Teamsters Local 174 (Airborne Express)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 2003

340 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174 (AIRBORNE EXPRESS) 137
General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO and
Airborne Express, Inc. and ABX Air, Inc.,
Party-in-Interest. Cases 19–CD–483 and 19–CD–
484.
September 12, 2003
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
SCHAUMBER AND WALSH
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Airborne Express, Inc. (Airborne) filed charges on Feb-
ruary 22, 2002, and June 11, 2002, alleging that Respon-
dent, General Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (Local
174 or the Union) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forc-
ing Airborne to assign certain work to Airborne employ-
ees it represents rather than to permit ABX Air, Inc.
(ABX) to subcontract the work to employees of Wick’s
Air Freight who are also represented by Local 174. The
two cases were consolidated for a hearing held from Au-
gust 13 to August 15, 2002, before Hearing Officer Di-
anne Todd.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Airborne, a corporation with a place of business in Se-
attle, Washington, operates a national and international
package pickup and delivery service. During the 12-
month period before the hearing, Airborne, in conducting
its business in the State of Washington, derived gross
revenues in excess of $50,000 from customers for trans-
porting items from the State of Washington to points
outside the State or vice versa. The parties stipulated,
and we find, that Airborne is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that Local 174 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
Airborne and ABX are subsidiaries of Airborne, Inc.
Airborne provides local package pick up and delivery
services across the country (i.e., similar to its competitors
UPS and Federal Express). ABX, headquartered in
Wilmington, Ohio, is an air carrier subject to Railway
Labor Act jurisdiction. ABX Air, Inc., 25 NMB 274
(1998).1 For small volume customers, Airborne employ-
ees pick up packages at the customer site, using small
delivery vans and trucks up to 26 feet in length, and take
them to a local Airborne station (also known as a “termi-
nal”). After further processing by Airborne employees,
ABX then transports the freight to ABX regional sort
facilities (also known as “hubs”) or to an Airborne ter-
minal in another area, either by using its own aircraft or
by subcontracting the work to carriers who use large trac-
tors and trailers (semitrailers). ABX employees at the
hubs then sort and reload shipments into containers be-
fore sending them to their destination regions.
In April 20012, Airborne introduced its new service of
transporting ground product (freight that does not have to
be delivered “next day” or “second day” as does its “core
product”). Because ground product does not have to be
delivered quickly and must be transported using the most
economical method due to its low price, it is generally
transported by truck. Thus, Airborne began using a
process called “line haul” transportation, which is distin-
guished from the local pick up and delivery described
above. The line haul process involves an ABX-
contracted carrier delivering a 53-foot trailer to the cus-
tomer, where it is filled by the customer’s employees,
hooked up to a tractor, and driven to the closest ABX
hub.3 ABX contracts out all line haul work, including
the customer-to-hub transportation, because it owns no
semi-trailers and employs no semitrailer drivers.4
Beginning in November, Airborne succeeded UPS in
the performance of line haul ground delivery service for
Cutter & Buck (Airborne’s new ground service cus-
tomer). During the month-long period of transition from
UPS to Airborne, Cutter & Buck planned to start slowly,
with Airborne drivers transporting small volumes of
freight to a station until business reached about 1,300
shipments per night, at which time the direct line haul
transportation of freight between Cutter & Buck and the
Western Washington Hub (WWH)5 (performed by ABX
subcontractors) would begin.6 Airborne Regional Field

1 The Union argues that Airborne and ABX are a single-integrated
operation, relying on several cases that deal with the single-employer
issue under a different subsection of the Act. We find it unnecessary to
address this issue, as it does not affect the outcome of this case.
2 All dates are in 2001 unless otherwise stated.
3 Airborne used this “customer-to-hub” process at least on an occa-
sional basis before introducing its ground delivery service, and since
then it has used the customer-to-hub process on a regular basis.
4 ABX also uses the term “line haul” to refer to the trucking of
freight from Airborne stations to ABX regional hubs and back.
5 An increase in freight volume prompted ABX to establish this hub
in November. The WWH is now located in Chehalis, Washington,
outside of the geographic area covered by Airborne employees.
6 This transition was also a test period to determine how Cutter &
Buck’s system integrated with Airborne’s internal information transfer
340 NLRB No. 20
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 138
Services Manager Kevin Connelly explained this transi-
tion process to union representatives in discussions be-
fore the work began. Airborne employees transported
small volumes of freight to Airborne’s Kent station from
November 9 to December 9.
Since December 9, ABX has subcontracted line haul
work from Cutter and Buck to employees of Wick’s Air
Freight. Wick’s employees transport large volume semi-
trailers between Cutter & Buck and WWH, dropping off
an empty trailer at Cutter & Buck’s facility in the morn-
ing and picking it up in the evening after Cutter & Buck
employees have loaded it. Wick’s exclusively performs
line haul of freight by semitrailer and has performed
other line haul work for ABX for the past 6 years.
Local 174 represents Airborne employees and Wick’s
employees in separate bargaining units. It disputed
Wick’s employees’ performance of the Cutter & Buck
work. The Union referred to its collective-bargaining
agreement with Airborne, which states, inter alia, “2.03
Employer agrees that work now performed by or hereaf-
ter assigned to members of the bargaining unit will not
subsequently be performed by non-unit employees.”
This dispute led to union grievances, which were dis-
cussed with Airborne in several meetings, including a
“Board of Adjustment” meeting between representatives
of both parties, as well as mediation pursuant to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement. In trying to resolve the
dispute, Airborne and the Union exchanged several let-
ters between November 2001 and June 2002, including
several notices by the Union of its intent to begin eco-
nomic action against Airborne if it did not assign the
work in dispute to Airborne employees represented by
Local 174.
Airborne proposed arbitration of the dispute in De-
cember and the Union rejected the proposal. Airborne
renewed the proposal to arbitrate in January 2002, agree-
ing to waive any defense of untimeliness. After hearing
no response from the Union for over 2 weeks, it in-
formed the Union that it would not waive its claim of
untimeliness. Airborne then filed unfair labor practice
charges against the Union alleging violations of Section
8(b)(4)(D).
B. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute consists
of ground transportation of freight from Cutter & Buck
to an ABX hub.

and tracking system, and to resolve any issues with the system integra-
tion, as well as to give notice of the transition to UPS.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Union’s Argument
The Union moves to quash the notice of hearing, as-
serting that the dispute here involves a work preservation
claim on behalf of Airborne employees and does not pre-
sent a jurisdictional dispute under Section 10(k) of the
Act. See Teamsters Local 107 (Safeway Stores), 134
NLRB 1320 (1961). The Union also asserts that this
case does not involve two separate groups of employees
with competing claims to the work in dispute. The Un-
ion further argues that it unequivocally disclaimed the
work on behalf of Wick’s employees. Finally, the Union
maintains there is an agreed upon voluntary method of
adjustment for this dispute.
Alternatively, the Union argues that, if the Board
reaches the merits of assigning the work in dispute, it
should award the work to Airborne employees repre-
sented by Local 174 based on the factors of its collective-
bargaining agreement with Airborne, relative skills and
experience, industry and area practice, and Wick’s in-
volvement in bankruptcy proceedings.7
Airborne’s Argument
Airborne argues there is reasonable cause to believe
that Local 174 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
coercive threats in support of an attempt to expand its
jurisdiction to include work that Airborne employees
have not previously performed. Airborne also argues
that competing claims exist between the Airborne em-
ployee group represented by Local 174 and the Wick’s
employee group also represented by Local 174, the Un-
ion has not unequivocally disclaimed the work on behalf
of the latter group, and there is no method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
Finally, Airborne argues that the work in dispute
should be awarded to Wick’s employees based on the
factors of employer preference, economy and efficiency
of operations, relative skills and experience, employer
past practice, industry and area practice, no loss of jobs,
safety, certifications and collective-bargaining agree-
ments, and joint committee awards. Airborne seeks a
broad award encompassing the work of picking up and
transporting ground shipments from any Airborne cus-
tomer in the Puget Sound Region to an ABX hub, rather
7 We grant the Charging Party’s motion to take administrative notice
of the bankruptcy court’s orders and to augment the record with these
orders, which issued subsequent to the hearing in this case. The United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington issued
two orders, denying the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund’s motion to convert the Chapter 11 reorganization proceed-
ing to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding, and confirming Wick’s plan
to reorganize, respectively.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174 (AIRBORNE EXPRESS) 139
than limiting the award to transportation between Cutter
& Buck and an ABX hub.
D. Applicability of the Statute
It is well settled that the standard in a Section 10(k)
proceeding is whether there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated. This standard requires finding that there is reason-
able cause to believe a party has used proscribed means
to enforce its claim to the work in dispute, and that there
are competing claims to the disputed work among rival
groups of employees. In addition, the Board will not
proceed under Section 10(k) if there is an agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As dis-
cussed below, we find the prerequisites for asserting ju-
risdiction under Section 10(k) are met in this case.8
1. The Union’s work preservation claim
As indicated, the Union contends its claim on behalf of
Airborne employees raises a work preservation dispute
rather than a jurisdictional dispute. In Teamsters Local
107 (Safeway Stores), 134 NLRB 1320, 1321 (1961), the
Board found that a valid work preservation dispute, in-
volving an attempt to preserve or recapture work tradi-
tionally performed by an employee group, was not a ju-
risdictional dispute under Section 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k).
In that case, Safeway discharged employees represented
by one union local, and subsequently reassigned the
work they had performed to employees represented by
other union locals. The reassignment was in direct viola-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement between the
former union and Safeway. The former union picketed
in an effort to preserve the contractual work its members
traditionally performed. An unfair labor practice charge
was filed, initiating a 10(k) proceeding. The Board con-
cluded that Section 10(k) should not apply because the
employer unilaterally created the dispute by transferring
the work away from the only group previously claiming
and performing it under a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Id. at 1323.
In subsequent cases, the Board has not applied the
work preservation doctrine of Safeway where the union’s
objective was acquisition of work not historically per-
formed by the claiming group of employees. See, e.g.,
Teamsters Local 107 (Reber-Friel Co.), 336 NLRB 518
(2001) (union members only performed work in question
on a few occasions); Stage Employees IATSE Local 39
(Shepard Exposition Services), 337 NLRB 721 (2002)
(union only performed work on three occasions); Long-
shoremen ILWU Local 14 (Sierra Pacific Industries),

8 It is undisputed that the Union engaged in coercive acts within the
meaning of Sec. 8(b)(4) by threatening to picket and strike if Airborne
employees were not given the work.
314 NLRB 834 (1994) (although employees performed
same work at another facility and different work at em-
ployer’s facility, they never performed same work at
employer’s facility). The Board has also declined to ap-
ply Safeway “where work preservation claims were based
entirely on a contractual claim without the employees’
having previously performed the work.” Reber-Friel,
supra, at 521. See also Redstone Workers Assn., 241
NLRB 945, 946 (1979).
In light of this precedent, we look to whether Airborne
employees claiming the work in dispute have tradition-
ally performed this work. Airborne employees have
never performed line haul transportation of large vol-
umes of freight by semitrailer from a customer to an
ABX hub. At most, they transported small volumes of
freight to a local Airborne station for one month. Air-
borne informed the Union this was only a temporary ar-
rangement limited to the transitional period between
UPS’s service and Airborne’s full service through the
subcontract with Wick’s.9
Moreover, in the absence of evidence that Airborne
employees have historically performed the work in dis-
pute, we find Local 174’s reliance on the Airborne col-
lective-bargaining agreement’s work preservation clause
unavailing, as in Starks Construction Co., supra. Ac-
cordingly, we find reasonable cause to believe the Union
acted in furtherance of a proscribed work acquisition
objective, creating a jurisdictional dispute under Section
10(k).
2. Competing claims from two groups of employees
The Board must also determine that two different
groups of employees have competing claims to the work
to find a jurisdictional dispute. The fact pattern here is
unusual because the two groups of employees are in
separate bargaining units represented by the same local
union but working for two different employers. How-
ever, the Board has held that employees qualify as differ-
ent competing groups under Section 8(b)(4)(D) in these
circumstances. Electrical Workers Local 98 (Honeywell,
Inc.), 332 NLRB 526, 527 (2000). The Board has also
rejected the argument that local truckdrivers and over-
the-road drivers are in the same trade, craft, or class
(truckdrivers). Truckdrivers & Chauffeurs Local 705
(Direct Transit), 92 NLRB 1715, 1720 (1951). Finally,
the Board has held that employees demonstrate a com-
peting claim to disputed work by performing it.
Plumbers Local 195 (Gulf Oil), 275 NLRB 484, 485 fn.
9 Likewise, evidence that Airborne employees transported aircraft
parts by semitrailer over 22 years ago is far too remote and isolated to
support finding a history of performing the work in dispute within the
meaning of Safeway.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 140
7 (1985) (internal citation omitted). Thus, we find Air-
borne’s local truckdrivers represented by Local 174 and
Wick’s line haul truckdrivers represented by Local 174
are competing groups of employees.
3. No valid disclaimer
The Union asserts that no competing claims exist be-
cause it disclaimed the work in dispute on behalf of
Wick’s employees. The Union’s business agent told
Terry Wick, owner of Wick’s Airfreight, at a dinner
meeting, that the work belongs to Airborne employees
rather than Wick’s employees. The Union’s attorney
also sent a purported disclaimer of the work in dispute to
the Regional Director during the investigation of the
charge in this case. However, Wick’s employees contin-
ued to perform the work. Moreover, as Airborne points
out, the Union’s purported disclaimer does not appear to
have been communicated at all to Airborne or to Wick’s
employees, much less communicated clearly and un-
equivocally.10 Furthermore, there is no evidence that any
Wick’s employees refused to do the work or indicated
that they were only performing the work because of
some threat of discipline. In these circumstances, where
there is conduct that is inconsistent with the disclaimer,
and the disclaimer itself is not clear and unambiguous,
there is no valid disclaimer.
4. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
We find the facts do not establish that the parties have
agreed to a voluntary method for adjustment of this dis-
pute. In Longshoremen ILWU Local 6 (Golden Grain),
275 NLRB 1128, 1130 (1985), the Board found no such
voluntary method where the Employer had separate con-
tracts with both unions involved, both of which con-
tained arbitration provisions, but neither contract pro-
vided for tripartite arbitration. The Board found that
those circumstances did not provide “a method for bind-
ing all parties in a single proceeding.” Id., quoting San
Diego Stereotypers Union No. 82, 201 NLRB 893, 895
(1973).
Union witnesses admitted at the hearing that Airborne
had not agreed to the Union’s belated proposal on the
first morning of the 10(k) hearing to arbitrate the dispute
under its contract with Airborne.11 Even assuming this
contract provides a means for resolving the dispute be-
tween Airborne and Local 174, there is no basis for bind-

10 The disclaimer must be “clear, unequivocal, and unqualified.”
Operating Engineers Local 150 (Austin Co.), 296 NLRB 938, 939
(1989).
11 Airborne argues that its offer to arbitrate the dispute had lapsed,
and the Union’s “acceptance” of the offer 7 months later at the 10(k)
hearing was at most a counteroffer to arbitrate, which Airborne did not
accept.
ing Wick’s to this procedure. Accordingly, we find there
is no voluntary means of adjustment binding on all par-
ties to the jurisdictional dispute.
In sum, we find that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that all of the elements of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have
been shown and that there is no agreed-upon method for
resolving the jurisdictional dispute.
E. Decision and Analysis
The grant of authority in Section 10(k) for the Board to
“hear and determine” jurisdictional disputes requires the
Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work
to one of the groups of employees involved in the dis-
pute. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Columbia
Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 579 (1961). While the Act
does not set out the standards the Board is to apply in
making this determination, the Supreme Court explained
that “[e]xperience and common sense will supply the
grounds for the performance of this job which Congress
has assigned the Board.” Id. at 583. Consistent with the
Court’s opinion, the Board announced in Machinists
Lodge 1743 (J.A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402,
1410–1411 (1962), that in making the determination that
the Supreme Court found was required by Section 10(k),
it would consider “all relevant factors,” and that its de-
termination in a jurisdictional dispute would be an act of
judgment based on common sense and experience,
reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular
case.
We have considered the following factors, which we
find relevant in the context of the current dispute and, for
the reasons set forth more fully below, we conclude that
Wick’s employees represented by Local 174 are entitled
to perform the work in dispute. In making this determi-
nation, we emphasize that we are awarding the work to
Wick’s employees represented by Local 174, not to that
Union or its members.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
Local 174 has separate collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Airborne and Wick’s. Neither agreement
specifically covers the work in dispute. Accordingly, we
find this factor does not favor awarding the work to ei-
ther group of employees.
2. Employer preference
The Board finds the preference of the subcontractor in
control of the work, rather than that of the general con-
tractor, to be controlling. Laborers Local 646 (General
Refrigeration), 268 NLRB 472, 473 (1983) (citing Oper-
ating Engineers Local 139 (McWad, Inc.), 262 NLRB
1300 (1982)). Wick’s prefers that its employees con-
tinue to perform the work. We find that this factor favors
awarding the work to Wick’s employees.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174 (AIRBORNE EXPRESS) 141
3. Economy and efficiency of operations
According to the testimony of Airborne’s regional
field services manager Kevin Connelly and Director of
Field Services Support Robert Severini, Airborne has no
semitrailers in the Seattle metro area, and it is not set up
operationally to handle any line haul freight in the Seattle
market. Airborne would require a large capital invest-
ment and additional staffing and training to perform the
work.12 The evidence does not show that Airborne driv-
ers are qualified to drive semi-trailers, and in any event
the bargaining unit has not done so for more than 20
years. Accordingly, we find that this factor weighs heav-
ily in favor of the current assignment of the work in dis-
pute to Wick’s employees represented by Local 174.
4. Relative skills and experience
All Wick’s employees have a Class A commercial
driver’s license (CDL), which is required to drive a trac-
tor-trailer. Airborne employees are not required to main-
tain this license. Union representative Anthony Mur-
rietta named four Airborne drivers who had once shown
him their Class A licenses or told him that they had Class
A licenses. Some Airborne employees drove a semi-
trailer during a single period in the late 1970’s, when
Airborne used it to transport large aircraft parts between
commercial airlines and Boeing plants; however, Air-
borne employees have not transported freight by semi-
trailer since that time, nor have Airborne employees ever
transported freight by semitrailer to an ABX hub. It ap-
pears that few, if any Airborne employees have any re-
cent experience doing so. In contrast, Wick’s employees
regularly drive semitrailers and have the required li-
censes and endorsements. Thus, we find that this factor
favors awarding the work to Wick’s employees repre-
sented by Local 174.
5. Industry and area practice
With respect to industry practice, Airborne emphasizes
that its major competitors, UPS and Federal Express,
handle freight in the same manner as Airborne and ABX.
UPS and Federal Express distinguish between line haul
service and local pick up and delivery, and they use cus-
tomer to hub transportation for large volumes instead of
routing freight through stations as with small volumes.
However, the Union points to evidence that UPS uses its
own employees to perform the customer to hub ship-
ments. Area practice involves the same considerations;
the evidence shows that UPS follows the aforementioned
procedure in the Seattle-Tacoma area. We find this fac-

12 Moreover, if Airborne drivers were to transport the freight through
the terminal system rather than directly to a hub, this additional step
could jeopardize Cutter & Buck’s 4-day service requirement.
tor does not favor awarding the work to either group of
employees.
6. Job loss
There is no evidence that any Airborne employees
would lose work or be laid off if the work in dispute is
not assigned to them. On the other hand, the record indi-
cates several Wick’s employees would lose their jobs if
Wick’s did not retain the subcontract for the work in dis-
pute. In fact, in a letter to Local 174 Business Agent
Tom Mann dated April 2, 2002, Terry Wick lists reten-
tion of the Airborne work as “essential to our survival.”
We find this factor weighs in favor of assigning the work
to employees of Wick’s.13
7. Other factors
Airborne mentions safety (referring to a study showing
some correlation between safety and driver experience,
among other factors) and joint committee awards involv-
ing Airborne and other Teamsters unions covered by the
National Master Freight Agreement (to which Local 174
is not a party) as other factors in favor of awarding the
work to Wick’s employees. The safety study, even if it
had been more conclusive as to the correlation between
safety and driver experience, is of little value in the ab-
sence of evidence regarding individual employees’ driv-
ing histories. The joint committee awards are irrelevant
because Local 174 is not a party to the National Master
Freight Agreement. We find neither of these factors is
significant to the determination of this dispute.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Wick’s
employees represented by Local 174 are entitled to per-
form the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion rely-
ing on the factors of employer preference, economy and
efficiency of operations, relative skills and experience,
and avoidance of loss of jobs.
F. Scope of the Award
Airborne seeks a broad award that encompasses the
work of picking up and transporting ground shipments
from any Airborne customer in the Puget Sound Region
to an ABX hub, rather than limiting the award to trans-
portation between Cutter & Buck and an ABX hub. Air-
borne claims that the dispute is likely to recur and the
Union has demonstrated a proclivity to use proscribed
13 The Union characterizes Wick’s as “financially unstable,” citing
Wick’s bankruptcy, its motion to convert from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7
(which has since been denied), and its attempt in bankruptcy court to
divest itself of the Teamsters Local 174 contract. However, we do not
find this evidence to be relevant in determining which group of em-
ployees should perform the work in dispute.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 142
means to obtain similar work. We find no merit in this
contention.
There are two requirements for a broad, area-wide
award. First, there must be evidence that the disputed
work has been a continuous source of controversy in the
relevant geographic area and that similar disputes may
recur. Second, there must be evidence demonstrating
that the charged party has a proclivity to engage in
unlawful conduct to obtain similar work. Bricklayers
(Sesco, Inc.), 303 NLRB 401, 403 (1991).
Nothing in the record suggests any history of similar
work disputes in the past. Furthermore, there is no evi-
dence demonstrating that Local 174 has a proclivity to
engage in unlawful conduct to force the reassignment of
work. Accordingly, we shall limit the present determina-
tion to the particular controversy that gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Wick’s Airfreight represented by
General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, are entitled to
perform the work of ground transportation of freight
from Cutter & Buck to an ABX Air, Inc. regional hub.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO is not enti-
tled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act to force or require Airborne Express, Inc. to assign
the disputed work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 14 days from this date, General Teamsters
Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 19 in writing whether it will refrain from
forcing Airborne Express, Inc., by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a
manner inconsistent with this determination.