1. Prior National Labor Relations Board
certifications
On November 2, 1950, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board in Case 13-RC-1101 certified the Ma-
chinists as the exclusive representative of all employ-
ees in the appropriate unit therein. The unit included,
inter alia, those employees who performed "mechani-
cal repairing, and the making, assembling, erecting,
dismantling and repairing of all machinery of all de-
scriptions and parts thereof, including gasoline, die-
sel, and electric trucks and automobiles ...."
There is no outstanding certification of the Electri-
cians. Inasmuch as the certification appears to cover
machinists engaged in the repairing of electric trucks,
albeit no specific reference is made to electrical re-
pair work on such vehicle, it seems that this factor
supports the award of the work in dispute to the ma-
chinists.
2 The record indicates that a chapter 20 proceeding has been instituted
before the dispute council of the AFL-CIO However, no evidence shows
that the Employer, a necessary party to any voluntary settlement, had
agreed to any such procedure To the contrary , none of the parties contends
that there exists an "agreed upon method for voluntary settlement of the
dispute "
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Machinists defines the jurisdiction
of that Union in terms identical to the unit descrip-
tion in the Machinists certification. Thus, on its face,
the Machinists contract would appear to support the
award of the work in dispute to the machinists.
The Electricians contends, however, that its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement assigns to electricians "all
work coming under the jurisdiction of the Union, as
recognized by the American Federation of Labor
covering this locality...." In addition, the Electri-
cians asserts that in June 1958 the - Employer, by
posted notice, awarded the work of repairing "elec-
trical parts such as switches, relays, coils, contact fin-
gers, control and power wiring" on battery-operated
lift trucks to the electricians, thereby giving them jur-
isdication over the work in dispute.
Thus, notwithstanding which group may have ac-
tually performed the work in dispute, the jurisdic-
tional provisions of these contracts appear to provide
both the Electricians and Machinists with a colorable
claim to the work in dispute.'
3. Area and industry practice
The evidence on area and industry practice is in-
conclusive. The record shows that at the Schlitz and
Pabst breweries, the other two employers in the Mil-
waukee Brewery Proprietors Association, the electri-
cians perform electrical repairs on the lift trucks at
the Schlitz brewery, while the machinists are assigned
the electrical repair work on the electric lift trucks at
the Pabst brewery.
4. Skills and safety
The record shows that both electricians and ma-
chinists have the necessary skills and training to do
the work in dispute.
5. Employer assignment and preference
The disputed work is now being performed by em-
ployees represented by the Machinists 4 pursuant to
3 Inasmuch as the Machinists was not a party to the 1974 -75 arbitration
proceeding in which the work in dispute was awarded to the electricians, the
award cannot bind it We have considered the award only for the limited
purpose of interpreting the Electricians contract with the Company Interna-
tional Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America and Albany
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23 (J R. Condon & Sons, Inc.).
148 NLRB 356, 359, In 5 (1964)
4 Notwithstanding the aforementioned 1958 award of the work in dispute
to the electricians, the testimony shows that for the past several years me-
chanics have been performing almost all of the repairs on the battery-pow-
ered lift trucks, with only occasional repairs being done by electricians It
Continued
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employers assignment. The Employer prefers
that the work be performed by machinists. The
Employer's current assignment and preference thus
favor the award of the work to these employees.
6. Economy and efficiency
The electricians are currently stationed in an elec-
trical repair shop located in a building across the
street from the garage repair shop. There are no elec-
tricians located in the garage. The Employer's wit-
nesses testified that the assignment of the disputed
work to the electricians would require the estab-
lishment of a separate vehicle repair facility for the
electricians to make electrical repairs with additional
or rearrangement of supervision to provide on-the-
job supervision within the electricians' unit.
The Employer's garage has the responsibility to
maintain all of the Employer's rolling stock. In line
with this responsibility, the mechanics have been
doing all of the "electrical" repairs on trucks, cars,
and other vehicles, including the power-operated lift
trucks. There is no question but that, if any part in
the electrical system of a gasoline- or propane-pow-
ered truck required adjustment or replacement, the
mechanics would perform this work without claim or
dispute by the electricians. However, if now the same
adjustments or replacements are involved on the bat-
tery-powered trucks, the work is claimed by the Elec-
tricians. Award of this work to the electricians would
entail inefficient divisions of work and likely delays
concerning battery-powered lift trucks brought into
the garage for repairs. Mechanics would perform var-
ious inspections and tests on these trucks, including
the use of electrical testing equipment, and make all
repairs but "electrical" ones, which would have to be
referred to electricians. For example, if it were de-
termined that the points needed adjusting, an electri-
cian would have to be summoned to do it. Thus, a
mechanic would have, to notify his foreman to re-
quest an electrician and the foreman would have to
contact the electrical foreman regarding the request.
Next, the latter would have to find an available elec-
trician. Only then would an electrician go to the ga-
rage and make the adjustment-the same adjustment
mechanics would make on any of the other types of
vehicle in the garage. Similarly, the removal of the
electric drive motor in a battery-powered truck
would involve several hours of work by the mechanic
who would then have to call for an electrician to
disconnect and tag the wires before the motor could
was not until the Employer substantially increased the number of battery-
powered trucks that the Electricians made its claim for all of the work in
dispute
be lifted out , a job that would take no more than 15
minutes and one the mechanics are qualified to per-
form.
In addition to the above , awarding this work to the
electricians would necessitate the Employer 's chang-
ing its garage parts room operation which is currently
within the mechanics ' work jurisdiction. The
Employer's witnesses testified that the existing parts
room stocks over $250,000 worth of "electrical" parts
for all of its various types of vehicles, and that, if the
work in question was awarded to the electricians, a
separate parts section or room would have to be
maintained for the electrical parts necessary to repair
and maintain the battery-powered trucks.
In these circumstances , we conclude that an award
of the work in dispute to the electricians would result
in expenditures for additional facilities , increased
costs in repairs , and probably increased downtime
for disabled vehicles. Accordingly, we find that econ-
omy and efficiency of operation favor the award of
the work in dispute to employees represented by the
Machinists.
Conclusions
Upon the entire' record, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors here involved, we find
that-employees represented by the Machinists are en-
titled to perform the work in dispute. This award is
supported by the Machinists 1950 certification, the
Employer's assignment of the work in dispute to the
machinists, the Employer's preference, and the econ-
omy and efficiency of operations which would result
from the machinists rather than the electricians mak-
ing electrical repairs on the battery-powered lift
trucks. In making this award, we are assigning the
work to employees represented by the Machinists
rather than to that organization itself or its members.
Our present determination is limited to the particular
dispute which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act,_ as amended, and on 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:
Employees of Miller Brewing Company who are
represented by International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, District No. 10, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work of
making electrical repairs to battery-powered lift
trucks at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, fa-
cility.