United Catering, Hotel Workers, Local 1064

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 127 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

UNITED CATERING, HOTEL WORKERS , LOCAL 1064
United Catering , Restaurant, Bar and Hotel Workers,
Local No. 1064, Retail, Wholesale, Department
Store Workers Union , AFL-CIO and Canteen Cor-
poration
United Distributive Workers, Council 30, National
Council of Distributive Workers of America and
Canteen Corporation . Cases 7-CD-307-1 and 7-
CD-307-2
July 14, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Canteen Corporation, alleging
that United Catering, Restaurant, Bar and Hotel
Workers, Local No. 1064, Retail, Wholesale, Depart-
ment Store Workers Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
called Local 1064), and United Distributive Workers,
Council 30, National Council of Distributive Work-
ers of America (hereinafter called Council 30) each
has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engag-
ing in certain proscribed activity with an object of
forcing or requiring Canteen Corporation to assign
certain work to employees represented by it rather
than to employees represented by the other.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Thomas Gallagher on April 22,
1975. 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, Local 1064 and
Council 30 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 Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that Canteen Corporation, a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at the Merchandise Mart, Chicago , Illinois,
is engaged in the provision of food services , and dur-
ing the calendar year ending December 31, 1974,
127
purchased food supplies and other materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located
outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly, we find
that Canteen Corporation 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.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find , that Local
1064 and Council 30 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is "the nonsupervisory food
preparation and distribution work within the two sat-
ellite cafeteria areas, including retrieval of prepared
and other food from the warehousing areas of the
Hamtramck Assembly Plant and transfer of said
food to the satellite cafeteria areas , placement of the
prepared food into the `CounterVend' cabinets or
machines within the satellite cafeteria areas, place-
ment of various other prepared foods into their re-
spective containers within the satellite cafeteria ar-
eas, such as filling the milk dispenser , placement of
salads into the chiller , and the placement of hot pre-
pared foods into the steam cabinets and under the
heat lights , preparation of hamburgers , hotdogs, and
french fries in the satellite cafeteria areas , cashier
work within the satellite cafeteria areas , and various
other miscellaneous food-related job tasks within the
satellite cafeteria areas."
B. Background
For a number of years, Canteen Corporation, un-
der contract with Chrysler Corporation, has main-
tained an operation at the Dodge main plant in
Hamtramck providing food services to Dodge per-
sonnel. Before February 1975, this operation in-
volved a kitchen, a main dining room, and two satel-
lite areas where Dodge personnel carried trays along
cafeteria serving lines, requested various kinds of
food as they passed down the line, and paid a cashier
when they reached the end of the line. Food was
brought in bulk to the plant's dock area, transferred
from the dock area to the kitchen, and prepared in
the kitchen. Some of it was then served in the dining
room; the rest was put into large pans, wheeled to the
satellite areas, placed on steam tables, ladled onto
plates, and handed to Dodge personnel. In addition
219 NLRB No. 29
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the cafeteria serving lines , Canteen Corporation
also maintained in the satellite areas coin-operated
"Servinette" vending machines selling drinks and
prepackaged food items . The 28 to 30 Canteen Cor-
poration employees involved in transferring food
from the plant's dock area, preparing it in the kitch-
en, wheeling it to the satellite areas , and serving it to
Dodge personnel were covered by a collective-bar-
gaining agreement between Canteen Corporation
and Local 1064 which by its terms applied to the
positions of "chef, cook helper, general , and satellite
specialist"; the 12 to 13 Canteen Corporation em-
ployees involved in servicing and maintaining the
coin-operated vending machines were covered by a
collective-bargaining agreement between Canteen
Corporation and Council 30 which by its terms ap-
plied to the positions of "field maintenance, route
service personnel, Servinette attendant, and 'Count-
erVend' attendant." I The employees covered by the
agreement with Local 1064 worked under Supervisor
Palko, who reported to District Food Manager Igler,
who in turn reported to Area Food Director Basset;
the employees covered by the agreement with Coun-
cil 30 worked under District Vending Manager
Schafer, who reported to Area Vending Director Lee.
In February 1975, Canteen Corporation decided,
for business reasons, to change its operation at the
plant essentially from a cafeteria-style service to an
automat-style service. Under the new operation, the
plant's kitchen was to be closed down completely,
and the dining room and the two satellite areas were
to be converted into three identical self-service areas
where Dodge personnel could help themselves to
food from manually operated "CounterVend" 2 auto-
mat units and coin-operated "Servinette" vending
machine units . The "CounterVend" units were to
contain plates of food prepared, dished out, and indi-
vidually wrapped at Canteen Corporation's commis-
sary in nearby Dearborn; the "Servinette" units were
to contain cans of soup, prepackaged items of food
and machines for pouring hot and cold drinks.
Canteen Corporation employees involved in the
"CounterVend" part of the operation were to trans-
fer the plates of food from the Hamtramck plant's
i The agreement between Canteen Corporation and Local 1064 was
scheduled to run from September 15, 1973, until September 15, 1976, with
automatic renewal thereafter from year to year absent notice from either
party to the contrary. The agreement between Canteen Corporation and
Council 30 was scheduled to run from February 1, 1974, utnil February 1.
1977, with automatic renewal thereafter from year to year absent notice
from either party to the contrary.
2 The "CounterVend" units were to be essentially a series of small com-
partments, each with a clear plastic door on the side facing the customers,
and each containing a plate of prewrapped food and a mechanism to keep
the food hot or cold as desired . Dodge personnel were to walk in front of the
units, opening the doors and removing the plates from the compartments;
Canteen Corporation employees were to remain behind the units, placing
the plates into the compartments.
dock area to the self-service area, place the plates
into the "CounterVend" units , and generally assist
Dodge personnel when necessary in using the
"CounterVend" units . They were also to serve as
cashiers , to cook and serve hamburgers, hotdogs, and
french fries, and to dish out bulk quantities of chick-
en and fish into individual baskets 2 days a week and
place the baskets on a counter for Dodge personnel
to pick up; Canteen Corporation employees involved
in the "Servinette" part of the operation were to
maintain the "Servinette" units in working order,
keep them fully stocked with food and drink, and
generally assist Dodge personnel when necessary in
using them. Supervisor Palko was to be transferred
out of the plant, and District Vending Manager
Schafer was to oversee both the "CounterVend" and
the "Servinette" parts of Canteen Corporation's op-
eration at the plant.
On February 27, 1975, Canteen Corporation called
a meeting with both Unions and announced its
change in operation from a cafeteria-style service to
an automat-style "CounterVend" service. Stressing
that it believed the "CounterVend" work was cov-
ered by the collective-bargaining agreement with
Council 30 and that all of its other "CounterVend"
work in the Detroit area was done by employees rep-
resented by Council 30, Canteen Corporation stated
that it was assigning the work to employees repre-
sented by Council 30 and cancelling its collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 1064.3 In response,
Local 1064 Committeewoman and Chief Steward
Turner warned that employees represented by Local
1064 would put up pickets and close the operation
down if they did not receive the work in dispute, and
added that she had United Auto Worker friends at
the plant who would cause Canteen Corporation
trouble. Local 1064 Executive Secretary and Business
Agent Domany backed up Turner's threat to put up
pickets and close the operation down. The parties
then reached a temporary compromise whereby the
work in dispute was to be performed by three em-
ployees presented by Council 30 and nine employees
represented by Local 1064.
Pursuant to the temporary compromise, Canteen
Corporation put its change in operation into effect
on March 3, 1975. On March 11, 1975, Council 30
Representative Molnar wrote to District Vending
Manager Schafer that Council 30 would take whatev-
er action it deemed necessary, including a strike, if
the employees represented by it did not receive all of
the work in dispute. On March 13, 1975, Canteen
Corporation filed the instant charges against both
Council 30 and Local 1064. As of the hearing on
The agreement with Local 1064 contained no provisions for cancellation
in circumstances such as these
UNITED CATERING, HOTEL WORKERS, LOCAL 1064 129
April 22, 1975, the work in dispute was still being
done by three employees represented by Council 30
and nine employees represented by Local 1064 pur-
suant to the temporary compromise.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Canteen Corporation contends (in a brief submit-
ted to the Hearing Officer) that the work in dispute
should be assigned to the employees represented by
Council 304 because: (1) the collective-bargaining
agreement between Canteen Corporation and Coun-
cil 30 covers the work in dispute, and the collective-
bargaining agreement between Canteen Corporation
and Local 1064 does not; (2) Canteen Corporation
has expressed its preference for assigning the work in
dispute to employees represented by Council 30; (3)
Canteen Corporation's general practice is to assign
similar work in the Detroit area to employees repre-
sented by Council 30; and (4) Canteen Corporation's
operation at the plant would be made more efficient
and economical by assigning the work in dispute to
employees represented by Council 30.
Council 30's contentions are essentially the same
as Canteen Corporation's.
Local 1064 contends that the work in dispute
should be assigned to employees represented by it
because (1) the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Canteen Corporation and Local 1064 covers
the work in dispute, and the collective-bargaining
agreement between Canteen Corporation and Coun-
cil 30 does not; and (2) the work in dispute involves
essentially the same tasks which employees repre-
sented by Local 1064 performed to Canteen
Corporation's complete satisfaction for a number of
years before the change in operations occurred.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied ( 1) that reasonable cause exists to
believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been committed, and (2) that an agreed-upon meth-
od binding on all parties does not exist for the volun-
tary adjustment of the dispute.
As to the existence of reasonable cause, the uncon-
tradicted evidence indicates that Local 1064 Com-
mitteewoman and Chief Steward Turner warned that
4 Neither Union contends that there is an agreed -upon method binding
on all parties for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute . Council 30 con-
tends that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec.
8(b)(4)(D) has been committed by both Unions; Local 1064 denies that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has been committed by
it, but does not deny that reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation
has been committed by Council 30
employees represented by Local 1064 would put up
pickets and close the operation down if they did not
receive the work in dispute, and that Local 1064 Ex-
ecutive Secretary and Business Agent Domany
backed up this threat. The uncontradicted evidence
also indicates that Council 30 Representative Mol-
nar threatened that Council 30 would take-whatever
action it deemed necessary, including a strike, if the
employees represented by it did not receive the work
in dispute. Accordingly, we find that reasonable
cause exists to believe that violations of Section
8(b)(4)(D) have been committed both by Local 1064
and by Council 30.
As to the existence of an agreed-upon method, the
parties have made no allegation and the record con-
tains no evidence that such a method is available.
Accordingly, we find that an agreed-upon method
binding on all parties does not exist for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
Therefore, the dispute is properly before us for de-
termination pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the work in dispute
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors, including the following: 5
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The record contains no evidence that either Coun-
cil 30 or Local 1064 has been certified by the Board
as the bargaining representative of Canteen Corpora-
tion employees for the work in dispute.
The collective-bargaining agreement between Can-
teen Corporation and Council 30 explicitly covers the
position of "CounterVend attendant," and thus
makes specific reference to the major tasks involved
in the work in dispute. In contrast, the collective-
bargaining agreement between Canteen Corporation
and Local 1064 merely covers the position of "satel-
lite specialist," which relates to a position in a manu-
ally operated cafeteria. In addition, there is no refer-
ence to any of the tasks involved in the work in
dispute in the Local 1064 agreement. Accordingly,
we find that the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreements , while not by themselves determinative,
tend to favor awarding the work to employees repre-
sented by Council 30.
5 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A.
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 , 1410-11 (1962)
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Employer's preference and area practice
The evidence clearly shows that Canteen Corpora-
tion assigned the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by Council 30 initially and still prefers-the
temporary compromise among the parties notwith-
standing 6 -to assign the work to those employees
now. The evidence also indicates that Canteen Cor-
poration has assigned similar work to employees rep-
resented by Council 30 in five of its six "Counter-
Vend" operations in the Detroit area. Accordingly,
we find that Canteen Corporation's expressed prefer-
ence at the plant in question and its general practice
in the Detroit area favor awarding the work to em-
ployees represented by Council 30.
3. Efficiency and economy of operation
The evidence indicates that employees represented
by Local 1064 are as qualified as employees repre-
sented by Council 30 to operate the "CounterVend"
automat machines. However, according to District
Vending Manager Schafer, the employees repre-
sented by Council 30 are also experienced in operat-
ing the "Servinette" vending machines, and the em-
ployees represented by Local 1064 are not. As a
result, Canteen Corporation could have its "Counter-
Vend" attendants spend approximately 25 percent of
their time helping to operate the "Servinette" ma-
chines if the work in dispute is assigned to employees
represented by Council 30, but will have to hire three
to four additional employees-at an estimated ex-
pense of $20,000 to $22,000 a year-to operate the
"Servinette" machines if the work in dispute is as-
signed to employees represented by Local 1064. Ac-
cordingly, we find that efficiency and economy of
operation favor awarding the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by Council 30.
Conclusion
Based upon the entire record, and after full consid-
eration of all relevant factors, including the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements , Canteen Corporations's
assignment of the work in dispute, Canteen
Corporation' s area practice, and relative efficiency
and economy of operation, we conclude that the
work in dispute should be awarded to employees rep-
6 The compromise clearly was designed as a stopgap measure to avoid the
possibility of strikes which had been threatened by the two Unions involved.
resented by Council 30 (but not to that Union or its
members).
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this case,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Canteen Corporation who are
represented by United Distributive Workers, Council
30, Naitonal Council of Distributive Workers of
America, are entitled to perform the work consisting
of all nonsupervisory food preparation and distribu-
tion work within the two satellite cafeteria areas, in-
cluding retrieval of prepared and other food from the
warehousing areas of the Hamtramck Assembly
Plant and transfer of said food to the satellite cafete-
ria areas, placement of the prepared food into the
"CounterVend" cabinets or machines within the sat-
ellite cafeteria areas, placement of various other pre-
pared foods into their respective containers within
the satellite cafeteria areas, such as filling the milk
dispenser, placement of salads into the chiller, and
the placement of hot prepared foods into the steam
cabinets and under the heat lights, preparation of
hamburgers, hotdogs, and french fries in the satellite
cafeteria areas, cashier work within the satellite cafe-
teria areas, and various other miscellaneous food-re-
lated job tasks within the satellite cafeteria areas.
2. United Catering, Restaurant, Bar and Hotel
Workers, Local No. 1064, Retail, Wholesale, Depart-
ment Store Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is not enti-
tled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, to force or require Canteen Corporation to
assign the above work to individuals represented by
it rather than to individuals represented by United
Distributive Workers, Council 30, National Council
of Distributive Workers of America.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, United Catering,
Restaurant, Bar and Hotel Workers, Local No. 1064,
Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 7, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring Canteen Corporation, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.