Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

RAII.WAY, AIRL.INE, AND STEAMSHIP C I-RKS 9XI
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship
Clerks, System Board No. 94 and Pacific
Motor Trucking Company and International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case 36-CD-164
June 30, 1981
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Pacific Motor Trucking Com-
pany, herein called the Employer, alleging that the
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship
Clerks, System Board No. 94, herein called BRAC,
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by en-
gaging in certain proscribed activity with the
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to
assign certain work to employees it represented
rather than to employees represented by the Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Machinists,
or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Teamsters.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Sharon A. Larson on February 19
and 20, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford-
ed an opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence
bearing on the issues.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are therefore af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPL.OYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is a California corporation engaged in busi-
ness as a truck common carrier, performing serv-
ices in the States of Arizona, California, Nevada,
Oregon, Texas, and Washington, with its principal
place of business in Burlingame, California. The
parties further stipulated, and we find, that during
the past calendar year the Employer derived gross
revenue in excess of $50,000 from interstate com-
merce. We find, in accordance with the foregoing,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
256 NLRB No. 148
II. HE I.ABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOI.VED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that BRAC,
the Machinists, and the Teamsters are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The disputed work concerns the operation of
cathode ray tube computer terminals (herein called
CRTs) in the truck repair and maintenance shops
operated by the Employer in its Portland, Oregon,
facility.' Since their installation in 1979, the Em-
ployer has assigned the work of operating the
CRTs to members of Local 255, Teamsters and
District Lodge No. 24, Machinists.
The Employer installed the CRTs in 1979 in
order to facilitate the keeping of records regarding
truck maintenance, parts, and fuel. Prior to the in-
stallation of the CRTs, employees represented by
the Teamsters, which represents the Employer's
parts department employees, had maintained the re-
cords regarding parts and fuel; employees repre-
sented by the Machinists, which represents the Em-
ployer's mechanics, had maintained the records re-
garding maintenance work orders. These employ-
ees now enter information, which they had previ-
ously recorded by hand on various business forms,
directly into the CRT.
The Employer also employs employees repre-
sented by BRAC, who handle clerical duties in an
office separated from the repair shop. On or about
April 16, 1980, BRAC submitted a grievance to the
Employer, claiming that the assignment of employ-
ees represented by the Teamsters and the Machin-
ists to the operation of the CRTs constituted a vio-
lation of the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Employer and BRAC. This grievance
was eventually submitted to arbitration before a
neutral arbitrator.
In September 1980, the arbitrator ruled that the
assignment of the CRT operation to employees
represented by the Machinists and the Teamsters
violated the BRAC collective-bargaining agree-
ment. The arbitrator stated, however, that should
either the Machinists or the Teamsters object to
the assignment of the CRT work to employees rep-
resented by BRAC, the Employer should maintain
' The Employer. the Machinists and the Teamsters have requested
that the Board issue a broad a ard in this case, covering all present and
future jurisdictional disputes insolving the use of CRTs and other com-
puters :at all facilities operated h Pacific Motor rucking Company
After careful consideration of his request, we find that the record does
not permit an award broader than the dispute at the Emploser's facilhty
at l'Irtland, Oregon Accordingl , this Decision and Determina:tion of
I)isplute ci kcrs onl the 'work i dispute at that facllitl
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the status quo until the jurisdictional dispute is re-
solved.
Both the Machinists and the Teamsters claimed
that the employees they represented continued to
be entitled to operate the CRTs and the Employer
refused to assign the work to BRAC. On or about
February 3, 1981, Stan Stevens, senior vice general
chairman of BRAC, informed the Employer that
BRAC would picket the Employer's Portland fa-
cility unless the employees it represented were as-
signed to operate the CRTs. Stevens repeated his
threat later the same day.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation of
cathode ray tube computer terminals (CRTs) for
the keeping and retrieval of records regarding
parts, fuel, and maintenance work orders in the
Employer's repair shop at its Portland, Oregon, fa-
cility.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer, the Machinists, and the Team-
sters contend that the disputed work should be
awarded to employees represented by the Machin-
ists and Teamsters who are currently operating the
CRTs. BRAC, which did not file a brief with the
Board, contended at the 10(k) hearing that its
members are entitled to the CRT work. The Em-
ployer, the Machinists, and the Teamsters base
their claims on the skills of the Machinists and
Teamsters, employer preference and past practice,
industry practice, and the efficiency, economy, and
flexibility of the Employer's operations. They also
argue that because the CRTs have been operated
since their installation by employees represented by
the Machinists and the Teamsters, and because the
CRT work replaced manual recordkeeping which
had previously been done by employees represent-
ed by Machinists and Teamsters, no employee res-
presented by BRAC has been displaced.
BRAC bases its claim for the CRT work on the
language of its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer and upon the arbitrator's inter-
pretation of that agreement. BRAC also asserts that
the employees it represents possess the necessary
skills to operate the CRTs.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and that the parties have not agreed upon
a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
The record establishes that BRAC has continu-
ously asserted a claim to the work in dispute since
April 1980. BRAC admits that it threatened to
strike to force the Employer to assign the CRT
work to employees it represented. 2 Furthermore,
the parties stipulated at the hearing that they had
been unable to agree upon a method for the volun-
tary adjustment of the work dispute.3 Accordingly,
we find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred
and that this dispute is properly before the Board
for determination.
E. The Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to relevant factors. 4
The Board has held that its determination in a ju-
risdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on
common sense and experience reached by balanc-
ing those factors involved in a particular case.5
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute presently before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements and the
arbitration award
BRAC claims the disputed work primarily on
the basis of Rule (a) of its collective-bargaining
agreement, entered into in 1976, between BRAC
and the Employer. Under the terms of this agree-
ment, members of BRAC are accorded the right to
"exclusive operation" of "any electronic or me-
chanical computer systems or devices for the trans-
mission or receipt of data at terminals operated" by
the Employer.
However, the collective-bargaining agreement
between the Employer and the Teamsters states, in
relevant part, that the agreement shall cover "all
. . . activity as may be presently and hereinafter
2 The Employer contends that BRAC threatened to strike Pacific
Motor Trucking Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Compa-
ny, which owns Pacific Motor, "where it would hurt the most," and that
this statement implied that BRAC threatened a systemwide strike, BRAC
contends that it threatened to strike only at the Employer's facility at
Portland, Oregon. Since our Decision and Determination of Dispute
covers only the Portland, Oregon, facility, we need not determine the
extent of BRAC's strike threat. BRAC's admitted threat to strike at Port-
land is sufficient to provide reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Sec. 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and to bring this dispute before the Board
for determination.
3 As neither the Machinists nor the Teamsters was a participant in the
aforementioned arbitration award, the arbitration award could not serve
as a means for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute. Hutchinson Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants' Union. No. 275 (Hutchinson Publishing Com-
pany), 205 NLRB 582 (1973)
4 NL.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1122. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Colum-
bia Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
s International Association of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J
A. Jones C(onstruction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
RAILWAY, AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS 983
engaged in by the Employer in . . . truck servicing
and repairing .... " Additionally, the collective-
bargaining agreement between the Employer and
the Machinists provides, in pertinent part, that the
Machinists has jurisdiction "over all of the follow-
ing types of work in the Employer's shops: Mainte-
nance, body and fender work, rebuilding, disman-
tling, assembling, repairing, installing, erecting,
welding and burning . . . inspecting, diagnosing,
cleansing, preparing or conditioning of all units and
auxiliaries . . . relating to passenger cars . . .
trucks and all other types of powered machinery."
The Machinists and Teamsters contend that their
collective-bargaining agreements give them juris-
diction over CRT work done in connection with
their respective trades; BRAC maintains that its
collective-bargaining agreement gives its members
jurisdiction over all CRT work done in the
Employer's shop. After careful consideration of
these claims, we conclude that the contract of each
party tends to support its respective claim to the
disputed work and, therefore, that our award in
this matter must be based on other considerations.
BRAC also argues that the Board should give
weight to the fact that the employees it represents
were awarded the disputed work by a neutral arbi-
trator. However, the arbitration award was based
solely on the language of the BRAC collective-bar-
gaining agreement. In addition, neither the Machin-
ists nor the Teamsters participated in the arbitra-
tion and the award does not set forth and discuss
the crucial issue of whether the factors supporting
an award to the employees represented by BRAC
outweighed those supporting an award to employ-
ees represented by the Machinists and the Team-
sters. Accordingly, we find that the arbitration
award is not entitled to significant weight.6
2. Employer and industry practice
Since its installation in 1979, the Employer has
continuously and exclusively used employees who
are represented by the Machinists and the Team-
sters to perform the work in dispute. This factor
weighs heavily in favor of awarding the work to
those employees.7
The evidence regarding industry practice shows
that at all other places where CRTs are in use the
CRTs are operated by the employee who is en-
gaged in the physical work to which the CRT rec-
ordkeeping is related or by his supervisor. In the
instant case, the physical tasks connected to the
CRT system are performed by employees repre-
6 Nashua Printing Pressmen and .ssisrants' Union .Vo. 359 (elegraph
Publishing Company), 212 NLRB 942, fn 4 (1974).
7 Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 300. AFL-CIO
(Howard Olson Landscaping. Inc.), 195 NLRB 247. 248 (1972)
sented by the Machinists or the Teamsters. Em-
ployer and industry practice, therefore, favors an
award of the disputed work to those employees.
3. Relative skills, efficiency, and flexibility of
operation
The evidence indicates that no special skills are
required to operate the CRTs and that nearly
anyone could learn to operate a CRT in a relative-
ly short period of time. However, the evidence also
establishes that the CRT System is an interactive
system which requires the operator to respond to
inquiries made by the computer and to make
changes or corrections in the data. This system
functions most efficiently when the operator is fa-
miliar with the nature of the data which he or she
enters into the terminal. Moreover, direct use of
the CRT by the Employer's mechanics, represent-
ed by the Machinists, and partsmen, represented by
the Teamsters, enhances the ability of these em-
ployees to locate parts and equipment quickly and
efficiently, to determine which part or machine to
use, and to record which parts and equipment have
been used.
It is evident from the foregoing that the factors
of skill, efficiency, and flexibility favor an award of
the disputed work to employees represented by the
Machinists and the Teamsters.
4. Job impact
The record reflects that the CRT system is basi-
cally a substitution for the recordkeeping which
had previously been done manually by mechanics
and partsmen. Under the CRT system, these em-
ployees continue to maintain essentially the same
records as they had in the past, except that these
records are now entered into a CRT computer ter-
minal.
BRAC does not claim that any of the employees
it represents have been laid off or that any position
held by one of its members has been abolished as a
result of the introduction of the CRT system and
the assignment of the CRT work to employees rep-
resented by the Machinists and the Teamsters. In-
stead, BRAC claims that the assignment of the
CRT work to these employees could, conceivably,
lead to a loss of BRAC positions in the Employer's
central office in Burlingame, California. This claim
is purely speculative. Indeed, BRAC's counsel ad-
mitted at the hearing that he "couldn't honestly say
that it would result in abolishment of an individual
position."
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represent-
ed by the Machinists and the Teamsters would not
result in an adverse job impact on employees repre-
984 DECISIONS OF NATI()NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sented by BRAC and that this factor does not
favor an assignment to any particular employee.
5. Employer preference
The Employer's representatives testified that be-
cause of economy, efficiency, and flexibility it pre-
ferred its employees who are most familiar with
the nature of the data to be entered into the CRT,
and are engaged in the physical tasks which gener-
ate that data, to perform the disputed work. This
factor weighs in favor of awarding the work to
employees who are represented by the Machinists
and the Teamsters.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors, we conclude that
employees who are represented by the Machinists
and the Teamsters, and who are currently operat-
ing the CRTs, are entitled to the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion on the basis of the Em-
ployer's and industry practice, relative skills, the
efficiency and flexibility of the Employer's oper-
ation, and the Employer's preference. In making
this determination, we are awarding the work in
question to employees who are represented by the
Machinists and the Teamsters, but not to those
Unions or their members. The present determina-
tion covers the disputed work in the Employer's
Portland, Oregon, facility, and is limited to the par-
ticular controversy which gave rise to this pro-
ceeding.
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 Pacific Motor Truck-
ing Company who are represented by District
Lodge No. 24, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work in dispute which con-
sists of the operation of cathode ray tube computer
terminals in connection with their duties as me-
chanics in the Employer's Portland, Oregon, facili-
ty.
2. Employees employed by Pacific Motor Truck-
ing Company who are represented by Local 255,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are
entitled to perform the work in dispute which con-
sists of the operation of cathode ray tube computer
terminals in connection with their duties as parts-
men in the Employer's Portland, Oregon, facility.
3. The Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and
Steamship Clerks, System Board No. 94, is not en-
titled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act to force or require Pacific Motor Trucking
Company to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by that labor organization.
4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, the Brotherhood of
Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks, System
Board No. 94, shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 19, in writing, whether or not it will re-
frain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
to assign the disputed work in the manner incon-
sistent with the above determination.