Paperworkers Local 175

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

PAPERWORKERS LOCAL 175 861
United Paperworkers International Union , AFL-CIO,
CLC and its Local 175 and Westvaco Corporation,
Container Division ' and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 2, AFL-CIO Case 14-
CD-522
June 15, 1976
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
which goods valued in excess of $50,000 are delivered
directly to its St Louis, Missouri, facility from points
located outside the State of Missouri Accordingly,
we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed on February 2, 1976, by Westvaco
Corporation, Container Division, hereinafter called
the Employer, alleging that the United Paperworkers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and its Local
175, hereinafter called Paperworkers, has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening, coerc-
ing, and restraining the Employer with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by the Paperworkers
rather than to employees represented by the Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local 2, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called Engineers
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Stanley R Zawatski, on February
20, 1976 All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues Thereafter, the Employ-
er and the Engineers filed briefs
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds they are free from
prejudicial error They are hereby affirmed
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Mis-
souri corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of
paper container products at its facility in St Louis,
Missouri The Employer annually performs services
valued in excess of $500,000 and purchases and caus-
es to be delivered to its St Louis, Missouri, facility
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Paper-
workers and the Engineers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE DISPUTE
A The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the starting and stopping of
air compressors and the repair and maintenance of
the said compressors, air lines, water lines, ink
pumps, and hydraulic pumps at the Employer's facil-
ity in St Louis, Missouri
B Background
Prior to June 1974, the Employer operated a corru-
gated paper products plant in which it manufactured
its own corrugated paperboard which it converted
into paper container products This operation was
keyed to a steam-powered corrugator machine Sta-
tionary engineers represented by the Engineers oper-
ated and maintained the corrugator machine and the
boilers
Between June 1974 and January 1975, the Employ-
er made substantial changes in its operation to con-
vert to a sheet plant It removed the corrugator ma-
chine and the steam boilers (which also had provided
heat for the facility) and thus no longer manufac-
tured its own corrugated paper The Employer there-
after purchased from the outside such paper for con-
version into paper container products and also added
a gas-powered heating system In the course of the
changeover, the Employer terminated all of its em-
ployees represented by the Engineers The Employer
further reduced its operations so that currently only
22 employees are working at the facility, all repre-
sented by the Paperworkers There had been 87 For-
merly, to perform maintenance during the corrugator
operation, there were three stationary engineers rep-
resented by the Engineers and four mechanics repre-
sented by the Paperworkers On or about January 17,
1975, the Employer informed the Engineers that after
January 25, 1975, there would no longer be a need to
224 NLRB No 120
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employ anyone represented by the Engineers Since
the changeover was completed, the Employer has
had no employees represented by the Engineers and
has only one mechanic (a paperworker) currently
performing all maintenance work at the facility
On or about April 9, 1975, Cornelius Nilges, a for-
mer stationary engineer at the Employer's facility,
filed a grievance with the Engineers alleging, in ef-
fect, that work formerly performed by members of
the Engineers unit still existed at the plant and that
he should be called in to do it The Employer refused
to arbitrate, contending that the "matter is not an
arbitrable grievance, and in any event there is no
work available of the type previously covered by
your union contract " On or about November 20,
1975, the Engineers commenced a proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri to compel arbitration of the grievance
On February 23, 1976, that court ordered those pro-
ceedings be "stayed pending the completion of pro-
ceedings before the National Labor Relations
Board "
On January 19, 1976, the Employer received a let-
ter from Wayne Glenn, vice president and area direc-
tor for the Paperworkers, in which he stated his un-
derstanding "that the Operating Engineers are
pressuring you [the Employer] to assign the plant
maintenance work to them " Glenn stated that the
Paperworkers "will take whatever economic action
necessary to protect our work" Later, when R E
Davis, the Employer's plant production manager,
spoke with Glenn, Glenn informed him, on behalf of
the Paperworkers International and the Local, that
the Paperworkers wanted to keep any work assigned
it subsequent to the Employer's changeover of opera-
tions According to Davis' uncontradicted testimony,
Glenn stated that, if necessary, the Union would
strike to keep the work
C Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and the Paperworkers contend that
because of the change in the Employer's operation-
which eliminated the need for any licensed engi-
neers-the maintenance work currently being done
at the facility can best be performed by the one me-
chanic (a paperworker) now doing the work The
Employer specifically alleges that the collective-bar-
gaining agreements, industry practice, employee
skills, efficiency of operations, and employer assign-
ment favor the work being performed by a paper-
worker
The Engineers contends that this proceeding
should be dismissed, alleging that the dispute herein
should be decided through an arbitration resulting
from the grievance filed by engineer Nilges It further
argues that the Employer is attempting in this pro-
ceeding to avoid the arbitration which the Engineers
had sought to compel in the suit in the Federal dis-
trict court Also, the Engineers alleges that these pro-
ceedings should be dismissed because there is no dis-
pute between the Engineers and the Paperworkers It
states the only threats came from the Paperworkers
International, not the Local Finally, the Engineers
contends that the work in dispute was that performed
by those in the Engineers unit
D Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of 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) has been violated and
that there is no agreed-upon method for the volun-
tary settlement of the dispute
As to the former, it is clear that both Unions here-
in, in light of the Employer's need for only one me-
chanic, are disputing from which Union a mechanic
should be employed The Engineers, by seeking to
arbitrate Nilges' grievance, has asserted its claim to
the work, and the Paperworkers, through Glenn's
threats of economic action to retain the work, has
attempted to force the Employer to continue to as-
sign the disputed work to individuals represented by
the Paperworkers 2
In regard to the latter, we are not satisfied that all
parties have agreed upon any method for the volun-
tary adjustment of the present work dispute The
Employer has continued to oppose the Engineers at-
tempt to compel arbitration and, in fact, the court
has stayed that proceeding, pending the outcome of
this case 3 Thus, as doubt exists as to whether any
arbitration will take place and also as to whether all
parties will be bound by it, we find no pri-vate means
of settlement sufficient to preclude us from proceed-
ing to a determination of the dispute Accordingly,
2 The record fully supports a finding that the Paperworkers representa
tive Glenn had authority to speak for both the International and the Local
The testimony of the president of the Paperworkers Local indicated that the
Local must follow the dictates of the International Thus contrary to the
Engineers contention a dispute existed between the two Locals at the
Employer s facility
3 The Engineers has filed a motion to dismiss the 10(k) proceeding or in
the alternative to stay action on the ground that the dispute is properly
before an arbitrator and there is an action in Federal district court to com
pel arbitration We hereby deny the motion since the court has stayed pro
ceedings before it pending completion of proceedings before the National
Labor Relations Board Furthermore it does not appear that the Paper
workers is a party to or has agreed to be bound by any arbitration proceed
mg
PAPERWORKERS LOCAL 175 863
we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the
case 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 af-
ter giving due consideration to various relevant fac-
tors
1 Agreements of the parties
The Employer and the Paperworkers have a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, effective from February
19, 1974, to December 3, 1976 The Employer and
the Engineers have a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, effective from January 31, 1974, to January 31,
1977 Under these agreements, prior to the
Employer's changeover, most regular maintenance
on the Employer's machinery was done for four me-
chanics in the Paperworkers unit The three employ-
ees in the Engineers unit spent 90 percent of their
time working on the boilers and the corrugator ma-
chine, while also performing some maintenance on
the air compressor, air lines, water lines, ink pumps,
and hydraulic pumps However, these contracts are
not of significant help in determining this dispute be-
cause both were consummated prior to the
Employer's conversion, between June 1974 and Jan-
uary 1975, from a corrugator operation to a sheet
plant To the extent that they are helpful and in light
of the Employer's need for only one mechanic, the
contracts weigh in favor of the Paperworkers because
most work now performed by the one mechanic is
work formerly done by a member of the Paperwork-
ers unit
Employer-that the work in dispute be performed by
employees represented by Paperworkers
3 Employee skills and efficiency of operation
When the work in dispute is narrowly defined as
the maintenance on the air compressor, air lines, wa-
ter lines, ink pumps, and hydraulic pumps, the record
shows that both groups of employees possess the req-
uisite skills to perform the work However, the reality
of this situation is that whatever employee per-
f9rms the work in dispute must have skill to perform
all maintenance work at the Employer's facility
Thus, we must examine employee skills as to all
maintenance The work regarding the air compres-
sor, air lines, etc , is estimated to take less than 1 /2
man-hour per day and is relatively simple while
about 3-1/2 man-hours per day must be spent on the
more complex maintenance of various machines The
Employer's testimony indicates that members of the
Paperworkers are familiar with the Employer's ma-
chinery and have the requisite skills to perform all
maintenance On the other hand, members of the En-
gineers unit would not be familiar with or skilled in
the maintenance of the various machines
Also, the operation is more efficient and economi-
cal with a paperworker performing the disputed
work Were the Employer to hire an engineer to do
the work relating to the air compressor, air lines,
etc -work necessitating about 1/2 hour's effort per
day-it would still require a mechanic represented by
the Paperworkers to maintain the machines Alterna-
tively, the Employer would have to discharge the pa-
perworker and train an engineer to do maintenance
work on the machines Under these circumstances,
efficiency and economy of operation favor having
the work performed by a mechanic represented by
the Paperworkers
2 Industry practice
The parties stipulated that they were aware of
three sheet plants in the St Louis area similar to that
of the Employer, and that in each of these plants
there is a single bargaining unit of employees repre-
sented by the Paperworkers At these plants, all
maintenance work is performed by mechanics repre-
sented by the Paperworkers
The parties also stipulated they knew of three
plants in the area with corrugator operations and
those plants had a separate unit of engineers who did
work similar to the work in dispute in this proceed-
ing
In light of the Employer's change of operation, the
industry practice favors-for plants like that of the
4 Employer practice
Following its change of operation, the Employer
assigned its one remaining maintenance job to a pa-
perworker This assignment was logical in light of
most of the maintenance work having been tradi-
tionally performed by mechanics from the Paper-
workers unit Thus, the Employer's current assign-
ment and practice favor the award of the work to an
employee represented by the Paperworkers
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole and after full consider-
ation of all the relevant factors involved, we con-
clude that the Employer's employees represented by
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Paperworkers are entitled to perform the work in
dispute We reach this conclusion upon the facts that
the assignment, in light of the Employer's change of
operation and having only one mechanic J ob current-
ly available, is consistent with the collective-bargain-
ing agreement, it is consistent with industry practice
for plants similar to the Employer's, the Employer's
assignment will result in greater efficiency and econ-
omy of operation, and the assignment is consistent
with the Employer's practice subsequent to its
change of operation Accordingly, we shall determine
the dispute before us by awarding the work in dis-
pute to the Employer's employees represented by the
Paperworkers, but not to that Union or its members
Our present determination is limited to the particular
controversy 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 in the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute
Employees of the Westvaco Corporation, Contain-
er Division, St Louis, Missouri, who are currently
represented by the United Paperworkers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and its Local 175, are en-
titled to perform the work of starting and stopping
air compressors and the repair and maintenance of
said compressors, air lines, water lines, ink pumps,
and other hydraulic pumps at the Employer's facility
located at 5110 Penrose Street, St Louis, Missouri