Teamsters Union Local No. 117

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1239 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL. NO 117 1239
Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Tradewell Stores, Inc. and General Team-
sters Local No. 174, affiliated with Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 19-
CD-379
July 16, 1981
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Tradewell Stores, Inc., herein
called the Employer, alleging that Teamsters Union
Local No. 117, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called Local 117 or
Respondent, 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 employees it represented
rather than to employees represented by General
Teamsters Local 174, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called Local
174.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer James E. Loring on March 25,
1981. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues.
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 is a Washington corporation engaged in the
retail grocery business in the States of Washington,
Oregon, and California. During the past year, the
Employer made total sales in excess of $500,000
and made purchases from outside the State of
Washington having a value in excess of $50,000.
The parties also stipulated, and 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 ju-
risdiction herein.
256 NLRB No. 187
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
117 and Local 174 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer operates approximately 62 Prairie
Market, and 38 Tradewell, retail grocery outlets in
the States of Washington and Oregon. For about
the last 15 years the Employer has maintained a
distribution center in Kent, Washington, from
which it supplies grocery products to these retail
stores. Employed in the distribution center are ap-
proximately 70 warehousemen, represented by
Local 117, and approximately 38 loaders and driv-
ers, represented by Local 174. Currently, both
labor organizations have collective-bargaining
agreements with the Employer covering their re-
spective units.
A considerable portion of the work performed in
the distribution center involves the assembling and
loading of orders of grocery products that are
shipped from the distribution center to company-
owned retail stores. On December 22, 1980, the
Employer commenced operating a computer-con-
trolled conveyor belt system (Rapistan) in the dis-
tribution center which resulted in a substantial
modification of the distribution center's method of
assembling and loading orders. Before Rapistan,
when the distribution center received an order
from a store, the first step was to process it
through the data processing department where
orders were converted into pick lists, pick labels,
and invoices. From data processing the documents
were routed to the shipping department and further
reduced into individual orders. Next, one of these
individual orders would be assigned to a Local 117
"order picker," who would drive an electric dolly
(tugger) into the storage area of the distribution
center and "pick" the ordered goods from the stor-
age racks, placing an appropriate label on the
boxers and stacking the cargo on two pallets
mounted on the front of the tugger. After loading
the pallets, the order picker would then drive to a
preassigned door in the staging area adjacent to the
distribution center's loading docks and detach the
loaded pallets from the tugger.
The loaded pallets would then be moved from
the staging area into trailers parked in the loading
docks by Local 174 "loaders" driving gas-powered
forklifts. A loader would stack the pallets in the
trailer, with no stack having more than two pallets,
exercising care to distribute the cargo weight
evenly throughout the trailer. After loading the
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pallets, a loader filled the remaining space with
lighter cargo, a process called "stuffing."
The Rapistan system altered the distribution cen-
ter's method of processing orders. Rapistan is a
mechanized system of conveyor belts that weave
throughout the storage area of the distribution
center. At one point in the system the conveyor
belts merge and all the products carried on the
belts are processed through an electronic scanning
device that scans the label on the box, feeds that
input to a computer, and then sorts the goods into
individual store orders. These individual orders are
then moved on conveyors across the top of the
warehouse to the appropriate area of the shipping
dock, at which point the conveyors descend. On
the shipping dock extendable conveyors are placed
into trailers and the goods are thereby conveyed
into trailers. In the trailer the goods are removed
from the conveyors and loaded on pallets.
Installation of the Rapistan system has resulted in
a significant change in the tasks performed by
order pickers. In place of the individual pick lists
previously used, the order pickers now receive a
revised set of pick documents consisting of a com-
puterized sheet listing ordered products for up to
six stores, and a revised set of labels designed for
the Rapistan electronic scanner. After receiving the
pick documents an order picker's duties entail
taking the ordered products from the storage racks,
sticking an appropriate label on the boxes, and
placing the products on the conveyor system. After
the ordered products are placed on a conveyor
belt, the Rapistan system automatically sorts the
products into individual store orders and conveys
the orders to the appropriate trailers stationed in
the loading docks.
The Rapistan system, however, is only capable
of handling approximately 75 percent of the items
in the warehouse. The remaining 25 percent which
are too bulky for the system are taken from the
storage area to the loading docks by employing the
same system for loading goods that was used
before the installation of the Rapistan system.
However, because of the size of the extendable
conveyors, there is not enough room within a trail-
er to permit the loading of cargo by forklift simul-
taneously with the loading of products on an exten-
dable conveyor. As a result, the scheduling of
these separate loading functions is coordinated to
insure that loading is accomplished in an efficient
manner.
Planning for the installation of the Rapistan
system began almost 2 years before its installation
and the Employer initiated construction of the
system in July 1980. Beginning in mid-1979, the
Employer informed both local unions about its
plans to install the Rapistan system and thereafter
engaged in ongoing dialogue about the impact of
the system on employees. These discussions cov-
ered, inter alia, the assignment of the various work
tasks associated with the operation of the Rapistan
system, in particular the work of taking items off
the extended conveyors and placing them on pal-
lets. In December 1980, the Employer assigned the
tasks of unloading the extended conveyors and
placing the unloaded cargo on pallets to employees
employed in the loader classification-employees
represented by Local 174. The Employer, howev-
er, engaged in further discussions with Local 117
about this work assignment. On January 26, 1981,
Local 117 sent the Employer a letter which con-
tained a formal demand for the work and a threat
of economic action if this demand were refused.'
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves removing cargo
from conveyor belts and placing that cargo on pal-
lets in trailers at the Employer's distribution center
in Kent, Washington.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by
Local 174 on the basis of the efficiency and econo-
my of operation, special skills and safety, company
and industry practice, contractual provision, and
employer preference. Local 174 asserts that the
Employer's assignment is supported by the terms of
its contract with the Employer, company and in-
dustry practice, relative skill and experience, area
practice, economy and efficiency of operation, job
impact, acquiescence by Respondent, and employer
preference. Respondent takes the position that its
claim to the disputed work is supported by area
practice and the Employer's past practice.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the 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 voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
The record shows that the Employer awarded
the disputed work to employees represented by
Local 174 on December 22, 1980. By letter dated
January 26, 1981, Local 117 formally submitted a
claim to the disputed work and threatened econom-
' At the hearing, Local 117 disclaimed any interest in the work of
loading pallets into trailers by forklift, making it clear that its claim was
limited to the tasks of unloading cargo from the extendable conveyors
and placing the cargo on pallets
TEAMSTERS UNION L OCAL NO. 117 1241
ic action if this claim was not satisfied. We there-
fore conclude that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc-
curred. The parties stipulated, and we find, 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.
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
following factors are relevant in making the deter-
mination of the dispute before us:
1. Economy and efficiency of operation
Randy Crowe, the Employer's vice president of
warehousing and distribution, testified that opti-
mum efficiency in loading trucks could only be ac-
complished if all loading functions, including the
disputed work and the remaining loading of pallets
into trailers by forklift, were assigned to employees
within a single unit. Local 117's claim does not en-
compass the remaining loading that is accom-
plished by forklift and an assignment of the disput-
ed work to employees represented by that union
would result in a splitting of the loading function.
A split assignment of the loading functions would,
in Crowe's words, create "logistics problems" in
scheduling the separate loading functions and result
in delays in the loading of trucks and in an in-
creased amount of idle time for workers involved
in the loading process. We find that the factors of
economy and efficiency of operation favor an as-
signment of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Local 174.
2. Relative skills and safety
Operating an extendable conveyor does not re-
quire any special skills, and the Employer's wit-
nesses indicated that employees represented by
either of the respective local unions possessed the
necessary skills to unload cargo and to build pal-
lets. However, there are legal restrictions regulat-
ing the distribution of weight within trailers and,
furthermore, improper distribution of the weight
can pose a safety hazard to the driver and other
motorists. Employees represented by Local 174 are
experienced in loading trailers and as a result have
become skilled in distributing weight within trailers
so as to satisfy legal requirements and to maximize
driving safety. The employees represented by
Local 117 do not have comparable experience dis-
tributing cargo in trailers. Accordingly, we find
that the factors of relative skills and safety favor an
assignment of the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by Local 174.
3. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both of the competing local unions currently
have collective-bargaining agreements with the
Employer. Neither of the respective contracts con-
tain jurisdictional provisions specifically covering
the disputed work, although the Local 174 contract
has included since 1968 a provision (sec. 21.3) as-
signing to employees represented by that union
"[a]ll loading and unloading of trucks . . . by any
mechanical devices." However, since that provi-
sion does not specifically cover the palletizing of
cargo, work traditionally performed by employees
represented by Local 117, we do not believe that
said provision was designed to cover the precise
tasks disputed here. Accordingly, we find that this
factor does not favor an assignment of the disputed
work to either of the competing unions.
4. Employer preference
The Employer assigned the disputed work to
employees represented by Local 174 and maintains
a preference for its original assingment. The factor
of employer preference favors an assignment of the
disputed work to employees represented by Local
174.
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 the
General Teamsters Local 174, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are enti-
tled to perform the work in dispute. In making this
determination, we are awarding the work in ques-
tion to employees who are represented by Local
174, 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:
1. Employees of Tradewell Stores, Inc., who are
represented by General Teamsters Local 174, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, are entitled to perform the work of removing
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cargo from conveyor belts and placing that cargo
on pallets at the Employer's Kent, Washington, dis-
tribution center.
2. Teamsters Union Local No. 117, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Tradewell
Stores, Inc., to assign the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Teamsters Union
Local No. 117, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 19, in writing, whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Em-
ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with the above determination.