226 N.L.R.B. 657 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

Steel, Paper House, Etc., Intl., Brotherhood of Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 1, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 657 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

STEEL, PAPER HOUSE, ETC., INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS Steel, Paper House, Chemical Drivers and Helpers, Local 578, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca' and Rockwell International Corporation and International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America- UAW and its affiliated Local No. 1519 .' Case 31- CD-170 November 1, 1976 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Rockwell International Corpo- ration, herein called the Employer, alleging that Steel , Paper House, Chemical Drivers and Helpers, Local 578, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro- scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to employees represented by Internation- al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, and its affiliated Local No. 1519, herein called the UAW. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Hear- ing Officer Sheri E. Ross on June 8, 9, 11, and 15, 1976. All parties appeared and were afforded full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the is- sues. 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 that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, includ- ing the briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated and we find that the Em- ployer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in scien- 1 As amended at the heanng. 657 tific and technical testing of various products for government agencies including the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- tration, and Energy Research and Development Ad- ministration at its Santa Susana, California, location. During the past fiscal year the Employer sold prod- ucts and services valued in excess of $50,000 to enter- prises located outside the State of California. Ac- cordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ' The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Team- sters and the UAW are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background Two of the Employer's operating divisions are lo- cated in Canoga Park, California-Rocketdyne Divi- sion and Atomics International Division. Both divi- sions share testing facilities at the Employer's Santa Susana field laboratory located in the unpopulated area of the Santa Susana mountains, about 12 miles from the Canoga Park facilities. The traffic depart- ment is located at Rocketdyne in Canoga Park and is responsible for the movement of goods and people between the Canoga divisions and the Santa Susana facility. Drivers in the traffic department operate a tractor-trailer, panel trucks, stakebed trucks, station wagons, and other vehicles. The drivers make six scheduled runs daily from Rocketdyne to Atomics International to Santa Susana and back, loading and unloading at each location. The drivers also make unscheduled runs as necessary and make deliveries from Santa Susana to other Rockwell facilities and to venders. The Santa Susana facility is over 500 acres in extent and has its own trucking equipment which operates exclusively within the facility. That opera- tion is staffed by Santa Susana drivers. From about 1949 the Employer has assigned all traffic department work, including all over-the-road trucking into and out of Santa Susana, to employees represented by the Teamsters. In 1968 the UAW was certified for a unit of production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, at the Santa Susa- na facility. Prior to 1968, intrafacility trucking at Santa Susana was performed by unrepresented em- ployees; since then it has been performed by UAW members. A representative of the UAW testified that 226 NLRB No. 95 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from recognition in 1968 to present the UAW has claimed all over-the-road trucking originating from Santa Susana. In late 1974 the UAW filed a griev- ance in support of its claim. The grievance proceeded to arbitration between the UAW and the Employer. In.March 1976, the arbitrator decided that, under the collective-bargaining agreement, over-the-road trucking starting from Santa Susana is -to be manned by UAW-represented employees. (In addition, the ar- bitrator decided an issue of certain intrafacilrty transportation.) The Teamsters was not a party to the grievance arbitration proceeding. On April 28, 1976, the Teamsters sent the Employer a letter stating that it did not accept the arbitration award and that it "intends to place pickets at your Santa Susana facili- ty, and at any of your other facilities where we law- fully may picket, for the purpose of preventing you from assigning that work -to the- UAW." In May the UAW filed for enforcement of the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. B. The Work in Dispute The disputed work consists of over-the-road truck driving originating at the Employer's Santa -Susana facility. The dispute involves neither, intrafacility truckdriving within the Santa Susana grounds nor over-the-road _truckdriving originating at other than the Santa Susana facility. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the dispute is proper- ly before the Board for determination and that the merits of the dispute favor awarding the work to em- ployees represented by the Teamsters . The Employer cites its assignment of the disputed work and its pref- erence, its past practice , efficiency and economy of operations , collective-bargaining agreements and Board certifications , relative skills , and UAW ac- quiescence. The UAW contends that the dispute is not proper- ly the subject of a 10(k) proceeding because: (1) There was no threat to engage in proscribed activity since the Teamsters , under the no-strike clause of its collective-bargaining agreement , cannot lawfully picket the Employer and the Employer could, if nec- essary, quickly obtain an injunction against any pick- et; (2) the Teamsters letter was a sham manufac- tured by ''the Teamsters and the Employer to circumvent the arbitration decision ; (3) the matter has been decided by the grievance and arbitration proceeding between the Employer and the UAW to which the Board should defer; and (4) the grievance provisions of the Teamsters -Employer collective-bar- gaining agreement constitute a voluntary method for settling -the dispute and the Board should defer there- to. Alternatively the UAW contends-that the work in dispute should be,awarded to employees it represents on the basis of its collective -bargaining agreement and certification , applicable job descriptions, and bargaining history. The Teamsters did not file a brief with the Board. However, it is apparent from the hearing that the Teamsters contentions are the same as those of the Employer. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a 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 the parties have -not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. We are satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe that the-Team- sters threatened to engage in proscribed activity. As indicated above, the Teamsters wrote the Employer stating that it "intends to place pickets at your Santa Susana facility, and at any of "your other facilities where we lawfully may picket." The use of the word "lawfully" does not diminish the threat to picket Santa Susana. Nor` does the existence of a no-strike clause diminish the threat, since' unions have been known to strike despite such provisions. Local 2, In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (PVO International, Inc.), 209 NLRB 673 (1974). The UAW contends that there is not a viable threat be- cause the- Employer could obtain injunctive relief. Although ' the Employer could go to court if -,the Teamsters picketed, to require it to do so over ajuris- dictional dispute would be contrary to the intent of Sections 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the Act. The conten- tion that the- Employer and the Teamsters colluded to circumvent the arbitration agreement has no sup- port in the record. The record shows that the parties have not agreed to any method for settling the dispute. Although the UAW was awarded the disputed work in an arbitra- tion proceeding, the Teamsters, a necessary party to any voluntary method of settlement, was not a party to the arbitration proceeding and has not agreed to be bound by the arbitration award. Similarly, the Teamsters grievance procedure does not provide for arbitration- among the three interested parties. Ac- cordingly, we shall not defer thereto. On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of STEEL, PAPER HOUSE, ETC., INTL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed-upon method for voluntary 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 - I 0(k) of the Act requires the Board -to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors.2 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- monsense 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. Collective-bargaining agreement The UAW was certified by the Board in 1968 as collective-bargaining representative for a unit of pro- duction and maintenance employees including truck- drivers, at the Employer's Santa Susana facility. The applicable collective-bargaining agreement between the UAW and the Employer, including the adden- dum for Santa Susana, contains pay rates for drivers, driver-combination, and dispatcher classifications. The applicable job descriptions, incorporated by ref- erence into the contract, include over-the-road truck- ing skills. Despite the Employer's attempts to show otherwise, the arbitration award makes clear that the contract covers over-the-road trucking originating at the South Susana facility. Pursuant to a cross-check by the Board's Regional Office in 1944, the Teamsters predecessor (a different local) was found to represent a majority of the em- ployees in a unit of all drivers in the applicable area employed by the Employer's predecessor (North American Aviation, Inc.). The applicable collective- bargaining agreement between the Teamsters and the Employer recognizes the Teamsters as exclusive bar- gaining representative for all dispatchers and drivers who are involved in operating automotive equipment outside the plants at a number of divisions including both Atomics International and Rocketdyne. Santa Susana is a shared facility between Atomic Interna- tional and Rocketdyne. Job descriptions in the ad- dendum provide that drivers will drive between vari- ous plants of the Employer in Southern California. 2 N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broad- casting System), 364 U S 573 (1961) 3 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962) 659 The addendum further provides that transportation to outlying areas for testing is to be done by the traf- fic department and any deviation is to be coordinat- ed between management and the appropriate local. Clearly the Teamsters-Employer collective-bargain- ing agreement also covers the work in dispute. Thus the factor of collective-bargaining agreements is neu- tral. 2. Employer practice and assignment At certain plants outside California the Employer has assigned truckdriving to employees represented by the UAW. However, in Southern California the Employer has consistently since 1944 assigned over- the-road trucking to employees represented by the Teamsters. Teamsters have performed over-the-road trucking to and from Santa Susana since 1949 when the facility was activated. Although the UAW took no action until it filed the grievance in 1974, it claims that it has sought the work since recognition in 1968. It is clear, however, that employees represented by the UAW have not performed the work in dispute. The Employer's preference and practice favor award of the work to employees represented by the Team- sters. 3. Relative skills A witness for the Employer testified that teamsters possess the necessary skills including the ability to drive a variety of trucks, to know how they should be loaded, to detect mechanical problems, and to cor- rect minor malfunctions. The record also shows that UAW members possess the necessary skills. They have driven various vehicles within the Santa Susana facility and have done over-the-road trucking at Employer's plants outside California. This factor does not favor award of the work to either party. 4. Economy and efficiency of operations After making a delivery to Santa Susana a driver normally would not return empty but would make a delivery in Canoga Park . Although there is some driving of trucks without loads, the Employer's scheduled trucking runs are designed to minimize such deadheading . The work in dispute consists of trucking originating at Santa Susana and not of trucking going to Santa Susana. If the work were as- signed to employees represented by the UAW , trucks going out of Santa Susana would normally return empty and trucks going into Santa Susana would also return empty. Such increase in deadheading is inefficient , would require the Employer to use addi- 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional trucks and drivers, and would- increase the Employer's trucking expenses.' Efficiency and econ- omy of operations favor awarding the work to em- ployees represented by the Teamsters. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consid- eration of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that employees who are represented by the Team- sters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Employer's as- signment and practices and on efficiency and econo- my of operations. In' making this determination, we ° The Employer prepared an estimate of what it would cost to comply with the arbitration award. The estimate shows costs per year of $16,000 for leasing trucks , $ 1,000 for licensing, $ 13,500 for fuel and maintenance, and $100,000 in wages . It was also estimated that increased deadheading involv- ing the disputed work would cost $40,000 for wages and fuel . The same amount was estimated for Teamsters_wasted deadheading are awarding-the work in question to employees who are represented by the Teamsters, but not to that Union or its members. This determination is limited to the dispute 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 foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Rockwell International Corporation who are represented by Steel, Paper House, Chemical Drivers and Helpers, Local 578, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are entitled to perform the disputed work of over-the-road truckdriving originat- ing at the Santa Susana field laboratory of Rockwell International Corporation.