Local Union No. 113, Laborers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 233 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 233
Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO' and Miller Brewing
Company and Local Union No. 9, of the Interna-
tional Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal,
Malt, Yeast, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CD-15
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
During the past calendar year, a typical period, it
made purchases directly in interstate commerce
from points located outside the State of Wisconsin
in an amount in excess of $50,000, and made sales
of goods and materials directly in interstate com-
merce in an amount in excess of $50,000 to points
located outside the State of Wisconsin. Ac-
cordingly, 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 jurisdiction herein.
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing a charge filed by Miller Brewing Company,
hereinafter called Miller or Employer, alleging that
Local Union No. 113, Laborers International Union
of North America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
Laborers , had violated Section 8 ( b)(4)(D) of the
Act. A hearing was held pursuant to notice at Mil-
waukee , Wisconsin, on March 3 , April 28, May 6
and 19 , and July 24 , 1969, before Hearing Officer
Wallace Taine . The Employer , the Laborers, and
Local Union No. 9, of the International Union of
United Brewery , Flour , Cereal , Malt, Yeast, Soft
Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Brewery Workers, ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the is-
sues .' The Laborers and Brewery Workers have
filed briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three -member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirm 1 ed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Miller Brewing Company is a Wisconsin corpora-
tion engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer.
the name appears as amended at the hearing
e Although neither the Employer's charge nor the notice of hearing in
this 10(k) proceeding named the Brewery Workers as a charged party, we
conclude that they should he bound by this Decision as though they were a
charged party rho Brewery Workers not only appeared at the hearing, and
litigated and filed a brief with respect to the disputed work set forth in the
Employer's charge and notice of hearing, but also raised issues regarding
other work not included in the Employer's charge which were fully litigated
and briefed The Brewery Workers indicated at the hearing that unless its
claims for work assignments were satisfied it would engage in economic
pressure to obtain the work At this time, the Employer also indicated his
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, that the
Laborers and Brewery Workers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The situs of this work dispute is at Miller Brewing
Company's main brewery in Milwaukee , Wisconsin.
At this brewery, which covers several blocks and
encompasses 50 buildings, Miller employs about
2,000 people . The majority of these employees,
about 1 ,200, are represented by Lcal 9 of the
Brewery Workers. However , specialized groups of
employees are represented by other unions ; i.e., the
Carpenters, the Machinists , and the Laborers.
Local 9 of the Brewery Workers has represented
Miller employees since the 1930's. One of the
groups of employees represented by Local 9 of the
Brewery Workers and covered by a negotiated con-
tract are employees in the general trucking depart-
ment . The general trucking department is divided
into three divisions : yard, garage, and trucking.
Between 125 and 175 employees work in this de-
partment , although many are assigned to other de-
partments at the brewery. The work to be per-
formed by the general trucking department, ac-
cording to the terms of the contract , is governed by
a "work list ." The most recent " work list"
negotiated between Miller and the Brewery Wor-
kers is dated October 31, 1955.
Local 113 of the Laborers , like the Brewery
willingness to have the Board decide the additional disputed job assign-
ments not mentioned in the Notice of Hearing It was further understood
among the parties that none of the work assignment disputes, namely, those
included in the Employer's charge as well as those raised by the Brewery
Workers at the hearing, could be resolved without a settlement of all of the
work in dispute Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Board, fulfilling
the intent of Section 10(k) of the Act, to make a determination with
respect to all the disputed work which the parties have fully litigated in this
proceeding and to hind the Brewery Workers as well as the Laborers by our
determination
184 NLRB No. 27
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers, negotiates a master contract with the
"Brewery Proprietors ," including Miller Brewery,
for the Milwaukee , Wisconsin , area . However no
separate agreement applicable only to Miller em-
ployees is negotiated. At present Miller employs
between six and eight members of the Laborers.
The present work dispute between employees in
the general trucking department represented by the
Brewery Workers and the members of the Laborers
employed at the brewery, hereinafter referred to as
the laborers group, began when general trucking
department employees filed grievances claiming
that work was being performed by the laborers
group which should be performed by them. The
most notable grievance setting forth this contention
was filed on September 25, 1968, with the Brewery
Workers claiming that the Employer was violating
part VI, article 1, of the present labor agreement
with the Brewery Workers and the supplemental
"work list" mentioned above. But no specific
reference to any work in issue was made. In sub-
sequent meetings it was agreed that the Union
should give the Employer a bill of particulars re-
garding the September grievance. On December 3,
1968, the Brewery Workers, at a meeting with the
Employer, presented a list of some 14 assignments
which it claimed were wrongfully assigned by
Miller. The Employer on December 11, 1968,
made a determination with regard to the challenged
assignments. With respect to those assignments now
in issue the Employer determined that the transpor-
tation of tank tubes, beer cocks, and hose couplings
to repair areas should be done exclusively by
general trucking workers, whereas the transporta-
tion of beer pumps and hop carts to and from
repair locations should continue to be done by the
laborers group. It was also the Employer's position
that the hauling of 2 by 2 lumber for use in storing
hop bales and the transporting of yeast boxes at all
times should now be done by general trucking wor-
kers rather than the laborers group. Finally the Em-
ployer found no reason to change prior laborers
group assignments to handle the movement of jani-
torial supplies as well as gloves and boots to the cel-
lars, the hauling of rubbish from the administration
building and Miller Inn, and the hauling of hop
carts and beer pumps for repair. A the December
11 meeting, during which the Employer made his
allocation of work, only the Brewery Workers was
present.
The Employer promptly began to put the new
' In order to simplify the discussion, "work dispute" refers in this deci-
sion to all the tasks involved in this dispute, and "job " will be used to refer
to a particular task included in the overall "work dispute "
' the record reveals, as the Brewery Workers brief points out, that the
Laborers attorney conceded at the hearing that the movement of tank
work assignments into effect. On January 8, 1969,
counsel for the Laborers sent a letter to Miller
claiming that work which had traditionally been
done by the laborers group was now being shifted
to the general trucking department employees. The
Laborers demanded that the Company cease such
action and, if it did not, the Laborers was prepared
to enforce this demand with direct economic action
against the Employer. On January 14, 1969, the
Miller Brewing Company filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board claiming that the
Laborers was violating Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work over which this dispute is centered, as
set forth in the notice of hearing , involves the
"moving of tank tubes , beer cocks and hose
couplings, yeast boxes, lumber for hop bales, and
tap service material, and loading of motors in need
of repair." However, at the time of hearing, the
work in dispute was considerably altered to include
a number of additional matters and to delete cer-
tain of the items listed above. At the hearing,
Brewery Workers challenged certain assignments
made to Laborers and threatened direct economic
action to obtain that work for its members. These
additional disputed assignments are the hauling of
beer pumps and hop carts to repair shops, the
removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the ad-
ministration building area, and the hauling of
gloves, boots, and janitorial supplies from the
general receiving area to the fermenting and finish-
ing cellars. The Laborers withdrew the claim to the
moving of tap service material before the beginning
of the hearing. During the course of the hearing the
parties resolved the disputed "loading of motors in
need of repair."
Each of the disputed jobs' is not specifically re-
lated to the others thereby making generalization
difficult and requiring a job-by-job analysis. All the
jobs, though, relate to some kind of hauling or cart-
ing.
A number of the disputed jobs involve the haul-
ing or equipment in need of repair from the
production area to the maintenance shops.
1. Hauling tank tubes,4 beer cocks, and hose
couplings for repair: Tank tubes, sometimes called
bazooka, are long rods with a cleaning apparatus
attached to one end. They are inserted into the
tubes is not in issue However, the Laborers , in its briefs , has again put the
movement of tank tubes into issue Inasmuch as the record reveals suffi-
cient information regarding the use and repair procedures of tank tubes, we
shall make a determination of which group of employees are entitled to do
this job
LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 235
beer tanks for cleaning corners and out-of-the-way
areas. Beer cocks are a type of valve or plug used
throughout the production process to control the
flow of "fluid." Hose couplings are the connective
apparatus between hoses and beer cocks or other
types of valves. Both beer cocks and hose couplings
are frequently in need of repair or cleaning due to
corrosion. They are stored in barrels which when
filled are taken to the machine shop where the
cleaning and repair are performed.
2. Hauling portable beer pumps for repair: There
are two types of pumps: stationary and portable.
The portable pumps are mounted on a cart-like as-
sembly and are wheeled from location to location
when needed in the production area. There are esti-
mated to be between 30 and 40 of these pumps in
use. When repair is required, they are wheeled by
the production employee to the production area
loading dock, from which they are transported to
the machine shop, and when repaired they are
returned to this dock. The stationary beer pumps,
as the name implies, are nonmovable pumps con-
siderably larger and heavier than the portable
pumps. When these pumps must be hauled to the
repair shop it requires the services of the laborers
group to move them from their location in the
production area to the machine shop. The hauling
of the light portable pumps from the production
area loading dock to the machine shop and back is
now in issue.
3. Hauling of hop carts for repair: A hop cart is
about 3 or 4 feet square, about 5 or 6 feet high, and
mounted on four roller castors. When the
processing of the hops has been finished at building
50, the "spent" hops are dumped into these carts
and then the carts are pushed by the production
employees to refuse receptables when the "spent"
hops are dumped. Frequently these hop carts
require repair. According to Janowiak, general
maintenance superintendent and staff engineer for
Miller, of the 30 to 40 hop carts used by the Com-
pany about 2 or 3 per week require repair Again
the issue is who shall transport the hop carts from
the dock area near building 50 to the carpenter
shop where the necessary repairs are to be made,
and then back to the production area.
Besides the hauling of the above items for repair
certain other types of carting and hauling are also
in dispute.
4. Hauling "new" and "old" yeast boxes: A yeast
box is a 2-foot high, 18-inch square corrugated
cardboard box lined with styrofoam. Into each box
at the Milwaukee brewery is placed a tin containing
yeast. These boxes are then shipped to the Em-
ployer's other production facilities in California and
Texas where the yeast is used in the production
process. The Employer began to use these yeast
boxes in the early part of 1966. At first there were
only a few boxes used each week but now a con-
siderable number are used'dunng the course of the
week. All of the yeast boxes initially were "new"
but as time went on the Employer began to have
the "old" yeast boxes reshipped on railroad cars
back to its Milwaukee operations where they are
reused.
At issue in the hauling of "new" yeast boxes is
the movement of these initially flat, broken down
boxes from the warehouse area to the carpenter
shop where they are assembled and then the
cartage of the assembled "new" yeast boxes to
building 15-45, where the boxes are stored and the
yeast inserted into the box. The work of inserting
the yeast into the box and the subsequent transport-
ing of the filled yeast boxes is admittedly done by
employees represented by the Brewery Workers.
Also at issue is the movement of certain "old"
yeast boxes in need of repair from the building
15-45 area to the carpenter shop and back again.
As mentioned above, the empty yeast boxes are
returned by rail to the Miller premises where they
are unloaded and delivered to building 15-45.
Although at first all these used boxes were brought
over to the carpenter shop, the procedure now is to
have a carpenter go directly to where the boxes are
stored in building 15-45 and make on-the-spot
repairs if necessary. However, in certain instances,
some of the badly damaged yeast boxes have been
sent to the carpenter shop. At present approximate-
ly 80 percent of the yeast boxes now used to ship
the yeast from Milwaukee to the Employer's other
locations are "old" yeast boxes.
5. Hauling of 2 by 2 lumber used in hop bales
storage: On infrequent occasions the Carpenters
are requested to cut 2 by 4 lumber to 2 by 2 size to
be used in separating hop bales during storage;
2 by 2 lumber is rarely needed for this purpose
because the lumber is continually reused in the
storage area. In 1968, the year prior to the Em-
ployer's assignment, there is testimony of only one
instance in which such lumber was requested.
Other than this single instance, no witness offered
testimony of any other occasion when similar work
had been performed, possibly because of the long
interval between requests. The work in issue here is
who shall do the hauling of these pieces of 2 by 2
lumber from the carpenter shop to the area where
hop bales are stored.
6 Removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the
administration building- An employee using a
flatbed truck drives to the rear of these buildings
where he picks up the trash which has been placed
in plastic bags. He then drives the truck over to the
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trash disposal area where he disposes of the plastic
bags. The issue here is who should be assigned to
drive the vehicle when moving the rubbish.
7. The assignment of the movement of gloves
and boots from receiving area to the finishing and
fermenting cellars and the movement of janitorial
supplies from receiving area to the finishing and
fermenting cellars is the subject of the final group
of jobs involved in this dispute.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Although the parties have made contentions re-
garding each of the jobs, as explained above, their
arguments are based upon one or two key theories.
Basically, the Brewery Workers contends that the
work in dispute should be assigned to the em-
ployees it represents because all of the work is of a
type which is covered in the General Trucking List,
a list of jobs compiled to comply with article I, part
IV, of the labor agreement between the Brewery
Workers and the "Brewery Proprietors" of Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin, to which Miller Brewing Company
is a signatory.5 Furthermore, it contends that only
by an assignement to the brewery workers can
these jobs be efficiently integrated into the general
brewery operations. It is also claimed that brewery
workers have historically performed the functions
now in dispute and therefore the Company must as-
sign the work to the brewery workers or be in viola-
tion of article XVI, section 2,5 and also, as already
described, part VI, article I, of the contract with the
Brewery Workers.
The Laborers, on the other hand, argues that all
the work in issue , except for the hauling of rubbish,
should be assigned to its members, following the
principle that laborers are primarily assigned to
assist the skilled trades, such as the machinists, car-
penters, and steamfitters, in the performance of its
duties. This principle would treat the laborers at
Miller in the traditional manner that laborers are
'Inc General Trucking List in this regard states that the duties of the
general trucking department include, in pertinent part
I Haul materials used in the making or packaging of Miller High Life
Beer
2 Haul brewing materials to and from warehouses
s s n k a
6 Miscellaneous intra-plant hauling which is to include the following
L Haul rubbish to the bailers and to the rubbish pit
i Haul cleaning agents and materials in accordance with past
practice
utilized in general construction work. It is also the
position of the Laborers that the work assignment
of the disputed jobs should be made to its members
because, historically, they performed the work in
question either exclusively or more frequently than
did brewery workers.' With respect to the disputed
rubbish hauling which the Laborers concedes can-
not be included within its general theory of "tradi-
tional work function," it argues that it must be al-
located to laborers on the basis of past practice.
The Employer, who has not filed a brief, has
refused to subscribe to any of the above theories
but rather allocated the work through a job-by-job
analysis. The Employer specifically rejected the
Laborers "traditional work function" theory on the
ground that, although this may be a rule of thumb,
the actual practice in the plant over the preceding
years does not conform to this theory.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that there is a reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated.
As indicated above, both Unions, the Laborers
and the Brewery Workers, have threatened the Em-
ployer, Miller Brewing Company, with economic
action unless the Employer accedes to their de-
mands regarding the work now in dispute.' We
therefore find that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have oc-
curred, and the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
As stated in the J. A. Jones case' we shall, pur-
suant to the Supreme Court's CBS decision , 10 deter-
k Hauling of uniforms in accordance with past practice
13 Remove rubbish in conjunction with outside contractor and
laborers
The Employer shall not contract or subcontract out any work presently
being performed by employees covered by this agreement, nor shall any
such work be transferred in any manner so as to result in its being per-
formed by employees not covered by this agreement
' The Laborers has a work preservation clause in its contract similar to
that contained in the Brewery Workers clause
Work which is or has been exclusively performed by members of the
Union will not be assigned to employees of any other bargaining unit
of the Employer
" See fn 2, in this regard
International Association of Machinists, Iwidge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J
A Jones Construction Co ), 135 NLRB 1402
"' N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573
LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS 237
mine in each case presented for resolution under
Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate assign-
ment of the disputed work only after taking into ac-
count the evidence supporting the claims of the
parties and balancing all relevant factors.
As mentioned above, both Unions have offered
broad theories to support their claim for all the
work in dispute. The Employer, on the other hand,
although recognizing that these theories are valua-
ble as a rule of thumb, concluded that they are not
helpful in allocating the work because of the past
practice of allowing members of both Unions to do
the same work, as well as other circumstances
which arise and must be considered in assigning
work to its employees. We are in general agreement
with the Employer that none of the theories ad-
vanced by the Unions is fully applicable and that
each of the jobs involved in this work dispute must
be considered separately on its own merits. A
separate assignment must be made for each job
now in issue.
However, in resolving the disputed work certain
observations are equally applicable to all the jobs in
dispute. Thus, each Union has attempted to support
its position by citing certain portions of its respec-
tive labor agreement with the Employer. However,
the labor agreements contain general clauses
providing that the Employer shall not reassign any
work which has been historically performed by the
employees represented These clauses are not help-
ful in resolving this dispute, since both parties claim
either that at one time they performed or are now
performing the work in dispute or that the work
was improperly assigned initially. The Brewery
Workers also argues that the "General Trucking
List," last negotiated with the Employer in 1955,
supports its claim to the work. However, upon ex-
amination of this supplement to the master agree-
ment, it becomes apparent that it does not specifi-
cally cover the work in issue except in the most
general manner. Further, the "General Trucking
List" was drafted in, and has not been revised
since, 1955, a time when the vast majority of the
jobs now in issue were not in existence Con-
sequently, we conclude that the labor agreements
between the Unions and the Employer will not help
to resolve the present work dispute.
There is no question that both groups of em-
ployees are capable of doing the disputed work.
One of the major tasks of the general trucking de-
partment employees is the loading and transporting
of items to different locations at the brewery
Likewise, one of the major tasks of the laborers
group is to perform similar transport work. As the
manager of labor relations, Sherman, said: "To a
certain extent, there has been duplication of such
hauling assignments , often dependent upon who is
requesting the service and of whom the service
would be requested." The Brewery Workers claims
there would be work flow and job continuity in a
number of instances if the employees in general
trucking were allowed to work in conjunction with
those employees represented by Brewery Workers
in production capacities. The record clearly shows,
however, that general trucking department em-
ployees and production employees have separate
job functions and there is no solid evidence from
which to conclude that such envisaged continuity
would in any way increase plant and job efficiency
or skill Accordingly, we conclude that both the
employees represented by the Laborers and the em-
ployees represented by the Brewery Workers are
equally qualified to do the work now in issue, since
they possess both the requisite skill and ability to
perform the work efficiently.
1. Hauling of tank tubes , beer cocks, and hose
couplings for repair: The Employer concluded,
after investigation supported by the record, that
both the laborers group and general trucking em-
ployees were involved in the hauling of these items
from the production area to the machine shop for
repair . It was further concluded that there had
never been any clear delineation as to who per-
formed this work. The Employer assigned these
jobs to employees represented by the Brewery
Workers on December 11, 1968, in settlement of
the Brewery Workers grievance, basically because
the Brewery Workers presented evidence to show
that it had been doing a substantial portion of this
work for a considerable period of time.
Both Unions agree that prior to 1964 there were
repair shops set up in the cellars to repair the hose
couplings, beer cocks, and tank tubes. At that time,
whenever repairs were needed these items were
transported to the repair shops by the production
employees represented by Brewery Workers. After
1964 the repair work was centralized in the main
machine shop, thereby necessitating the transport-
ing of the items to be repaired from the production
area to the machine shop. It is clear that both
groups of employees are qualified to perform the
job and both have done the job since 1964 with no
precise delineation as to which group should be
doing the job. However, we conclude that because
the brewery workers production employees for-
merly performed all of the hauling of these items to
repair shops in the cellars and because the brewery
workers, as the Employer decided , still haul a sub-
stantial number of these items, the brewery workers
should be assigned the work.
2. Hauling of portable beer pumps for repair: As
already mentioned there are two types of beer
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pumps used at the brewery; namely, stationary and
portable. The Employer in his investigation of the
Brewery Workers grievance giving rise to this work
dispute found that laborers had always hauled the
stationary beer pumps for repair. When the Em-
ployer investigated as to which group of employees
had moved portable beer pumps for repair, he
found the same duplication of work as had been
characteristic of the hauling of beer cocks, hose
couplings, and tank tubes. However, the Employer
decided not to assign the movement of the beer
pumps to the brewery workers, as he had done with
the beer cocks, hose couplings , and tank tubes, but
rather to the laborers group.
The Employer 's decision appears to have been
based in large part on the fact that the laborers did
haul all the stationary pumps in need of repair, and
that the laborers performed a substantial portion of
the transportation of the portable beer pumps as
well. Thus, it would appear that the Employer was
of the opinion that continuity of brewery operations
would be best served if only one union, the
Laborers , should be assigned to haul all types of
beer pumps to be repaired . After considering the
entire record evidence , including the laborers'
historic assignment to moving the stationary pumps,
and the fact that they also have been regularly as-
signed to transporting the portable pumps, and also
considering the fact of the Employer 's assignment,
we are of the opinion that there is sufficient
evidence advanced in the record to support the
Employer 's assignment of the hauling of all the beer
pumps to the laborers represented by the Laborers,
and we shall not disturb such assignment.
3 Hauling of hop carts for repair: The Employer
reaffirmed the past practice of assigning to the
laborers the hauling of hop carts for repair. Upon
investigation, the Employer found that the laborers
had traditionally hauled the hop carts. The Brewery
Workers, while conceding that the laborers had
been the sole group hauling the hop carts, con-
tended that the work was connected with produc-
tion and therefore should be assigned to the general
trucking department employees. We agree with the
Employer 's assignment to the laborers. The
laborers have performed this job over a long period
of time to the satisfaction of the Employer, as wit-
nessed by its reaffirming this job assignment. The
mere fact that it is indirectly connected with the
production process does not justify changing the
developed past practice of having the laborers do
this job.
4. Hauling "new" and "old" yeast boxes: The
use of yeast boxes at Miller is a new operation. All
parties agree that when the program was first in-
itiated the laborers performed the job of hauling
the "new" knockdown yeast boxes from the
warehouse to the carpenter shop , and then after as-
sembly to building 15-45 where they were to be
filled with yeast . Subsequently, the program was ex-
panded considerably and now not only are "new"
yeast boxes madeup but also some of the "old"
yeast boxes are reused. The disputed hauling of
damaged "old" yeast boxes from their storage area
in building 15-45 to the carpenter shop and back
appears from the record to be minimal at present
since most repairs are made by a carpenter at the
storage area site. As mentioned above, the parties
agree that the employees represented by the
Brewery Workers do the hauling of the "new"
knockdown yeast boxes to the warehouse and the
hauling of the "old" yeast boxes to the storage area
in building 15-45. It is agreed that brewery workers
also haul filled yeast boxes to the airport, where the
boxes are flown to Miller's other breweries.
The Employer reassigned the above disputed
work on December 1 1 to the employees
represented by Brewery Workers. However, the
Employer offered no specific reason for giving this
job to the brewery workers. The Brewery Workers
claim that the work should be given to it since it re-
lates to production and the general trucking depart-
ment does similar hauling of knockdown corru-
gated cartons to the production box assembly unit
at the brewery . Further, the Brewery Workers ar-
gues, since the employees it represents are already
involved in other aspects of the hauling of the yeast
boxes, it would be efficient and prevent fragmenta-
tion to include the whole operation.
The Brewery Workers arguments are unconvinc-
ing. Laborers have been hauling the yeast boxes
since the commencement of the program.
Moreover , the shipping of the yeast to other Miller
breweries is only peripherally related to normal
production activities at the brewery . Furthermore,
there has been no showing that the assignment to
laborers would result in a fragmentation of the
operation, creating increased costs and difficulties
to the Employer. Indeed, the different hauling tasks
involving the yeast boxes seem to be quite unre-
lated.
On the other hand, for over a year since the job
was created, laborers performed the job,
presumably successfully. Therefore, there having
been no substantial reasons advanced warranting
the reassignment of the work in dispute other than
the complaints and grievances filed by the Brewery
Workers, we must conclude on the basis of the
historical assignment of the work to the laborers
group that this group should still be assigned the
job; i e., the hauling of "new" yeast boxes from the
warehouses to the carpenter shop and then to the
LOCAL UNION NO. 113, LABORERS
storage area in building 15-45, and the hauling of
"old" yeast boxes from the storage area to the car-
penter shop and then back to the storage area.
5. Hauling 2 by 2 lumber used in hop bales
storage: The record evidence with regard to this job
is sparse. The job takes place infrequently, possibly
once or twice a year depending upon need . The last
time that the job of hauling the 2 by 2 lumber from
the carpenter shop to the storage area for use in
keeping separated stored hop bales was performed
it was performed by laborers While there is some
general testimony that employees working in
general trucking have performed this work, no one
could remember a precise or specific instance when
this work was so assigned . We must therefore con-
clude, based on the limited record evidence as to
past practice, that the hauling of 2 by 2 lumber
from the carpenter shop to the hop bale storage
area should be assigned to the laborers group.
6. Removal of rubbish from Miller Inn and the
administration building: Prior to 1964 , all rubbish
was collected at the brewery by a two -man team
composed of one laborer and one general trucking
department brewery worker. The laborer dumped
the filled barrels of rubbish into the "scoop" which
was driven by a general trucking employee. In
1964, the Employer revised his rubbish collection
procedures . Instead, the Employer in certain areas
of the brewery had the production workers place
the barrels filled with rubbish on pallets, which a
forklift turck would lift and remove to the rubbish
dump . This method eliminated the job which the
laborer had been performing . The Employer at this
time also revised his procedure of removing rubbish
from Miller Inn and the administration building
because of the unsightliness of the scoop method of
collecting rubbish . The Employer decided to have
the rubbish in this public area placed in plastic bags
which would be collected and hauled on a flatbed
truck to the rubbish dump . The Employer con-
cluded that the same employee who drove the truck
could also load the truck , and assigned this job to
the laborers group . This new procedure thereby
eliminated the need for the general trucking
brewery worker . Grievances contesting the changes
were filed by both Unions at this time. However,
the Employer refused to change the new
procedures , feeling that not only had it increased
efficiency and removed an unsightly job from
public view but it had made an equitable allocation
of the new jobs between the laborers and the
general trucking brewery workers.
The Brewery Workers again questioned the Em-
ployer 's assignment to the laborers group of rubbish
collecting at Miller Inn and the administration
building. The Employer refused to change his
239
original job allocation made in 1964 . Members of
both Unions are equally skilled at performing the
task involved . The original allocation of jobs by the
Employer over 4 years ago was made, in part, for
reasons of efficiency of operation , but at the same
time also was attempting to equitably distribute the
new jobs between the employees represented by the
two Unions . To now adopt the Brewery Workers
argument would most likely result in the require-
ment that two men do the work now being effec-
tively done by one; i.e., a laborer to load and a
brewery worker to drive the truck . Consequently,
we must conclude that efficiency and economy of
operation , and the Employer 's practice-having a
laborer haul the rubbish at Miller Inn and the ad-
ministration building-are sufficient reasons for not
disturbing the Employer 's work assignments in this
regard.
7. The movement of gloves, boots, and janitorial
supplies from the receiving area to finishing and
fermenting cellars: The Employer refused to reas-
sign the above jobs to brewery workers at the
December 11, 1968, meeting , but rather decided to
have the laborers group continue to do this job as
they had done in the past . The record shows that
the laborers group over a long period of time had
transported the above items to the finishing and fer-
menting cellars , and that the employees
represented by the Brewery Workers had done
similar transporting to the bottle house. No reason
or evidence was offered as to how this division of
work had arisen. Consequently , on the basis of
historical assignment of such work , we agree with
the Employer that laborers should continue to
transport these items.
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
hereby makes the following determination of the
dispute:
1. Employees of Miller Brewing Co. who are
currently represented by Local Union No. 9, of the
International Union of United Brewery , Flour,
Cereal , Malt, Yeast , Soft Drink and Distillery Wor-
kers of America , AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform
the work of hauling tank tubes, beer cocks, and
hose couplings for repair, and those who are cur-
rently represented by Local Union No. 113,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of haul-
ing to and from the carpenters shop " new" yeast
boxes and "old" yeast boxes for repair; to haul
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
portable beer pumps for repair , to haul hop carts
for repair ; to haul 2 by 2 lumber to be used in hop
bale storage ; to remove rubbish from Miller Inn and
the adminstration building; and to haul gloves,
boots, and janitorial supplies to the cellars."
2. Local Union No. 113, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO , and Local
Union No. 9, of the International Union of United
Brewery, Flour , Cereal, Malt, Yeast , Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO , are not
entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act to force or require Miller
Brewing Company to assign work which employees
represented by the other unions are entitled to per-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Local Union No
113, Laborers International Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 9, of the Inter-
national Union of United Brewery , Flour , Cereal,
Malt, Yeast , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 30, in writing , whether or not it
will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act, to assign the work which employees
represented by the other union have been found to
be entitled to perform.
" in making these determinations, we are assigning the disputed work to
employees who are represented by the respective Unions involved and not
to the Unions or to their members