Teamsters Local Union No. 676

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 683
Teamsters Local Union ' No. 676 and Shell Chemical
Co., a Division of Shell Oil Company. Case
4-CD-282
October 11, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Shell Chemical Co., a Division of
Shell Oil Company, hereinafter Shell, alleging that
Teamsters Local Union No. 676, hereinafter Respon-
dent or Local 676, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with
an object of forcing or requiring Shell to assign the
work in dispute to an employee represented by Local
676 rather than to its own employees. A hearing was
held on May 18, and June 2, 1972, before Hearing
Officer Charles E. Mitchell. All parties appeared at
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter,
Shell and Local 676 filed briefs.
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 rulings of the Hear-
ing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated , and we find, that Shell is
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
We find, as stipulated by the parties, that Local
676 is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED DISPUTE
A. The Facts
The work in dispute concerns assignment of the
task of driving a 1-1/2 ton stake-body truck making
personnel and equipment deliveries at Shell's Wood-
bury plant located in West Deptford, New Jersey.
The dispute centers around a former employee of
Catalytic Construction Co., a subcontractor of Shell,
which performs certain maintenance work at the
plant. The employee, Pollinger, drove the truck and
made Catalytic personnel and equipment deliveries at
the plant; occasionally he also operated a forklift.
Shell trained its own employees to perform certain of
the maintenance work and then withdrew from Cat-
alytic the use of its truck and forklift. Faced with
diminished work to be performed for Shell, Catalytic
reduced its work force and laid off several employees,
including the truckdriver, who was laid off on Decem-
ber 9, 1971. Shell's own employees now use the truck
for various purposes. Shell employs no employee clas-
sified as a driver, but rather 40 to 50 different employ-
ees do occasional driving of the truck as required and
Catalytic employees now walk to their jobsites and
equipment deliveries, as needed, are handled by other
means. At the present time, Catalytic still employs 14
or 15 employees at the Shell plant.
Catalytic is a party to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Respondent. The terms of the
agreement cover Pollinger and require Catalytic to
obtain its truckdrivers from Respondent.
On December 13, 1971, Respondent' s business
agent, Jackson, unsuccessfully protested to Catalytic
Pollinger's layoff and on December 21 wrote a letter
to Shell which stated in relevant part:
On behalf of Mr. Pollinger, we request that
he be permitted to remain on the job performing
his duties as before, and the terms of the Team-
sters Local 676 Agreement covering him be per-
mitted to remain in effect.
On December 29, 1971, Shell replied suggesting
that Respondent direct to Catalytic its request that
Pollinger be reinstated. Thereafter, on January 20,
1972, the Respondent set up a picket line and picketed
the Shell plant with signs for 22 days until February
11, 1972. The picket signs read: Shell Unfair to Wil-
liam Pollinger/Unfair to Teamsters Local 676.
On January 26, the Respondent wrote Shell a
letter stating that it was not seeking recognition from
Shell as Pollinger's bargaining agent, but adding:
We simply request that you employ Mr. Pollinger
under similar conditions with similar duties to
those he enjoyed while employed by his former
employer.
Thereafter, on January 27 and on February 1,
respectively, Shell filed the present Section 8(b)(4)(D)
charge and amended charge.
Meanwhile, on December 22, 1971, Oil, Chemi-
cal & Atomic Workers International Union, hereinaf-
ter OCAW, filed a representation petition in Case
4-RC-9546 for a unit of Shell's Woodbury plant em-
199 NLRB No. 95
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees. On February 9, 1972, the Board conducted
an election at the plant in a unit of production and
maintenance employees, including those employees
performing maintenance work formerly performed by
the laid-off Catalytic employees. Respondent did not
intervene or participate in any manner in that pro-
ceeding. OCAW was subsequently certified on June
16, 1972, soon after the hearing on the present
charges, as the representative of the Shell employees,
but has not at any time claimed the truckdriver job.
B. The Contentions of the Parties
Respondent contends that the picketing was not
occasioned by, nor is it a manifestation of, a jurisdic-
tional dispute. It argues that the dispute between it
and Shell was over the recapture of work for a dis-
placed employee, Pollinger.
Shell contends that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the Board should sustain Shell's assignment of
the disputed work to its own employees by the is-
suance of an appropriate award.
C. Applicability of the Act
Before the Board may proceed to a determina-
tion of dispute under 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. We are un-
able to reach such a conclusion in this case.
The present dispute is in significant respects sim-
ilar to that which existed in Waterway Terminals Com-
pany, 185 NLRB No. 35, where the Board held that
the picketing of Waterway "was solely for the object
of preserving the carloading work for the employees
who had been doing it ... and that such a dispute is
not the type of controversy Congress intended the
Board to resolve pursuant to Section 8(b)(4)(D) and
Section 10(k) of the Act." Here, Respondent picketed
for an objective-to regain work for a former Catalyt-
ic employee who had previously performed such
work. Accordingly, we find that no jurisdictional dis-
pute exists and we shall therefore quash the notice of
hearing.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
' See Transport Workers' Union of America, AFL-CIO and Local 504 (Tri-
angle Maintenance Corp.), 186 NLRB No . 71, Safeway Stores, Incorporated
134 NLRB 1320, cf National Maritime Union (Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc),
194 NLRB No. 199, where the NMU, which represented the crews on the
employer's east coast fleet, claimed the work and attempted to follow the
transfer of certain vessels of that fleet to the employer 's west coast fleet, on
which its crews were represented by another union which consequently
threatened to strike The Board found that the NMU, by attempting to follow
the transfer of the vessels , was not attempting to protect and preserve work
which had traditionally been performed by its members , but rather was
attempting to acquire work which it had never performed, and that therefore
there was reasonable cause to believe that activity by the NMU violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D).
Member Penello agrees that no jurisdictional dispute exists and the
notice of hearing should be quashed , but finds it unnecessary to rely on
Waterway Terminals Company, supra, because, in his view, the record here
fails to establish either competing claims between classes of employees or any
dispute over the assignment of particular work