192 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

Soft Drink Workers, Local 812

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 23, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Soft Drink Workers ' Union, Local 812, affiliated with ,International,Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- -feurs, Warehousemen 9& Helpers of America and Nevi, York Seven ' Up. Bottling Company, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & 'Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America Chauffeurs,, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester Coun- ty Local 445,' affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , and,New York Seven Up Bottling . Company, Inc. and . Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen. & Helpers of America. Cases 29-CD=104,and 29-CD-105 August 23,` 1971 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES B Y ' CHAIRMAN'' MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by New York Seven Up Bottling Company, Inc.,' alleging that Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen `& Helpers of America,2 and Chauf- feurs,, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester, County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,3 had each violated Section ^(b)(4)(D) of the Act .4 A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Marvin ^ Tenzer on February 10, 11, 22, rand 23, and March ' 3, 4, 5, 24, 25, 26, and 29, 1971. All "parties were afforded full opportunity to, be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are ' Hereinafter Seven Up, the Employer, or the Company. z Hereinafter Local 812 Hereinafter Local 445. 4 The charge against Local 812 was filed on November 2, 1970, in Case 29-CD-104. a charge against Local 445 in Case 29-CD-105 was filed the same day. On December 28, 1970, the Regional Director for Region 29 issued an order consolidating the two cases for purposes of hearing. free from prejudicial =error. They are hereby affirmed. Briefs filed by Seven Up, Local 812, and Local 445 have been duly considered, Upon the entire records in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE' EMPLOYER The Employer produces and distributes carbonated beverages and fountain syrups at various locations in the New York . metropolitan area. During the past 'year, a representative period, the Employer pur- chased and received at its plants in the State of New York goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of ($50,000 from outside the State of New York, and shipped goods, material s, and supplies valued in ,excess of $50,000 from its plants in the State ofNew York to points outside the State of New York. The parties stipulated, and 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 purposes of the Act to, assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties further stipulated, and we find, that Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Chauf- fears, ' Teamsters & Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act., III. THE DISPUTES A, Background and Facts of the Disputes The disputes involve the transport- of Seven Up products among the, Company's ''plants and ware- houses within its Metropolitan New York franchise area, the southern part of which is represented- by Local 812 and' the northern- part' by Local 445. Each Union claims that within its respective contractual jurisdiction, the work of transporting such products belongs exclusively to the tractor-trailer drivers whom it represents.6 Seven Up's practice has been to assign this work to either Union's drivers, based on economic considerations and regardless of the jurisdiction involved. In 1939 the Employer was awarded the franchise to 5 On June 3, 1971, the parties filed with the Board a Stipulation for Correction of Official Record of Proceedings . By order dated June 7, 1971, the Board approved said stipulation and ordered that the record herein be corrected accordingly. 6 The drivers who deliver company products to retail customers are not involved in these disputes. 192 NLRB No. 139 SOFT DRINK WORKERS, LOCAL 812 produce and distribute Seven Up soda in a seven- county area of Metropolitan, New York.7 From then until 1948 Seven Up operated a single bottling plant in New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York, and warehouses in Newburgh, New York, northwest of New Rochelle, and the Bronx, southwest of the plant. In 1944 the Company recognized Local 445 as the collective-bargaining representative of - a unit including, inter alit; -transportation, maintenance, warehouse, and production department employees employed in the franchise area north of 161st Street in the Bronx, New York City. The New Rochelle- based transport drivers represented by Local 445 were primarily engaged in delivering products to the two warehouses until 1948. The Bronx warehouse, except for a brief,period in 1940, was unrepresented at this time. In 1948 bottling facilities were established at the Bronx site, and thereafter the New, Rochelle drivers' main task was the shipment of raw materials between the two plants. They also continued to deliver finished products to Newburgh, however. In 1950 the Company recognized. Local' 812 as the bargaining11 , representative of the Bronx facility's production and sales personnel; no transport drivers were then employed at the Bronx plant. There was no change in the Employer's operations until 1963, when it obtained from the Royal Crown Cola Company the franchise to produce and distrib- ute, inter alitry Diet Rite Cola and Royal Crown Cola. The Royal Crown franchise encompassed the Seven Up franchise area ,and the New Yrok counties 'of Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, Kings, and Richmond. The Company then established warehouses in Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk for the distribution of Royal Crown products; it has never distributed Seven Up in these` areas. The employees -employed at the above new warehouses became members of Local 812, and its-collective-bargaining agreement with the Employ- er was' amended to reflect this unit change. At first, either the New Rochelle or Bronx plant supplied the Company's requirements of Royal Crown sodas. Local 445's tractor-trailer drivers hauled Seven Up and' Royal Crown products to the Employer's original warehouses and Royal Crown only' to Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk. When the demand for Royal Crown and Diet Rite increased, the Employer contracted in 1964 with another employer operating a Brooklyn bottling plant for the production of additional soda. An independent trucking company was also hired then to ship Royal Crown products from the Brooklyn plant to the Y The franchise covers the counties of the $ronx, Manhattan , Westches- ter, Orange, Rockland,.Dutchess, and Putnam, New York. 8 Local 812 also represents employees of other employers in the New York soft drink industry located north of 16 1st Street, but its contract with 935 Employer's Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk, ware- houses. Local 812 represented the -bottling plant's and trucking firm's employees in separate units different from those of, the Employer. In 1965 Seven Up canceled its arrangement with the trucking concern and for the first time employed Local 812 drivers to make the trip from the independent Brooklyn plant to its own warehouses on Long Island. While, the record does not, reveal whether these drivers were then based in Brooklyn or the Bronx, it is clear that they worked in. Local 812's jurisdiction south of 161st Streets However, since both New Rochelle and the Bronx also- produced Royal Crown products, Local 445 drivers based-in New Rochelle continued to deliver them-to the Long, Island warehouses too. Seven Up terminated its contract with- the Brook- lyn bottler in 1967 when, the Company- opened -a larger new plant in New Rochelle. It, then transferred-, the two Local 812 truckdrivers whom it had hired in, 1965 to the Bronx, plant and, in 1969, closed the Brooklyn ,warehouse, - Since 1967 the Company, has operated four trucks from New Rochelle, in_ Local 445's unit, and-two trucks • from the Bronx, in Local 812's' 'unit., Inasmuch as the two plants now produce different products, the Employer's truckdrivers -must make daily interplant trips so that each 'plant- has ,a full complement of Seven Up and Royal; Crown products for sale to customers. -However, to avoid or limit, "dead-heading," referring to the movement of empty trucks from one plant or warehouse to another, the Company has developed its so-called "free inter- change" policy of using the six truckmen throughout the franchise area regardless of which plant or warehouse is involved in the delivery. Thus, for example, a Local ,445-manned truck may take "quart" bottles of Seven Up from New, Rochelle to the Bronx, where it will be unloaded by Local, 812 warehousemen. The Local 445 truckdriver will thereafter receive a load of Royal Crown soda produced in the Local 812-represented Bronx, plant and deliver it to either Long Island warehouse (i.e., Garden City Park, Nassau County, - or Medford, Suffolk County, New York). Tlie warehousemen in these Long Island facilities are, as` noted above, represented by Local 812. Of course, the transporta- tion of such products from the Bronx plant may also be assigned by the Company to a 1,96a)[4 12 driver. And, a Local 812 driver who has delivered a load of Bronx products to New Rochelle may be assigned to either return to the Bronx with Local 445-produ6ed Seven Up limits the unit to those unit employees of the Company who work below 161st Street . Local _445 represents those unit employees employed by the Employer north of that point. 936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Newt Rochelle soda or deliver such goods to Newburgh or the other' warehouses in Local 445's unit.- Since the demand for Seven Up products varies seasonally'and the assortment of products bound for areas within the franchise changes daily, the Compa- ny does not necessarily follow the same delivery pattern every day. In fact, other than for certain prepl'anned, almost routine deliveries to warehouses or 'plants, the record reveals that the decision to send a given truck to- a particular destination is often made on the spot, depending on daily fluctuations in demand,for products 'within the Company's territory. The "free interchange" policy was designed to give Seven Up flexibility in scheduling its deliveries, so' as to meet changing requirements for products. The current 'agreement between Local 445 and the Company; executed-in' June 1967, contains no clause -granting that Union any exclusive right to' the assignment of truck delivery work and, in fact, the management functions 'article thereof states that the Employer is in no way limited as to the "reasonable assignment of jobs; "` Local 812's contract with Seven Up; whose 3-year, term ended on May 31, 1971, likewise-did not grant the Union any exclusive right- to-work assignments, and contained a virtually identical management rights clause. During negotia- tions for ` the now expired agreement, Local 812 proposed that products manufactured by Local 812 be delivered onl"by its members to,all warehouses within its jurisdiction. Seven Up did not agree to this proposal. ' - The present disputes may be said to, have, sharp- ened ' in mid-`1969. 'Commencing in July -1969 and continuing until April 1910, the Local 812 ware- housemen at the Bronx plant refused to reload Local 445-manned trucks after `unloading their New Ro- chelle-produced soda. When the Bronx warehouse- men' first refused to reload a Local 445 truck, Local 812's shop' steward, Abe -' Swawait, told the Bronx production manager, John Deans, that because the soda 'was bound `for a Local 812 , warehouse (Garden City Park), Local 812 wanted the transport work. Therefore, during that period the Employer had to send ' suchtrucks back' to New Rochelle empty, and utilize a Local 812-manned 'truck to deliver the products I to the 'Garden City Park warehouse. Local 445's members became dissatisfied with this state of affairs. Despite assurances from the Compa- ny that a solution' `to the problem was being 'sought by the- parties, on March 16, "1970, Local 445's business agent informed 'Seven Up's production coordinator, that "retaliatory action" would be taken if the Bronx situation were not resolved. In mid-April 1970, Seven Up, informed Local 445 that Local 812 had agreed to return to the past practice of'r'eloading New Rochelle trucks in the ' Bronx regardless of destination . However, Local 445's business agent shortly thereafter told his' New Rochelle warehouse- men that because he did not trust the Seven' Up- Local 812- agreement, -they were not to allow' Local 812 drivers to reload in New Rochelle . Moreover, throughout the July 1969-April 1970`-period;- Local 812 was not allowing the Employer 's Plainfield, New Jersey, truckmen,' represented by'- Teamsters' Local 125,9 to load in the Bronx. Local 445 likewise barred Local 125 from loading in New Rochelle, at least for a substantial period. In April 1970, pursuant to the agreement noted above, Bronx Local 812 began 'reloading both Local 445 and Local 125 trucks; but Local 445 barred Local 812 trucks from being,' reloaded 'in New Rochelle, Then; beginning in July 1970 Local 812 refused to unload trucks ,from New Rochelle arriving in the Bronx, contending, according to Shop Steward Swawait's comment to Production Manager Deans, that the driving should be done by Local 812 ' men However, Local 812 continued to unload , Local 125 New Jersey trucks. At or, about the same time, another unit of employees represented by Local 812 refused to load,a Local 445 truck'at an, independent soda canner which was under contract with` Seven Up. Local 445's committeeman thereafter informed local company management that on instructions from Local 445's business agent, Local 445 would not unload any Local 812 trucks. This action by, Local 445' was apparently also precipitated by Local 812's refusal on July 20, 1970, to unload a Local 445 truck which had come to the, Garden -City' Park, warehouse directly from New Rochelle. At that time,,, a Local 812 loader told;the Employer 's representative in Garden City Park that, based on a telephone; conversation` he'had had with Local -812's secretary- treasurer that day,_ he was not allowed to unload such a truck anymore. This situation recurred m -October 1970. For a while, Seven Up attempted to get products, from the New Rochelle plant to the Garden ;City Park warehouse by transferring the load from a Local 445 driver to one represented by Local 812, at a point near the New- York State Thruway in West- chester County; This practice was stopped by focal 445 in late September 1970. Then, in order' to distribute its- products throughout the franchise area, Seven Up was compelled to ship soda destined for- the area south of 161st Street from New Rochelle to a New Jersey warehouse via Local' 445-manned trucks. The Local 125-represented New Jersey 9 Local 125 is not a party to this proceeding. SOFT DRINK WORKERS, LOCAL 812 warehousemen unloaded and stored the products and thereafter loaded in on Local 812 trucks from the Bronx for distribution in the latter Union's territory. This procedure was followed in reverse for Local 812-produced goods bound for Local 445's jurisdiction, in particular the New Rochelle plant. As noted above, both, Local 445 and Local 812 at that time dealt with Local 125. B. The Contentions of the Parties Seven Up contends that Local 812 and Local 445 each violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by refusing to handle trucks operated by the other Local, with an object of forcing Seven Up to assign the work of transporting its products throughout each Local's portion of the franchise . area - to that Local exclusively. In particular, the Employer notes Local 812's refusal to reload Local 445 trucks at the Bronx plant from. July 1969 until April 1970; Local 812's refusal after July 1970 to either unload or reload Local 445 A rucks throughout Local 812's jurisdiction (i.e., at the Bronx plant or Garden City Park warehouse); and Local 445's refusal after July 1970 to handle any Local 812 trucks. Seven Up also argues that its- "free interchange" policy of using both Unions' drivers, throughout its territory regard- less of the drivers' union affiliation or the jurisdiction involved should form the basis of any work assign- ment made by the Board. The Employer relies on the following to support this contention: The collective- bargaining agreements do not award this work to either Union, but do give the Company authority to make reasonable work assignments without limita- tion;_ the practice of transporting products among Seven Up's plants and warehouses regardless of the union affiliation involved has existed since 1940 and has been followed since the advent of Local &12 truckmen at the Bronx plant in 1967 without protest by either Union; and the transportation system adopted by the Company is the most economical and efficient, and, is significantly less costly than the preinjunction New Jersey "detour" it was compelled to, use to ship soda from one Union's territory to the other. Local 812 contends that it did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act because Seven Up allegedly had granted Local 812 all the transport work throughout the Employer's territory in discussions held on June 17, 1969, prior to any unlawful action by the Union. Thus, Local 812- argues it was not engaged in activity designed to force or require the Employer to reassign work to it. (The Employer denies that any such work assignment was made in favor ,of Local 812.) Local 812, argues that should the Board make a work assignment , the job of hauling products should be given to it where employees it 937 represents will eventually deliver the products to retail customers. Local 445 asserts that it did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act - because the object - of its conduct was to preserve its traditional unit work from Local 812's attack . It also advances many other arguments, such as that - the disputed work should be assigned to it because its members possess the requisite skills, the assignment would be based on past practice, and it would be more efficient- for the Employer. C. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with the determina- tion of a 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) of the Act has been violated. Contrary to the contentions of Local 812,, we find that the circumstances under which Local 812 from July 1970 to date refused to unload or reload trucks driven from New Rochelle by drivers represented by Local 445 clearly establish a prima facie case supporting the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) in Case 29-CD -i04. In' view of the history of this dispute, we find no merit in Local 812's contention that it did not authorize Shop Steward Swawait's comment made in July 1970 at the Bronx plant that all driving had to be done by -Local 812 men. Moreover, the refusal to unload a Local 445-manned truck at Garden City Park in July 1970 clearly was based on directions issued over the telephone that day by the Union's secretary-treasurer. From the above, and the entire record herein, we find, contrary to Local 812, that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated in Case 20-CD-104 and that the dispute,is properly before the Board for determina- tion., Similarly, contrary to the contention of Local 445, we find that the circumstances under which Local 445 from April 1970 to date , refused to unload or reload trucks driven from the Bronx to New Rochelle by drivers represented by Local 812 clearly support the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) in Case 29-CD-105. It is clear from the record that Local 445's business agent directed that its members take the job action described above and that he so informed the ,Employer's management. We find no merit in Local 445's assertion that it was merely seeking to protect its traditional unit work because that work never encompassed the exclusive delivery of products to New Rochelle from the Bronx plant-work which Local 445 by its actions was apparently attempting to wrest from Local 812. From the above, and the entire record herein, we 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find, -contrary to Local 445, that there is reasonable 2. Employer's preference - cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been -violated in Case 29=CD-105 and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion. D. Merits of the, Disputes Section ' 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an _ affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. In International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction Co.),10 the Board set forth the, following criteria to be considered in the making of an affirmative award in a Section 10(k) proceeding: The Board will consider all relevant factors in determining who is entitled to the work, in ,dispute, e.g., the skills and work involved, certifications " by,the Board, company and indus- try, practice , agreements between unions and between . employers and unions, awards of arbitra- tors, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the same or related ; cases, the assignment made by the employer, and the efficient operation of the employer'sbusiness.11 1. Company and area practice The record reveals that prior to any of the above- described coercive actions by Locals 445 and 812, the company. ` practice was to assign the work of transporting its products among the Company's plants and warehouses to either Union's drivers regardless of the area of the, franchise involved. Thus, Local 445 drivers; regularly went from New Rochelle to the Bronx ' where, after being unloaded by Local 812 warehousemen, they received a shipment of Bronx products for delivery to Long Island. On the other hand, Bronx-based Local 812 drivers made deliveries , to New Rochelle and then took a load of New' Rochelle products to either Newburgh, the Bronx, or the Long Island warehouses . This so-called "free interchange" policy is, of course, a result of Seven Up's particular business considerations and the record fails to reveal whether the industry practice is similar. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the company practice is to grant one Union exclusive right to all or any particular part of the transportation work being done by the Company within that Union's contract jurisdiction. Thus, company practice is a factor supporting an award permitting Local 812's drivers to operate in Local 445's jurisdiction and vice versa. The fact that Seven Up clearly prefers an award to its transport drivers represented by Locals 445 and 812 which would permit the' Company to maintain its "free interchange" policy is a factor which supports an assignment permitting Local 445- drivers to operate in Local 812's jurisdiction and vice versa. 3. Efficiency and economy of operation The record reveals that Seven Up's "free inter- change" policy was adopted to avoid or limit the "deadheading" of empty tractor- trailers within the Company's franchise area . Thus, under this system, the Employer, for example, can use a Local 445 driver to truck products from New Rochelle to the Bronx; take on there a load of soda and deliver it to Garden City Park or Medford; and then ,take on, a load of empty bottles to truck back to' either the Bronx or New Rochelle. The costly, circuitous New Jersey "detour" would have to be utilized to get soda from, New Rochelle to the Bronx and points south, and vice versa, if the Unions are allowed,to ' refuse to permit Seven Up to use its "free interchange" policy. The record reveals that the cost of utilizing the New Jersey route to move products from New Rochelle to the Bronx and vice versa is virtually prohibitive. As noted above, the "free interchange" system also allows the Company to adapt its delivery schedules to meet the ever-changing demand for various-types of soda. We find' that the Company 's "free interchange" policy is the most efficient and economical method'of transporting Seven 'Up products among its plants and warehouses within the franchise area. This is an additional factor supporting an award permitting either Union to operate in the other Union's contract jurisdiction. 4. Certification by the Board Since the record fails to reveal that either Local 445 or Local 812 holds a Board certification for the employees and job ' classifications involved herein, this is a neutral factor not supporting assignment of the 'disputed' work to either group of drivers repre- sented by'the Unions. 5. Agreement between the Unions While the record indicates that the 'two Unions involved herein have discussed the jurisdictional problem, 'there is no evidence that they,-have agreed io 135NLRB 1402. - ii Id at 1410-11. . SOFT DRINK WORKERS , LOCAL 812 on a solution . Accordingly, this is not a factor in the instant proceeding. 6. Skills and work involved The record reveals that the truckdrivers represent- ed by each Local possess the requisite skills to transport Seven Up products among the Company's plants and warehouses. This is a neutral factor not supporting assignment of the disputed work to either group of employees. 7. Agreements between the Employer and the Unions As noted above, neither collective-bargaining agreement between Seven Up and the Unions assigns the disputed work exclusively to either Local 445 or Local 812. In fact, both contracts reserve to the Company, without limitation, the right to make "reasonable assignment of jobs." This is a factor supporting an award allowing either Union to operate in the other's jurisdiction. Conclusions On all th evidence, we determine the instant jurisdictional disputes in the following manner: Seven Up's tractor-trailer drivers, whether represent- ed by Local 445 or by Local 812, are entitled to the work of transporting Seven Up products in that part of the Company's franchise area which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the other Local, when assigned such work by the Company in conformity with the, Company's above-described "free inter- change" policy. Company practice, employer prefer- ence, efficiency and economy of operation, and the agreements between the Company and the Unions favor this result. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES 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- putes. In Case 29-CD-104: 1. Employees who are employed by New York Seven Up Bottling Company, Inc., as tractor-trailer drivers and who are currently represented by Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester Coun- ty Local 445, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are entitled to perform the work of transporting Seven Up products among the Employer's plants and warehouses within the juris- 939 diction of Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International •Brother-hood,,of, Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America, as that jurisdiction is defined in, the collective-bargaining agreement between the -Em-- ployer and Local 812, which expired on May 31, 1971, if said work is assigned to it in conformity with the Employer's above-described past practice. 2. Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliat- ed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work exclusively to tractor-trailer drivers who are represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed in Section 8(bX4)(D), to assign the work in dispute exclusively to employees represented by Local 812, rather than to employees represented by Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America. In Case 29--CD-105: 1. Employees who are employed by New York Seven Up Bottling Company, Inc., as tractor-trailer drivers, and who are currently represented by Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are entitled to perform the work of transporting Seven Up products among the Employer's plants and warehouses within the jurisdiction of Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as that jurisdiction is defined in the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Local 445, if said work is assigned to it in conformity with the Employer's above-described past practice. 2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the ' Employer to assign the above work exclusively to tractor-trailer drivers who are repre- sented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, Chauffeurs, Team- 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sters & Helpers Westchester County Local 445, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pros- cribed in Section 8(b)(4XD), to assign the work in dispute exclusively to employees represented by Local 445, rather than to employees represented by Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.