Retail & Wholesale Warehousemen, Local 130

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 623 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

RETAIL & WHOLESALE WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL 130
Retail and Wholesale Warehousemen's Union, Local
No. 130, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Nordstrom, Inc.
and General Teamsters, Local No. 174, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America. Case 19-CD-354
July 16, 1980
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDAI.E
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Nordstrom, Inc., herein called
the Employer, alleging that Retail and Wholesale
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 130, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Respondent or Local 130, had
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging
in certain proscribed activity with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to its members rather than to employees rep-
resented by General Teamsters, Local No. 174, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Local 174.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Gary Kaminski on April 11, 1980.
All parties appeared and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues.
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
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
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, a Washington corporation with its principal
place of business in Seattle, is engaged in the retail
sale of clothing and shoes. During the past year,
the Employer purchased goods from outside the
State having a value of $50,000. The parties also
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
250 NLRB No. 115
2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE l.ABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Retail
and Wholesale Warehousemen's Union, Local No.
130, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, and General Teamsters, Local No.
174, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In March 1972, the Employer opened a distribu-
tion center from which merchandise is shipped to
stores in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. At the
center, Local 174 represents drivers who drive de-
livery trucks to the retail stores. Respondent repre-
sents 100 processing employees, about 10 of whom
have performed the disputed work of loading and
unloading trucks since the distribution center
opened. Neither Union is a certified representative.
The most recent agreement between the Em-
ployer and Local 174, currently under renegoti-
ation, provides "all loading and unloading of trucks
· . . shall be done by members of Teamsters Local
Union No. 174 bargaining unit only." Despite this
language, the loading and unloading of trucks has
been performed by Respondent under the receiv-
ing-shipping clerk classification and pay rate speci-
fied in its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer.
In January 1976, Local 174 sent to Respondent a
written confirmation that Respondent's perform-
ance of this loading and unloading had local 174's
approval, but would cease upon request by Local
174. In February 1976, Respondent acknowledged
that the work was covered under Local 174's con-
tract and stated that, upon request, this work by its
members would stop. In February 1980, Local 174
requested that the work be returned to its bargain-
ing unit. Respondent refused and told the Employ-
er that it had performed this work since the distri-
bution center opened and that it would strike or
picket if the truckloading work was given to em-
ployees represented by Local 174.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves all operations asso-
ciated with the loading and unloading of goods
from the loading dock to trucks at the Nodstrom
distribution center in Tukwila, Washington.
623
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Contention of the Parties
The Employer contends that any agreement be-
tween the Locals is no longer being given effect by
Respondent, and that it is therefore faced with
competing claims by labor organizations. On the
merits, the Employer prefers that the work be as-
signed to Respondent because of company practice
and economy and efficiency of operation.
Local 174 asserts that there is no bona fide work
assignment dispute because Respondent's "threat"
to strike or picket was too vague and ambiguous to
fall within the ambit of Section 8(b)(4)(D). Assum-
ing arguendo that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
Local 174 asserts that employees represented by it
are entitled to the work under the terms of its con-
tract with the Employer and because the disputed
work is traditionally performed by these employ-
ees.
Respondent takes the position that there is a
bona fide jurisdictional dispute, and that the work
should be awarded to employees represented by it
because of past practice and employer preference.
It also claims that its contract with the Employer is
a valid contract under which employees represent-
ed by it are performing the work under the classifi-
cation of shipping clerks.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Testimony taken at the hearing shows that a
Teamsters Local 130 representative informed the
Employer's general manager on March 3, 1980,
that, if the disputed work was assigned to employ-
ees represented by Local 174, Local 130 would
strike or picket the Employer.
The instant dispute has not been adjusted, nor
has any method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute been agreed upon. The Employer refuses to
be bound by any award made by a joint board or
council.
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 pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of disputed work after
giving due consideration to various factors. The
I NL.R.B. v Radio & Television Broadcasr Engineers Union. Local
1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical WorAers, 4FL-CIO [Columrn.
bia Broadcasting System], 364 U S. 573 (1961 )
tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com-
monsense and experience reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case.2
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both of the collective-bargaining agreements
cover the disputed work. Local 174's most recent
contract provides, inter alia, that "All . .. loading
and unloading of trucks . . . shall be done by
members of Teamsters Local Union No 174 bar-
gaining unit only." However, the disputed work
has been performed under the following provision
in Local 130's contract:
RECEIVING & SHIPPING CLERKS,
whose duties and responsibilities are under su-
pervision to supervise the receiving of incom-
ing merchandise and shipping of outgoing mer-
chandise, checking freight bills, keeping neces-
sary records and performing related work as
assigned.
Accordingly, this factor does not favor an award
to employees represented by either Union.
2. Company practice
Employees represented by Local 130 have per-
formed the disputed work at all times. Before the
Employer had a distribution center it used a down-
town retail store as a distribution point, and the
work in question was then performed by that
group of workers. This factor favors an award of
the work to employees represented by Local 130.
3. Industry practice
Employees represented by Local 174 perform
the disputed work at other large retailers in the
area and the Employer's practice here has been a
longstanding exception in the area. Thus, this
factor favors an award to employees represented
by Local 174.
4. Relative skills
There are no special skills required in the per-
formance of the disputed work. Thus, this factor
does not favor an award to employees represented
by either of the Unions.
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
Usually goods are staged on the loading dock
and loaded into trucks before the truckdrivers
arrive at work. Local 174's truckdrivers could not
2 International Associafion of Machinists. L ge No. 1743,. AFL-CIO (J
A. Jones Constructron Company). 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
624
RETAIL & WHOLESALE WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL 130
perform the work of arranging goods on the stag-
ing area of the loading docks, as the Local 130
shipping clerks do, without further training. Fur-
ther, the truckdrivers prefer the work of the truck-
driving and seek the disputed work for the first
time because of reduced driving availability. How-
ever, Local 174 members may claim driving work
whenever there is more available, adversely affect-
ing the efficiency of operations if they were then
performing the disputed work. This factor favors
an award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Local 130.
6. Union agreements
Local 130 acknowledged to Local 174, in early
1976, that there was jurisdictional overlap of load-
ing and unloading trucks for the Employer, and
agreed to stop the work upon request by Local
174. This "agreement" was of unspecified duration.
Four years later, Local 130 unilaterally repudiated
this informal agreement. Under these circumstances
we cannot attach significant weight to this factor. 3
7. Employer preference
The Employer has always assigned the disputed
work to Local 130 and maintains a preference for
continuing this assignment. Hence, this factor
favors the Employer's assignment to employees
represented by Local 130.
3 See Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association.
Local Vo. 394. AFL-CIO (Warner Masonry. Inc.). 220 NLRB 1074 (1975)
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
Retail and Wholesale Warehousemen's Union
Local No. 130, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, are entitled to perform
the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion rely-
ing on employer preference, economy and efficien-
cy of operation, and company practice. In making
this determination, we are awarding the work in
question to employees who are represented by
Retail and Wholesale Warehousemen's Union
Local No. 130, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, but not to that Union or
its members. The 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 and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Nordstrom, Inc., who are repre-
sented by Retail and Wholesale Warehousemen's
Union Local No. 130, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, are entitled to per-
form all operations associated with the loading and
unloading of goods from the loading dock to
trucks at the Nordstrom distribution center.
625