LOCAL 680, TEAMSTERS
Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local 680, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Kraft, Inc., Dairy Group, a Division of Kraft,
Inc. and Ice Cream Drivers and Employees
Teamsters Local 757, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case 22-CD-382
December 14, 1982
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing a charge filed by Kraft, Inc., Dairy Group,
a Division of Kraft, Inc., herein called Kraft or the
Employer, alleging that Milk Drivers and Dairy
Employees Local 680, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called Local 680, has
violated Section 8(bX4)D) of the Act by engaging
in conduct with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign certain work to employees
represented by it rather than to employees repre-
sented by Ice Cream Drivers and Employees
Teamsters Local 757, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein called Local 757.
A hearing was held on July 13, 1982, before
Hearing Officer William F. Grant; the record was
kept open for receipt of documentary evidence
until July 16, 1982. All parties appeared at the
hearing and all were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, Local 757,
Local 680, and the Employer each filed a brief in
support of its position.
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. 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 Em-
ployer is a division of Kraft, Inc., a Delaware cor-
poration engaged in the business of manufacturing
and distributing food products, and that it main-
tains a facility in Long Island City, New York.
During the calendar year 1981, a representative
265 NLRB No. 117
period, the Employer, in the course and conduct of
its business operations at Long Island City, sold
and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from its Long Island City, New York, facili-
ty to points located outside the State of New York.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
757 and Local 680 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 consists of the delivery of
ice cream and related products to the Employer's
customers located in Rockland County, New York.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
During 1968, the Employer effectuated an exten-
sive and protracted restructuring of its manufactur-
ing operations: it ceased making ice cream at its
Newark, New Jersey, plant and moved all manu-
facturing into a single plant in Long Island City,
New York. This Long Island City (Queens Boule-
vard) plant was the result of a 1967 or 1968 con-
solidation of three of the Employer's plants in
Long Island City-Breyer's (Queens Boulevard
plant), Sealtest, and Consolidated Ice Cream Co.-
and was serving the New York market. The
Newark plant was a consolidation of the Employ-
er's operations at the Sealtest plant in Garfield,
New Jersey, and the Breyer's plant in Newark,
New Jersey, and was serving the New Jersey
market. Likewise, and necessarily, the Employer
continuously revamped its distribution operation.
Presently, its Long Island City plant has two satel-
lite distribution points, one located in Farmingdale,
Long Island, and the second located in Hillside,
New Jersey. Local 680 represents distribution em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its distribu-
tion facility in Hillside, New Jersey. Local 757 rep-
resents production and distribution employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its plant in Long Island
City, New York, and distribution employees at its
distribution facility in Farmingdale, Long Island.
Both Locals have had separate collective-bargain-
ing agreements with the Employer for at least 40
years.
Rockland County history. As early as 1949, the
Employer operated a manufacturing and distribu-
tion plant in Newburgh, New York; the distribu-
tion area included Rockland County and three
other New York counties. The Newburgh-based
employees were represented by Teamsters Local
338. In approximately 1951, the Employer ceased
915
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the manufacture of ice cream at Newburgh, but
continued distribution operations there with ice
cream transported from the Newark, New Jersey,
plant. In 1961 or 1962, the Employer closed its
Newburgh distribution terminal. Just prior to clos-
ing, there were six delivery routes out of New-
burgh in the summer, including one route for
Rockland County stops. After the closing, two or
three routes were run out of gas stations located in
towns near Newburgh. However, the Rockland
County route was transferred to Newark and was
taken over by a Local 680-represented driver im-
mediately after the Newburgh closing.
During the 1968 reorganization, upon closing the
Newark facility, the Employer transferred its distri-
bution operations for the New Jersey market to a
terminal in Edison, New Jersey, and changed its
Newburgh area distribution: the three northern
counties were transferred to a Kraft subsidiary
company and the southern county, Rockland, was
structured as part of the Edison operation. Thereaf-
ter, the New Jersey market's ice cream was manu-
factured and loaded at the Long Island City plant
and transported to Edison. There it was loaded
onto route trucks for subsequent distribution to
retail outlets, including those in Rockland County.
Newark-based employees were transferred to
Edison and continued to be represented by Local
680.
In 1972 or 1973, the Edison distribution oper-
ation was transferred to Hillside, where the Kraft
Cheese division formerly operated. Today, Hillside
is solely a distribution dock, with a distribution op-
eration similar to that of its predecessor, Edison.
There is no ice cream storage at Hillside other than
a route truck which is used for returns.
From the time the Rockland County route was
transferred to Newark in 1951, until June 14,
1982,1 the route was driven by a Local 680 driver
originating from the Employer's New Jersey facili-
ty, whether Newark, Edison, or Hillside. Driver
Chester Kobylus held the Hillside Route 170 bid
which comprised the Rockland County delivery
work for a number of years, until it was transferred
to the Long Island City facility on June 14, when
it was, and has since continued to be, operated by a
driver represented by Local 757. Kobylus remained
employed in his classification at the same pay rate
following the June 14 work reassignment.
The dispute. According to testimony of John
Scala, Kraft's area personnel manager responsible
for New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, he
became involved in the dispute under consideration
in November 1981, when he was approached by
Local 757 Secretary-Treasurer Charles Fontana
All dates hereinafteT are in 1982, unless otherwise stated.
and Local 757 Shop Steward James Santaniello.
Fontana and Santaniello claimed that Local 680's
collective-bargaining agreement did not cover the
Rockland County route and that this work should
be assigned to employees represented by Local 757.
Scala testified that he followed up this conversa-
tion, as he had promised, with a conversation with
George Carroll, president and chief business agent
for Local 680. Scala testified that he asked Carroll,
in mid-November 1981, for information that he
could use to support Local 680's position in this
matter. Carroll referred Scala to section 19 of
Local 680's collective-bargaining agreement with
Kraft which makes reference to the "Metropolitan
Area," including Rockland County. Scala ex-
plained to Fontana that Local 680's collective-bar-
gaining agreement contained an explicit reference
to Rockland County and that he, therefore, was
not going to transfer it to Local 757.
According to Scala's testimony, in mid-April
Santaniello charged that Scala had misrepresented
Local 680's contractual right to the Rockland
County work. Scala testified that 2 days later Fon-
tana contacted him and, over the phone, they read,
word for word, section 19 of the Local 680 agree-
ment. They also reviewed the provision of section
2(e) of the Local 680 agreement defining "the area
of Local 680," noting that section 2(e) does not
make reference to Rockland County. They then
compared the parallel sections of the Local 757
agreement and noted that, therein, both the defini-
tion of "the Metropolitan area" in section 18 and
"the area of Local 757" in section 2(e) include
Rockland County. Scala testified that he then real-
ized that what Carroll had demonstrated to him as
being Local 680's distribution area was, in fact, the
manufacturing area; that Local 680's distribution
area was set forth in section 2(e) of the agreement;
and that Rockland County was not contained in
section 2(e) for Local 680's distribution purposes.
Scala testified that I week later he informed Car-
roll of the pressure he was receiving from Fontana
and Santaniello to reassign the work in dispute.
Scala asked Carroll for some documentation in de-
fense of Local 680's position and informed him that
without such he "would most probably have to ac-
knowledge the explicit intent of the contract" and
reassign the disputed work. Scala notified Fontana
that he would have an answer for Fontana no later
than June 4 and asked if he would be willing to
wait until then before initiating the threatened arbi-
tration. Then, and by letter dated May 10, Fontana
reconfirmed Local 757's claim to the work in dis-
pute. Scala held additional conversations with Car-
roll, unsuccessfully soliciting the requested infor-
916
LOCAL 680, TEAMSTERS
mation, and obtained an extension from Fontana on
the arbitration initiation until June 11.
Scala testified that on June 10 he was advised
that the Hillside night supervisor, Robert Ander-
son, had gone through his system of communica-
tions and learned that a job action might take place
at Hillside if Scala were to reassign the disputed
work. On June 11, Scala informed Carroll that the
work would be transferred to Local 757-represent-
ed employees effective the following Monday, June
14, and requested that he avert the threatened job
action. Apparently in an attempt to gain leverage
to handle the situation with his rank and file, Car-
roll queried Scala if he would be willing to go into
a rapid arbitration, to which Scala agreed. On the
same day, Scala received a telegram from Local
680's attorney demanding that the "unilaterally
transferred routes must be reinstituted immediate-
ly" to Local 680-represented employees.
On June 14, the Hillside drivers engaged in a
work stoppage which lasted only a few hours and
was not followed by another work stoppage or
strike. Since June 14, the Long Island City drivers
represented by Local 757 have continued to service
the Rockland County area.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Local 757 contend that there
is reasonable cause to believe that Local 680 violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and that the pro-
ceeding is properly before the Board for determina-
tion of the dispute. They argue that, on the basis of
the Employer's assignment and preference, econo-
my and efficiency, and a superior contractual
claim, the work in dispute should be assigned to
employees represented by Local 757.
Local 680 contends that the evidence does not
establish an unlawful work assignment dispute vio-
lative of Section 8(b)(4)(D), but rather a contract
violation and resultant work stoppage with an
object of work preservation or restoration, and has
filed a motion to quash the notice of hearing.
Should the Board find a jurisdictional dispute
exists, Local 680 contends that the Employer's
claim of preference is "truly bogus" and that it has
the superior contractual right to the work.
D. Applicability of the Statute; Ruling on the
Motion To Quash the Notice of Hearing
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied (1) that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and (2) that the parties have not agreed
upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute.
Here, contrary to Local 680's assertions in sup-
port of its motion to quash, the evidence is suffi-
cient to establish a traditional jurisdictional dispute
between two groups of employees. In response to
Local 757's renewed claim for the Rockland
County work (by personal application in April and
by letter dated May 10) and after investigation and
inquiry, Scala called Carroll on June 11 and in-
formed him of the decision to reassign the work.
Carroll lodged Local 680's protest then and later
that day Local 680's attorney sent a telegram pro-
testing the work reassignment. The parties stipulat-
ed at the hearing that on June 14, Local 680 en-
gaged in a strike with an object of forcing Kraft to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 680 rather than to employees represented
by Local 757.
Local 680's reliance on the Waterway line of
cases, 2 to support its work preservation claim is
misplaced. Unlike the Waterway case, this is not a
situation where the "employer created a dispute
with a union by terminating a group of employees,
whom the union represented, and assigning their
duties to another group of employees. " s Here, the
work reassignment was instigated by Local 757's
pressure and threat of arbitration, and no Hillside-
based employees were laid off as a direct result of
the transfer of the work in dispute to Long Island
City. With this in mind, it is apparent that the
object of Local 680's protest is disputed work
rather than work preservation, and, accordingly,
we deny Local 680's motion to quash the notice of
hearing.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that there
exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute.
On the basis of the entire record, we conclude
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
there exists no agreed-upon method for the volun-
tary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning
of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find
that this dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 8 (Wa-
rerway rerminals Company),. 185 NLRB 166 (1970), vacated and remand-
ed 467 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1972), on remand 203 NLRB 861 (1973); Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Watchmen and Guards International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Local 26 (American Plant Pro-
tection. Inc.), 210 NLRB 574 (1974); Chicago Web Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 7. I.P.P & A. U (Metropolitan Prinnting Company), 209 NLRB
320 (1974).
s 185 NLRB at 187.
917
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after giving due consideration to various factors.4
The Board has held that its determination in a ju-
risdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on
commonsense and experience reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case."
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Board certification and collective-bargaining
agreement
There is no evidence that any of the labor orga-
nizations involved herein has been certified by the
Board as the collective-bargaining representative
for a unit of the Employer's employees. The Em-
ployer does, however, have separate bargaining
agreements with Local 680 covering distribution
employees at its Hillside facility, and with Local
757 covering distribution and production employ-
ees at its Long Island City facility and distribution
employees at its Farmingdale facility. Both agree-
ments include Rockland County in the definition of
the metropolitan area (p. 17, sec. 19 of the Local
680 contract and p. 18, sec. 18 of the Local 757
contract). However, the Local 757 collective-bar-
gaining agreement section 2(e) explicitly includes
Rockland County as part of "the Local 757 area,"
while the parallel section 2(e) in the Local 680 col-
lective-bargaining agreement does not include
Rockland County as part of "the Local 680 area."
While this appears to support Local 757's claim,
Local 680 obtains some support for its claim from
its history of work in Rockland County coupled
with section 2(c) of its collective-bargaining agree-
ment, which provides that "[aill routes now served
by employees covered by this contract shall contin-
ue to be served by employees covered by this con-
tract while the routes exist." We find, therefore,
that this factor does not favor either party.
2. Employer assignment, past practice, and
preference
The Employer has assigned the disputed work
since approximately June 14, and prefers an assign-
ment, to employees represented by Local 757. As
indicated above, the Employer had previously as-
signed the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 680. Although the Employer's past prac-
tice favors employees represented by Local 680, its
current assignment and preference favor employees
represented by Local 757.
N.LR.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local
1212Z International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO [Colum-
bia Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
5 International Association of Machinisu Lodge Na 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
3. Area practice
There is no evidence in the record regarding
area practice. We find, therefore, that this factor
favors neither party.
4. Relative skills
The parties stipulated at the hearing that there is
no difference in the skills of the employees in terms
of performing the work in dispute. Both groups of
employees drive the same trucks which are inter-
changeable. We conclude, therefore, that this
factor does not favor either party.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Kraft's distribution manager for the New York
district, Carl Shoemaker, testified that the assign-
ment of the Rockland County delivery work to
Long Island City is more economical and efficient
for the Employer. Loading the route truck directly
at Long Island City obviates the need for trans-
porting the product to Hillside and thus eliminates
double handling of the product. This in turn re-
duces the burden on the Company's night truck
loading operation at Long Island City. In addition,
the Employer prefers its current assignment be-
cause the route driven is shorter than delivering
the product from Hillside. Distribution Manager
Shoemaker testified that the distance from Hillside
to Rockland County is 32 miles whereas the dis-
tance from Long Island City to Rockland County
is 25 miles. The Employer also saves the mileage
from Long Island City to Hillside since it need not
transport the Rockland County ice cream to Hill-
side in the first place. The record also shows that
Long Island City drivers do not encounter substan-
tially, if any, more traffic congestion, than do Hill-
side drivers.
In light of the foregoing, we find that this factor
favors an assignment of the work to employees
represented by Local 757.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con-
clude that employees who are represented by
Local 757 are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Em-
ployer's assignment and preference, and economy
and efficiency of operations. In making this deter-
mination, we are awarding the work in question to
employees who are represented by Local 757, but
not to that Union or its members. The present de-
termination is limited to the particular controversy
which gave rise to this proceeding.
918
LOCAL 680, TEAMSTERS
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 Dis-
pute:
1. Employees employed by Kraft, Inc., Dairy
Group, a Division of Kraft, Inc., who are repre-
sented by Ice Cream Drivers and Employees
Teamsters Local 757, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, are entitled to perform delivery of ice
cream and related products to customers of the
Employer in Rockland County, New York.
2. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local 680,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is
not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Kraft,
Inc., Dairy Group, a Division of Kraft, Inc., to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Milk Drivers and
Dairy Employees Local 680, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Di-
rector for Region 22, in writing, whether it will re-
frain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscribed by Section 8(bX4)(D) of the Act,
to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsist-
ent with the above determination.
919
