Machinists, District No 10

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1159 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

MACHINISTS, DISTRICT NO 10 1159
Distnct No 10, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO' and
Ladish Co and International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers Local 125, AFL-CIO Case
30-CD-51
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers Local 125,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter Firemen), are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE DISPUTE
December 29, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge filed by Ladish Co (hereinafter
Ladish or Employer) alleging that District No 10,
International Association of Machinists and Aeros-
pace Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Machinists)
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act A
hearing was held on August 29, 1972, before Hearing
Officer George Stnck All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues Thereafter,
Ladish and Machinists filed briefs in support of their
positions
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
All parties stipulated that Ladish Co is a Wiscon-
sin corporation, engaged at Cudahy, Wisconsin, in
the manufacture of forgings and fittings During the
past year, a representative period, Ladish purchased
and received from directly outside the State of
Wisconsin goods valued in excess of $50,000 The
parties further stipulated, and we find, that Ladish is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
All parties stipulated , and we find, that District
No 10, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO , and International
1 The names of the parties herein appear as amended at the hearing
2 These employees are licensed firemen and engineers
A Background and Facts of Dispute
The dispute involves the inspection and cleaning,
but not repairing, of Cochrane low-pressure drainers
in the return steam cycle from the steam hammer to
the boiler in Ladish's Cudahy plant The parties
stipulated that on July 7, 1972, the Machinists, by
virtue of a membership vote, threatened to strike
Ladish if Ladish continued to permit the powerhouse
employees 2 represented by the Firemen to clean the
drainers
In 1939 Ladish installed the Cochrane low-pressure
drainers at its plant in Cudahy, Wisconsin There are
approximately 45 of these drainers located through-
out the plant in the return steam cycle The basic
function of these low-pressure drainers is to remove
contaminants, consisting primarily of oil and "pack-
mg" from the steam hammers, from the steam before
it is returned to the boilers for reuse The drainers
must perform this function properly if the boilers are
to accept safely and efficiently the returned steam
At present, during each shift when the steam
hammers are operating, at intervals of 2 hours, a
powerhouse employee tours the plant and inspects
the drainers to insure that they are removing the
contaminants from the steam line and depositing
them in the sewer If the drainer is malfunctioning
the powerhouse employee will, by a simple process,
remove the cover of the drainer and clean its inner
workings and, if necessary, replace the sealing gasket
when he reattaches the cover The cleaning is done
with a rag, scraper, or whatever is available The
work requires about 4 hours per shift when the
hammers are operating If the drainer does not then
work in the prescribed manner, the powerhouse
employee reports the condition to his supervisor, the
chief engineer of the powerhouse The chief engineer
reports the matter in writing to the maintenance
supervisor, who assigns a steamfitter (or pipefitter),
represented by the Machinists, to repair the drainer
On January 20, 1972, the Machinists filed a
grievance under its contract with Ladish contending
that the powerhouse employees were improperly
performing the maintenance work of the steam fitters
by cleaning and repairing low-pressure steam traps 3
Upon the completion of the grievance procedures,
Ladish served on the Machinists on March 27, 1972,
its final response by which it affirmed its assignment
3 Apparently the Cochrane drainers are a type of steamtrap
200 NLRB No 165
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the work to the powerhouse employees represent-
ed by the Firemen On July 7, 1972, the Machinists
threatened to strike Ladish over the dispute, as
permitted by its contract 4
B The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the disputed work
involves the inspection and cleaning of Cochrane
drainers in the low-pressure steam cycle from the
steam hammer to the boiler during each shift when
the hammers are operating Inspection of the
drainers to ascertain their condition involves either
visual inspection of an exterior glass tube on the
drainer, or manual operation of a small lever to
determine if the interior parts of the drain are
working unobstructed by contaminants Cleaning of
the drainers requires closing two valves in the steam
line on either side of the drainer, removing the
drainer's 12 by 8 inch cast iron cover by extracting 8
five-eights-inch bolts, and, with a rag or scraper,
wiping off the stationary and rotating valves located
inside the drainer Occasionally, the employee also
replaces a gasket located on the inside of the cover
The employee then replaces the cover and again
inspects the drainer to see if it is operating properly
It is undisputed that the work of installing, and
repairing, the Cochrane drainers is not involved here,
and that this work is performed by employees
represented by the Machinists
C The Contentions of the Parties
The Machinists asserts that the disputed work
should be assigned to its members on the basis of
past company practice In this regard the Machinists
contends that the disputed work had been performed
by its members until about June 1971 In support of
this position, the Machinists relies in part on the
provisions of its apprenticeship program which
require training of steamfitters in
(c) Repairing valves, traps, pumps, oil burners,
gauges, meters and controls
(e) Working with Industrial Pipefitters in making
repairs to heating, cooling, sprinkler, oil and gas
systems and steam air and water lines
Ladish and the Firemen, on the other hand,
4 We hereby deny as lacking in merit the Machinists motion to dismiss
the charge herein and to defer to the grievance provisions in its contract
with Ladish under our decision in Collyer Insulated Wire A Gulf and
Western System Co 192 NLRB No 150 ( 1971) The contract does not
provide for arbitration and therefore we find it unnecessary to consider
whether our decision in Collyer is applicable to the instant case
Furthermore the Firemen are not parties to the contract Member Jenkins
would not apply Collyer in any event
5 We find no merit in the Machinists contention that its strike threat is
contend that the powerhouse employees have done
the disputed work since the drainers were first
installed in 1939 Also, Ladish desires to continue the
assignment of this work to the powerhouse employ-
ees represented by the Firemen
D Applicability of the Statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(D) of the Act The record shows that on July
7, 1972, after the completion of the grievance
procedures provided for in the Machinists contract
with Ladish, and Ladish's denial of its claim to the
disputed work, the Machinists sent Ladish a letter
stating
Please accept this communication as notification
of Local Lodge 1862, District No 10, I AM
A W 's intent to take strike action against the
Ladish Co in behalf of the above stated matter
At the hearing the Machinists stipulated that the
above-quoted notice of its intent to strike was then
still in effect
Based on the record, including the admission of the
Machinists that it intends to strike in order to acquire
the disputed work, we conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that there has been a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(D) of the Act
and that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination 5
E Merits of the Dispute
I Collective-bargaining agreements
The Machinists contends that its contract with
Ladish assigns the disputed work to its members 6
The contract provides in pertinent part
ARTICLE I
RECOGNITION
1 01 The Company recognizes the Union as the
sole collective bargaining agency in the matter of
wages, hours and working conditions for all
Cudahy, Wisconsin, employees of the Company,
as such group may exist from time to time after
giving effect to all of the provisions of this
contract and actions taken hereunder, including
.Janitors, sweepers, and charwomen, Production
Machine Shop, Tool Room, Welding, Mainte-
not illegal under the Act This contention is based on the grievance
provisions of its contract with Ladish which provide in part that when and
if all prior stages of the procedures have been exhausted and no agreement
is reached the company is free to invoke a lockout and the Union is
free to strike Such a contractual provision in the context of the instant
case is clearly repugnant to Sec 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(D) of the Act and must
therefore yield to the Act
6 These employees are called both steamfitters and pipefitters by the
parties
MACHINISTS, DISTRICT NO 10
nance and Repair Department employees, Grinders,
Straightening Press, Processing Department, In-
spection Department, Shipping and Receiving,
crane operators, truck drivers, Stock and Parts
Room, oilers, Garage employees, first aid attend-
ants, fire inspectors, machine operators in the
Draw Bench Department who perform machine
operations after the end sawing operation imme-
diately after ells are formed, and all other
production and maintenance employees, in all other
classifications herein not mentioned but excluding
the following and all employees in the Power
Plant coming under the jurisdiction of the
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
Local No 125, A F of L [Emphasis
supplied
The contract also provides for employee bids for jobs
in the "apprenticeable" trades One of the appren-
ticeship programs conducted at the Ladish plant is
that of "Industrial Pipefitter," and the program
includes in pertinent part the following duties
WORK TRAINING SCHEDULE
C Repairing valves, traps,7 pumps, oil bur-
ners, gauges, meters and controls -520 hours
E Working with Industrial Pipe Fitter in
making repairs to heating, cooling, sprinkler, oil
and gas systems and steam air and water
lines -1,040 hours
The testimony indicates that as part of their training
the pipefitters (or steamfitters) are trained to clean,
as well as maintain and repair, the Cochrane
drainers
However, the work training schedule refers only to
repairing the drainers but not to cleaning them As
set forth infra, it is undisputed that on occasion a
steamfitter (or pipefitter) will be specially assigned to
clean a drainer However, neither that fact nor the
relevant contract provisions set forth above clearly
assign the disputed work on a regular basis to the
Machinists 8 Furthermore, as noted above, the work
of repairing the drainers is not in dispute here
The Firemen's contract with Ladish provides in
pertinent part
r The Machinists contends that Cochrane low-pressure drainers are a
type of steam trap We find this question immaterial to resolution of the
dispute in the instant case
8 The Machinists contends that unless it is assigned the disputed work its
apprenticeship program will be severely impaired However, the training of
pipefitters in cleaning the drainers is not in dispute here Presumably since
ARTICLE I
RECOGNITION
1161
1 The Company recognizes the Union as the
sole collective bargaining agent for all employees
employed in the powerhouse of the Company
including engineers and firemen but excluding all
other employees
Clearly the contract provision does not specifically
assign the disputed work to the employees represent-
ed by the Firemen
Thus, neither the Machimsts nor the Firemen's
contract supports an assignment of the disputed
work to either party
2 Company practice
Philip Kuras, chief engineer of the powerhouse
since 1965, and a powerhouse fireman and engineer
employed by Ladish since 1940, testified that the
inspection and cleaning of the 45 Cochrane low-
pressure drainers in the return steam cycle through-
out the plant when the steam hammers are operating
has been performed by the powerhouse employees
since 1940 9 Elden McAtee, supervisor of mainte-
nance at the Ladish plant for 22 years and a 30-year
employee of Ladish, supervises the steamfitters
represented by the Machinists He also testified that
the powerhouse employees inspect and clean the
drainers, and the steamfitters install new ones and
repair them if there is an order from the powerhouse
to do so McAtee affirmed that this distinction has
existed during the 22 years he has been supervisor of
maintenance at the Cudahy plant
Several steamfitters testified that they were trained
to clean the drainers as part of their apprenticeship
and that they have been assigned by the maintenance
supervisor to simply clean the drainers Indeed,
McAtee, the maintenance supervisor, stated that on
rare occasions when he notices a drainer that needs
cleaning he will assign a steamfitter to perform the
task While the steanifitter witnesses asserted that
they had never, or rarely, seen powerhouse employ-
ees doing this work, they admitted that they spend
most of their working time away from the location of
these Cochrane low-pressure drainers, and did not
regularly inspect them as a matter of course Also,
the work is not done at all when the steam hammers
are not operating, as, for example, on Saturdays
Furthermore, it is undisputed that steamfitters do
the pipefitters are assigned the work of repairing the drainers, they also
clean them
9 He also testified that the powerhouse employees have been represented
by the Firemen since 1954 when they were severed from the unit
represented by the Machinists since 1944
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clean the drainers in conjunction with their repair
work
Therefore, the record shows that it has been the
practice of the Employer for at least 30 years to
assign the work of regularly inspecting and cleaning
the Cochrane low-pressure drainers to the power-
house employees, represented by the Firemen Such a
longstanding practice, which the Employer wishes to
continue, is a factor favorable to the continued
performance of the work by these employees
Conclusions
On the entire record, we conclude that the disputed
work should continue to be assigned on a regular
basis to the powerhouse employees represented by
the Firemen
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
I Powerhouse employees who are represented by
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Local 125, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
disputed work of the regular inspection and cleaning
of Cochrane drainers in the low-pressure steam cycle
from the steam hammer to the boiler in the
Employer's plant at Cudahy, Wisconsin
2 District No 10, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is
not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(D) of the Act, to force or require
the Employer to assign the disputed work to
employees who are represented by that labor
organization
3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, District No 10,
International Association of Machinists and Aeros-
pace Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 30, in writing, whether it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Ladish Co, by
means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(D) of
the Act, to assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by that labor organization, rather than to
employees represented by International Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers Local 125, AFL-CIO