Local 3-364 Woodworkers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1465 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LOCAL 3-364. WOODWORKERS
International Woodworkers of America Local 3-364,
AFL-CIO; I.W.A. Joint Administration No. 1,
International Woodworkers of America and Pot-
latch Corporation and United Paperworkers Inter-
national Union, Local 712. Case 19-CD-344
February 28, 1980
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed by Potlatch Corporation, herein called
the Employer, alleging that International Woodwork-
ers of America Local 3-364, AFL-CIO; I.W.A. Joint
Administration No. , International Woodworkers of
America, herein called the IWA, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscrib-
ed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign certain work to employees repre-
sented by it rather than to employees represented by
United Paperworkers International Union, Local 712,
herein called the UPIU.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer James P. Kobe on October 30 and 31,
1979. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam-
ine 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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is a Delaware corporation which as part of
its multistate operations produces lumber, plywood,
ply strand, wood chips, sawdust, pulp, paperboard
products, and tissue paper products at its Lewiston,
Idaho, complex. During the past year the Employer
had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and, during
' Maintenance electricians in the Pulp and Paperboard Division are
represented separately by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers. Local 73.
' The IWA's current agreement and the UPIU's current agreement with the
247 NLRB No. 193
that same period, caused goods valued at more than
$50,000 to be transported directly across state lines.
The parties also stipulated, and 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 purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find, as stipulated by the parties, that the IWA
and the UPIU 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 is engaged in the forest products
industry with substantial operations in Idaho, includ-
ing a large complex located in Lewiston, the site of the
instant work dispute. At the Lewiston or Clearwater
facility, the Employer operates three separate divi-
sions: the Wood Products Division, the Pulp and
Paperboard Division, and the Consumer Products
Division (not involved here). The Wood Products
Division (herein WPD) manufactures lumber prod-
ucts, while the Pulp and Paperboard Division (PPD)
manufactures various paper products; the divisions
have separate accounting procedures, personnel de-
partments, and management.
In 1944, the IWA became the certified collective-
bargaining representative for production and mainte-
nance employees in the WPD and since 1945 the
Employer and IWA have entered into a series of
collective-bargaining agreements covering those em-
ployees, with the latest agreement effective June 1,
1977, to May 31, 1980. The UPIU and its predecessors
became the certified collective-bargaining representa-
tive for production and maintenance unit employees in
the PPD' in 1951 and since that year the UPIU and
the Employer have entered into a series of contracts
for those employees, with the latest collective-bargain-
ing agreement effective July 1, 1979, to June 30, 1981.'
The WPD and the PPD operate side by side at the
Clearwater facility, generally separated by railroad
tracks. Over the years the physical location of particu-
lar work, whether within the WPD or the PPD, has
generally determined which employees are assigned
the work.
The Employer's decision to construct a new high
technology power boiler, designated Power Boiler No.
Employer both contain provisions that arguably require the Employer to
assign the disputed work to employees represented by the IWA and UPIU.
respectively.
1465
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4, at the Clearwater facility touched off the instant
work dispute. Power Boiler No. 4 will be a modern
high pressure power boiler fueled by wood byproducts
produced by the WPD. The steam generated by Power
Boiler No. 4 will be distributed throughout the
Clearwater complex with the PPD and Consumer
Product Division receiving about 85 percent and the
WPD about 15 percent. Power Boiler No. 4 is being
constructed within the WPD area. Site selection was
determined by space availability and by proximity of
the site to the wood fuel storage area.
Currently, within the WPD powerhouse the Em-
ployer operates four Kidwell boilers and one Riley
boiler. These are low pressure boilers that use wood
byproducts as a fuel source. The steam generated by
these boilers serves the needs of the WPD with the
excess piped to the PPD. In the PPD power recovery
unit there are presently four recovery boilers and three
power boilers. The PPD boilers are medium pressure
boilers fueled by natural gas and fuel oil.' The steam
produced in the power recovery facility is used to
fulfill the power requirements of the PPD and the
Consumer Products Division.
When Power Boiler No. 4 commences operation,
the four Kidwell boilers in the WPD will no longer be
operated regularly and will be placed on standby. The
operation of Power Boiler No. 4 will result in the
displacement of five WPD employees represented by
the IWA: one millwright position and four water
tester equipment operator and hog operator positions.
On the PPD side, the operation of Power Boiler No. 4
will result in one power boiler being placed on a
standby status, however, without any job displace-
ment.
Subsequent to the Employer's decision to construct
Power Boiler No. 4, the IWA, on September 14, 1978,
sent the Employer a written claim to the various jobs
related to the operation of the new boiler. The UPIU
similarly forwarded an oral claim to the work to Clint
Mourer, employee relations manager of the PPD. In
March 1979 the parties held two meetings in an effort
to resolve the competing claims. At the initial meeting
the Employer's representative explained that while in
the Employer's opinion the IWA had the stronger
claim to the disputed work, there were other reasons,
such as relative skill levels and the desire to have
employees involved in the operation of the system for
generation of steam at the Clearwater facility repre-
' The record reveals that from approximately 1952 through 1956 at least
one of the boilers in the PPD was fueled by wood fuel. The Employer
converted that boiler to other fuel sources at a time when it was more
economical to use natural gas and fuel oil as fuels. However. there remain
approximately 12 employees within the PPD who have had experience
operating power boilers powered by wood fuel.
' The UI'IU claimed the work of operating. controlling. and maintaining
I'ower Boiler No. 4, hut conceded that IWA-represented employees were
entitled to the assignment of the work in the fuel storage area. The Employer's
sented by a single union, that favored an assignment to
employees represented by the UPIU. The Employer
raised the possibility of a compromise solution. Noth-
ing having been resolved, the parties met again 2
weeks later. At the second meeting, Larry Ritter,
project director for the construction and initial opera-
tion of Power Boiler No. 4, suggested a compromise
plan assigning the work in the hog fuel and the
material storage piles to the IWA and the work of
operating, controlling, and maintaining the boiler to
the UPIU. No agreement was reached at the second
meeting.
On March 26, 1979, the IWA sent the Employer
another letter reiterating its claim to the disputed
work and on May 4, 1979, the UPIU did likewise. On
June 6, 1979, the Employer sent letters to the Unions
announcing its decision to assign the Power Boiler No.
4 jobs to employees represented by the IWA on the
grounds that: (I) wood-fueled boilers have historically
been manned by IWA-represented personnel; (2)
Power Boiler No. 4 will replace boilers manned by
IWA-represented personnel; (3) IWA-represented per-
sonnel will be displaced as a result of the operation of
Power Boiler No. 4; and (4) article XIV of the
contract between the Employer and the WA provides
that employees displaced by the installation of new
equipment be given an opportunity to operate the new
equipment.
Francis Bayer, Potlatch's corporate director for
industrial relations, testified that an additional factor
influencing the assignment was the desire to avoid
having shift supervisors administer two collective-
bargaining agreements, a result that would occur if the
disputed work were assigned to employees represented
by UPIU.4 Bayer further stated that prior to assigning
the disputed work the Employer considered other
factors, such as industry practice' and relative skills of
the competing groups of employees, but determined
that no relevant industry practice existed and that the
slightly more advanced skills of employees represented
by the UPIU was not a critical factor since either
group of employees would need a substantial amount
of additional training to operate Power Boiler No. 4.
The UPIU filed a grievance contending that the
award breached the terms of its collective-bargaining
agreement. On September 19, 1979, the Employer sent
a letter to the IWA proposing tripartite arbitration to
resolve the dispute. The IWA refused to arbitrate the
plans for supervision of employees working on Power Boiler No. 4 provide for
all of these employees to be supervised by a single supervisor.
' The evidence submitted with respect to industry practice established only
one similar situation, at a; Weyerhauser facility in Longview, Washington,
involving a modern wood-fueled power boiler at ai hlcation with both lumber
and paper operations. However, certain signifiantll differences were demon-
strated to exist between the Weyerhauser facility and the Enplpoyer's
Clearwater facility.
1466
LOCAL 3-364. WOODWORKERS
dispute and threatened to strike if the Employer
modified its assignment. On September 25, 1979, the
Employer filed a charge alleging that the IWA
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening
to strike if the Employer reversed its original work
assignment.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation, control,
and maintenance of Power Boiler No. 4 at Potlatch
Corporation's Lewiston, Idaho, complex.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the disputed work
should be assigned to employees represented by the
IWA. The Employer and the IWA maintain that the
collective-bargaining history, efficiency of operation,
and the Employer's preference require this result. The
IWA also asserts that the historical practice with
respect to assignment of work within geographic
divisions at the Clearwater complex and the impact on
jobs resulting from the construction of Power Boiler
No. 4 favor an assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by it.
The UPIU adopts the position that employees it
represents are entitled to the assignment of the
disputed work, maintaining that the Employer origi-
nally intended to assign the work to employees
represented by the UPIU, and further relying on the
factors of efficiency of operation, skills, and industry
practice.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been
violated and that the parties have not agreed on a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As noted above, the IWA informed the Employer
that it intended to institute various measures, includ-
ing the possibility of initiating a strike, should the
Employer attempt to reassign the disputed work.
Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we
find that there is reasonable cause to believe that an
object of the IWA's action was to force the Employer
to continue to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by the IWA and that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. No party contends and there
is no evidence showing that there exists an agreed-
upon method for the voluntary adjustment of this
In view of our decision herein, the IWA motion to dismis% the I(xk)
prceeding is hereby denied.
dispute binding on all the parties. Accordingly, we
find that this dispute is appropriate for resolution by
the Board 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 giving due
consideration to various factors. The following factors
are relevant in making the determination of the
dispute before us:
I. Employer past practice
The Employer's Lewiston facility is divided between
the various operating divisions located, for the most
part, on separate sections of the facility. Railroad
tracks running through the Employer's facility divide
most of the WPD from the PPD. It has been the
Employer's normal practice to assign work to employ-
ees represented by the union serving as the collective-
bargaining representative within that section of the
Lewiston complex where the particular work is
located. Power Boiler No. 4 is being constructed on a
section of the facility within an area traditionally
operated by the WPD and employing workers repre-
sented by the IWA. This factor, therefore, tends to
favor an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the IWA.
2. Relative skills
The record reveals that no employees currently
employed at Potlatch Corporation have the requisite
level of skills to operate Power Boiler No. 4. The
Employer has developed a training program that will
provide the employees assigned the disputed work,
whether they be employees from either of the compet-
ing Union, with the necessary skills. Thus, although
employees represented by the UPIU may currently
have a higher level of skill as a result of their operation
of the more sophisticated boilers located in the PPD's
powerhouse, since all employees assigned to operate
Power Boiler No. 4 will require substantial training,
the factor of relative skills does not favor either group
of employees.
3. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
employees represented by the IWA and has expressed
its preference that the disputed work be performed by
employees represented by the WA. We find that the
Employer assignment and preference favors an award
1467
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the disputed work to employees represented by the
IWA.
4. Job impact
Project Manager Ritter testified that the construc-
tion of Power Boiler No. 4 will result in the displace-
ment, and possible loss, of five jobs of employees
represented by the IWA. Conversely, he testified that
the operation of Power Boiler No. 4 would not have
any such impact on employees represented by the
UPIU. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an
award to employees represented by the IWA.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer presented evidence that an award of
the work to employees represented by the IWA would
result in increased efficiency because such an assign-
ment would not require the supervisors of employees
involved in the operation of Power Boiler No. 4 to
supervise employees from two separate units and
become familiar with and administer two separate
collective-bargaining agreements.' Thus, an assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represented
by the IWA will, if only to a slight degree, increase
efficiency of operation and therefore favors an award
to employees represented by that Union.
IBEW Local 73 represents a craft unit of maintenance electricians in the
Pulp and Paperboard Division. At the hearing, counsel for the UPIU stated
that it was not claiming the electrical maintenance work on Power Boiler No.
4. In the event UPIU-represented employees obtained the assignment of the
disputed work, the UPIU took the position that maintenance electricians
represented by the IBEW should be assigned electrical maintenance work on
Conclusion
Upon full consideration of all the relevant factors
involved, we conclude that employees who are repre-
sented by the IWA are entitled to perform the work in
dispute because the Employer's present assignment
accords with its past practice and its preference, and
provides for increased efficiency of operation while
resulting in a less severe impact on employees' jobs.
In making this determination, we are awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by the IWA,
but not to that Union 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 upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Potlatch Corporation represented by
International Woodworkers of America Local 3-364,
AFL-CIO; I.W.A. Joint Administration No. 1, Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, are entitled to
perform the work of the operation, control, and
maintenance of Power Boiler No. 4 at the Employer's
facility in Lewiston, Idaho.
Power Boiler No. 4. Although the record indicates only a small amount of
electrical maintenance work will be required on Power Boiler No. 4.
nonetheless an assignment of the disputed work to employees represerted by
the UPIU would appear to require supervisors to be familiar with and
administer three collective-bargaining agreements.
1468