United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD same from a competitor on the Employer ' s credit. The Employer's standard procedure , however, is to permit such purchases only when authorized by the lumberyard manager. The Employer has not asked the shipper for recommendations as to the discipline and discharge of employees . The record does not disclose what weight , if any, might be accorded to his recommendation if given. Contrary to the Employer ' s position, we find that the shipper is not a managerial employee nor a supervisor as defined in the Act . We shall therefore include the shipper in the unit herein found appropriate. We find that the following employees of the Employer con- stitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (a) All employees at the Employer ' s Stamford , Connecticut, lumberyard , including millmen, drivers , loaders, helpers, tallymen, and laborers , but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees , sales employees , estimators , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All employees at the Employer ' s Norwalk, Connecticut, lumberyard , including yardmen, millmen , drivers , loaders, helpers , tallymen, laborers , and the shipper, but excluding office clerical employees , professional employees, sales employees , estimators , guards , watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 428, AFL and RIGGERS AND MACHINERY MOVERS LOCAL UNION 161, affiliated with INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 420, AFL; JOHN SMALL, Business Agent of LOCAL 420 and RIGGERS AND MACHINERY MOVERS LOCAL UNION 161, affiliated with INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos. 4- CD-19 and 4-CD-20. April 9, 1954 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which provides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has en- 108 NLRB No. 50. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 187 gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of para- graph (4) (D) of section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and di- rected to hear and determine the dispute out of which such un- fair labor practice shall have arisen...." On February 26, 1953, Riggers and Machinery Movers Local Union 161, affiliated with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, herein called the Riggers , filed with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region charges alleging that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada , Locals 4Z0 and 428, AFL, and John Small, business agent of Local 420 , herein called the Pipefitters, have engaged in and are engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act . Supplementary charges were filed on May 8, 1953. It was charged in substance that the Pipe- fitters had engaged in and induced and encouraged employees of several employers to engage in a concerted refusal to work in the course of their employment with an object of forcing several employers to assign various disputed work to members of the Pipefitters rather than to members of the Riggers. Thereafter , pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections 102.71 and 102 .72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing was held before Ramey Donovan and Bernard Samoff , hearing officers , for 27 days in the period between April 29 and September 29, 1953. All the 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 . The rulings of the hearing officers made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .' Both the Pipefitters and the Riggers filed briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Commerce data concerning the several employers men- tioned below was introduced in evidence at the hearing . Upon the basis of such data, we find that at least one employer at each of the several dispute sites is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Pipefitters and the Riggers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The several disputes. i The Pipefitters moved to dismiss the notice of charge with respect to the allegations at several job dispute sites. The hearing officers referred the motion to the Board. For the reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied. 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. The facts Background It appears that the Pipefitters has for a considerable time maintained , in substance , that the rigging of all materials on which pipefitters work was and is within its jurisdiction. This claim was addressed to all piping and general contractors with whom the Pipefitters had collective -bargaining agreements. Some piping contractors , however, subcontracted the rigging work on heavy pipefitter materials to rigging contractors, who in turn had collective -bargaining agreements with the Riggers. This subcontracting practice arose primarily because the piping contractors did not have adequate equipment for heavy rigging work. Moreover , some general contractors , who directly hired both pipefitters and riggers , assigned the disputed rigging work to riggers in the belief that they were better qualified to handle such work. Faced with action in derogation of its claimed jurisdiction, the Pipefitters sought and obtained from the piping contractors in the Philadelphia area a contract which provided in part that all rigging work would be done by pipefitters . That provision first appeared in the Local 420 contract--with individual piping contractors and with the Air Conditioning , Heating and Plumb- ing Employers Association of Philadelphia , herein called the Philadelphia Association - -which was executed on May 1, 1952, and which expired on April 30, 1953, during which period all of the instant disputes arose. In similar fashion, the Pipefitters prevailed upon the general contractors to incorporate in their national contract a provision which broadly defined the work jurisdiction of pipefitters to in- clude the disputed rigging. Aside from this national contract, the general contractors adhere as a matter of practice to the terms of the contracts of Locals 420 and 428 when performing a job in the Philadelphia area. After the Pipefitters secured these contracts, the Riggers exerted pressure upon rigging contractors to prevent the rental of rigging equipment to piping contractors . Because of this pressure , 2 some piping contractors were unable to obtain the equipment necessary for the rigging of heavy pipefitter ma- terials . Their only alternative - - purchase of the needed rigging equipment --was regarded as economically unfeasible. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the contractors attempted to abide by their agreement and, indeed , were able to do so in a large majority of cases . But on roughly 5 percent of the Pipe- fitters' jobs in the Philadelphia area, disputes broke out between 2 The Pipefitters also attempted to help the piping contractors conform to their contrac- tual obligation by producing rigging contractors who employed members of the Pipefitters to perform rigging work. For a number of reasons , not here important, this effort met with no success. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 189 the 2 Unions. On some jobs, the piping contractors again sub- contracted the disputed work to rigging contractors, on occasion admitting to the Pipefitters that such conduct constituted a vio- lation of their contract. On other jobs, the general contractors continued to assign the disputed work to riggers. The Pipefitters promptly protested these actions, claiming that the disputed work belonged to the pipefitters and that the contractors were violating their agreements. When the contractors refused to reassign the work as demanded, the Pipefitters took various retaliatory action. That action varied from job to job, and in- cluded strikes, sitdowns, and standbys.' 1. York Corporation disputes A. Federal Reserve Bank job York Corporation is primarily engaged in the manufacture of air-conditioning equipment. In addition, it is a sales and engi- neering organization, erecting and installing its manufactured equipment. For installation work, York hires pipefitters. York had a contract to supply, deliver, and erect certain air- conditioning equipment in the Federal Reserve Bank in Phila- delphia. York, in turn, awarded a subcontract to Frank W. Hake, a rigging contractor, to deliver, hoist, and place such equipment, i.e., the rigging work. York was a member of the Philadelphia Association and hence under contract to Local 420. Hake, on the other hand, had a contract with the Riggers. In March or April 1953, Hake' s riggers brought the equipment to the job site and began work. York's pipefitters were at that time laying out the center lines for base plates which were necessary to the placing of the equipment. Breen, business agent of Local 420, came to the job, claimed the riggers' work, and told the pipefitters to stop working. The pipefitters left the job taking with themblueprints which were essential to a completion of the rigging work. After a 2-day delay, the riggers obtained duplicate blueprints and finished their work. The day after the walkout, Breen told a York representative that the pipefitters would not return while the riggers were working on the job site. York promptly complained to the Phila- delphia Association about the work stoppage by the pipefitters. At a meeting on April 1 relating to that complaint, the Pipe- fitters charged York with a contract violation but did not deny that it had called a strike on this job site. Indeed, McHenry, business manager of Local 420, agreed to return the pipefitters provided that the riggers would do no further work on that job. Moreover, McHenry wanted to know York's intentions with re- gard to the disputed work at other job sites as a condition to a return to work. The pipefitters did return on the day the riggers completed their work. 31n such instances, the pipefitters were present at the job site but in fact did no work. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ROARD B. Horn & Hardart job York had a contract to install certain air - conditioning equip- ment in a Horn & Hardart restaurant in Philadelphia . York, in turn, awarded a subcontract to George Young Co., a rigging con- tractor, to set that equipment . Young employed members of the Riggers. York's pipefitters had warned York that there would be trouble if the riggers appeared on the job . Evans, York's pipefitter foreman, informed York that Local 420 had in- structed him not to let the riggers work. On April 1, at the meeting referred to above, McHenry told York that he wanted York to use pipefitters for the rigging work on this job, that Young was not going to do the rigging work, and that , if neces- sary, a strike would be called to enforce the Pipefitters' de- mands. On April 1 , 1953, when the riggers arrived on the job, Small, business agent of Local 420, was summoned . The pipefitters thereupon stopped work and left the job. The stoppage lasted for 3 working days. Thepipefitters informed Yorkthatthey had been ordered not to work. Small denied that he had instructed anyone to leave the job. After the stoppage , York reassigned some of the pipefitters to other job sites . The Pipefitters returned to the Horn & Hardart job site after the riggers had completed their work . The riggers , however, were also absent from the job site for a number of days. On April 1, the day the pipefitters walked off, the pipefitters approached the riggers and claimed the latter ' s work. The riggers then called their business agent and their employer, Young , and were advised to avoid trouble and to return the equipment without doing the work. The Pipefitters made its position abundantly clear at the Philadelphia Association meeting on April 6, 1953. Local 420's representatives stated that if York or any piping contractor with whom the Pipefitters had a collective-bargaining contract continued to use riggers on the disputed work, Local 420 would strike. The Riggers apparently submitted the dispute on the instant job site to the National Joint Board for Settlement of Juris- dictional Disputes , herein called the Joint Board. However, no decision or determination was ever made. H. Rohm & Haas job Rohm & Haas Company, a Delaware corporation , owns and operates manufacturing plants in a number of States. The in- stant dispute involves its Bristol , Pennsylvania , factory, where plastics and chemicals are manufactured. Rohm & Haas awarded contracts to Herman Goldner Co., a piping contractor, and Bolger - Parker, a rigging contractor. Goldner's contract , among other things, called for the setting of 2 vessels weighing less than 500 pounds , while 13 other vessels, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 191 each over 500 pounds, were to be set by Bolger -Parker. Goldner and Bolger-Parker had contracts with the Pipefitters (Local 420) and the Riggers, respectively. Rohm & Haas, onthe other hand, had no contract with either Union. Nor did it directly hire either pipefitters or riggers. In February 1953, while the pipefitters were installing a pipe- line, the riggers arrived atthe job site and began work. Beaster, the Pipefitters' steward, told a Rohm & Haas representative that the vessels would not be set by riggers. A meeting was promptly held in Rohm & Haas' offices between all parties con- cerned. Business agents for both Unions were present. Each claimed the work for his Union. Those claims were directed at Rohm & Haas, not at the contractors . Small threatened to stop the job unless the pipefitters were assigned the disputed work. In addition, he said he would not permit the riggers to do the work. After this conference, the parties went to the job site. Two vessels had already been set by the riggers. As the riggers were about to lift a 1,500-pound vessel, 3 or 4 pipefitters climbed onto it at the direction of Small. Because of the safety hazards resulting from the pipefitters' actions, neither the crane operator nor Rohm & Haas would allow the vessel to be lifted. The pipefitters sat on the vessel for 15 minutes to 2 hours, while other pipefitters stood about and did no work. Rohm & Haas promptly contacted representatives of both con- tractors . Goldner's representative suggested that the riggers do the work with the pipefitters receiving standby pay. The Pipe- fitters accepted this proposal and the riggers finished the work 3 days later. During that period, pipefitters, equal in number to the working riggers, stood by while the rigging work was per- formed. III. Byberry State Hospital job United States Hoffman Machinery Corporation, a manufac- turer and seller of diverse equipment, had acontract to supply laundry equipment to the Byberry State Hospital. Hoffman, in turn, awarded a subcontract to Charles Benjamin Rigging Company, a rigging contractor , to set such equipment. C. E. Williames Company Inc., a piping contractor, maintained that it too had a contract from Hoffman to perform the very same work. In addition, Williames had a contract with the Pennsyl- vania State Authority to do the piping work on that machinery after it was set. Early in November 1952, Hoffman clarified matters by informing Williames through the latter's foreman that Hoffman was giving the rigging contract to Benjamin. Williames and Benjamin had contracts with the Pipefitters (Local 420) and the Riggers, respectively. Hoffman, on the other hand, had no contract with either Union. Nor did Hoffman direct- ly hire either pipefitters or riggers for the type of work in question. 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 12, 1952, Benjamin ' s riggers first appeared at the job site. The next day, Gill, Hoffman' s sales represent- ative, was informed by one of the company's field represent- atives that work had been stopped by the pipefitters at the By- berry job and that Small was responsible . Gill went to the job site and discussed the problem with the contractors and the Unions. Both Unions claimed the rigging work . Small threatened to stop the entire job if the riggers set the laundry equipment. A number of witnesses testified concerning the events prior to Gill's appearance at the job site. It appears that the riggers had begun their work. The Pipefitters' foreman claimed the work, threatened a strike, and stated he would stop the riggers from working . Small appeared and instructed the pipefitters to stop the riggers . The pipefitters formed aline in front of some equipment which the riggers were to set and thus prevented the performance of their work. Indeed, Sfnall advised the pipefitters to use force , if necessary , to stop the riggers from working.4 These threats of violence continued even after Gill arrived on the job site. Shortly after Gill arrived, he requested Benjamin to stop the rigging work until the dispute was adjusted . The pipefitters had already stopped work. A conference was then held between the interested parties, during which time Gill asked both contractors to delay performance of the disputed work. At that conference, it was further agreed that the disputed work would not be done until a settlement had been effected. The pipefitters, however, did no work during the conference , notwithstanding the fact that there was other work for them to do on the job site. At the above conference , the question of submittingthe dispute to the Joint Board was discussed . That evening, Benjamin, after speaking with his attorney , contacted the Joint Board concerning the dispute. The next day, November 14 , Benjamin received an answer. The Joint Board recited Benjamin ' s allegations against the Pipefitters and instructed Local 420 to cease any interfer- ence with Hoffman ' s assignment and to process anywork assign- ment complaint in accordance with Joint Board procedures. The Joint Board' s answer apparently settled the dispute, for the riggers returned to the job onNovember 19, showed the answer to the pipefitters , and completed the disputed work without inter- ference. No work assignment complaint was ever processedby the Pipefitters. Nor was any Joint Board decision issued in this matter. IV. Conshohocken Sewage Disposal Plant job Bowers Brothers Company, a piping contractor , had a contract to install certain mechanical equipment at the instant job site at Conshohocken, Pennsylvania . Bowers, in turn , awarded a 4Small and other Pipefitters ' representatives denied that they had engaged in any of the above conduct. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 193 subcontract to Hake, a rigging contractor, to pick up, deliver, and unload at the job site certain equipment which Bowers had purchased. Bowers and Hake apparently had contracts with the Pipefitters (Local 428) and the Riggers, respectively. Hake's riggers appeared at the job site on February 9, 1953. At that time, the Pipefitters objected to the unloading of the equipment by riggers. The Pipefitters, through Hudson, business agent of Local 428, claimed the unloading work and threatened Bowers with a strike if its members were not assigned such work. Indeed, Hudson also told the riggers that if they unloaded the equipment, he would call the pipefitters off the job.' Bowers suggested to Hudson and Hake that the riggers take a long lunch hour so as to allow the pipefitters to do the vI'ork. The riggers refused to do so and completed the work as originally contracted for by Hake. This action provoked a work stoppage, pursuant to Hudson's instructions, by the pipefitters. Apparently, the members of both Locals 420 and 428 participated in the stop- page. At the hearing, the counsel for the Pipefitters stipulated that the pipefitters quit work because the riggers were perform- ing the disputed work. The pipefitters did not work that after- noon. Nor did they work the first hour of the following day. On that morning, Bowers asked Hudson to put the pipefitters back on the job. Hudson was reluctant to do so. Bowers then offered to pay the pipefitters for working time lost the day before. Hudson agreed to this and ordered the pipefitters to return. Approximately 1 hour after regular starting time the pipe- fitters were back at work. B. Bargaining history As already mentioned above, the Pipefitters relies in large part upon its contracts with the piping and general contractors as defenses to the charges filed herein. The relevant provisions of Local 420's contract with both the Philadelphia Association and individual piping contractors for the period May 1, 1952, to April 30, 1953, are as follows: Article V. Section 2. Apprentices must be members of the [Pipefitters], and no [Pipefitter] will be permitted to work with an apprentice who is not a member. Article VI, Section 3. ... the piping contractor shall be responsible for all piping and equipment which is a part of the work of the United Association [Pipefitters] and shall be handled and set by Local Union No. 420 Journeymen. The Employer reserves the right to sublet work to a rigging contractor with the provision that members of Local 420 will do the work. In addition, the rigging contractor may supply one (1) man as an overseer. Article VII, Section 1. There shall be no restrictions on the use of tools by the foremen employed by the Employers 5 Hudson, however, denied that he made any such threats. 339676 0 - 55 - 14' 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Association, but it is agreed that such foremen shall be a member of Local Union No. 420. Article VIII. Section 1. It is agreed that the Employers Association shall employ only [Pipefitters] Journeymen and Apprentices who are in good standing and who retain their good standing in Local Union No. 420. The relevant provisions of Local 428's contract with both the Philadelphia Association and individual piping contractors for the same period are as follows: Article III, Section 5. It is agreed that maintenance and repair work coming under the jurisdiction of Local Union No. 428 ... shall be any work that interferes with the nor- mal operations of the existing buildings, plants, or oper- ations, etc. . . . . Maintenance work of this classification shall be the jurisdiction of Local Union No. 428 . . . [and shall be] performed by members of Local Union No. 428 . . . who are working for legitimate piping contractors that are in contractual relationship with the [Pipefitters] . . . Article V. Section 3. The Employers Association agrees, upon [Local Union No. 428] obtaining a certificate of approval from the [NLRB] to employ members of the Local Union in good standing as defined in the [Act] and shall further require all other Journeymen and Apprentices who shall have worked for a member of the Employers Associ- ation for a period of not less than thirty (30) days to make application for membership in [Local Union No. 428]. Article X, Section 1. On all material and equipment purchased by him, the employer agrees that during the period of responsibility for any materials or equipment under pressure or vacuum, such materials or equipment shall be operated by [Pipefitters] Journeymen andAppren- tices employed by the employer installing the work. For reasons hereafter referred to, the provisions of the national contract between the general contractors and the Pipe- fitters need not be discussed. C. Contentions of the parties The Charging Party, the Riggers, contends that by the above conduct the Pipefitters violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act; that none of the defenses posed by the Pipefitters has any validity; and that any determination by the Board should award the disputed work to the Riggers. The Pipefitters contends that the Board is without jurisdiction to determine the dispute onthe grounds that its conduct does not fall within the proscription of Section 8 (b) (4) (D); that the Joint Board is the appropriate agency for determining these juris- dictional disputes; that several of the disputes have been sub- UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 195 mitted to and settled by the Joint Board ; and that all the dis- puted work having been completed , the instant proceeding is now moot. With respect to the merits of the dispute , the Pipefitters asserts in essence as the basis for its claim to the work in question--the terms of the contract between it and the several piping and general contractors , the practice thereunder, and the breach of those terms by the contractors . The Pipefitters further argues that it has "been given jurisdiction over the type of work involved here by custom , practice and by decisions of the [AFL]." D. Applicability of the statute The charges , which were duly investigated by the Regional Director , allege several violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the Regional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that violations of the section had been com- mitted. In the proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board is required to find only that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) has been violated before proceeding with a determination of the dispute out of which the unfair labor practice has arisen .6 As set forth above, the Pipefitters con- tends that no violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) occurred here. We find a distinct pattern of conduct revealed by our study of this record . That pattern inescapably defines both the nature and purpose of the Pipefitters ' conduct. It shows that the Pipefitters provoked work stoppages wherever its claimed work jurisdiction was not respected . It further shows that the purpose of such stoppages was to force the several contractors to reassign the disputed work tasks to the pipefitters . With this pattern in mind, the Pipefitters ' conduct at each of the job sites described above is clearly identifiable as conduct falling withinthe proscription of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ). Thus, there is substantial evidence that at each of these job sites the Pipefitters engaged in or induced and encouraged its members to engage in work stoppages with the object of forcing a particular employer to assign the disputed rigging work to pipefitters rather than to riggers . ? In disputes I (A) and ( B), the Pipefitters was attempting to force York to reassign the disputed work; in dispute 11, the pressure for re- assignment was directed against Rohm & Haas; in dispute III against Hoffman ; and in dispute IV against Bowers. As we noted above, the Pipefitters ' officials denied part of the conduct upon which we rely in making our findings herein. 6See, e.g., Local 26, International Fur & Leather Workers of the United States and Canada (Winslow Bros .), 90 NLRB 1379; Truck Drivers and Chauffeurs Union, Local 705 (Direct Transit Lines ), 92 NLRB 1715. ?See International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen 's Union, Local 48 (Upper Columbia River Towing Co.), 107 NLRB 1637. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Notwithstanding these denials , we find, without definitively resolving such conflicts in the testimony , that there is reason- able cause to believe that the Pipefitters has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) at each of the above job sites. In so finding , we are cognizant of other charged violations at specific job sites to which we have not referred . Inasmuch as there is at least 1 clear dispute for our determination under each of the 2 charges filed ( 1 charge relates to Local 420 and the other to Local 428), we deem it unnecessary to set forth or determine the existence of the several other violations alleged in the charges . Moreover , even assuming that the Riggers have failed to establish the requisite prima facie violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) with regard to such other disputes , that fact would not deter the Board from determining this dispute in the manner hereinafter described . The dispute is therefore properlybefore this Board unless, as urged by the Pipefitters , it has become moot or is in the process of being settled in a manner provided by statute. Although the particular jobs which gave rise to the present case have been completed , the underlying jurisdictional dispute has not been resolved . It exists as much in the Philadelphia area today as on the completed jobs. Indeed, these jobs were com- pleted only because the employers involved either capitulated to the Pipefitters ' jurisdictional claim or insisted that the work should be performed as originally assigned to the Riggers. A determination by the Board is therefore still necessary . Accord- ingly, we reject the Pipefitters ' contention that the case is moot.' Section 10 (k) of the Act, although directing that the Board hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8 (b) (4) (D) charges have arisen , contains equally mandatory language di- recting that in certain circumstances the Board is not to make any determination . Such limitations are contained in the under- scored portions of the following language from Section 10 (k): . . . the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless , within ten days after notice that such charge has been filed , the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute . Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute , such charge shall be dismissed . [ Emphasis supplied.] There is no evidence that the parties have adjusted their dis- pute. It appears that the Riggers submitted the Horn & Hardart BLocal 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al. (Taylor Electric , Inc.), 107 NLRB 1004, National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians et al. ( Teleprompter), 95 NLRB 1470. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 197 dispute ( I, B) and Benjamin submitted the Byberry dispute (III) to the Joint Board . In neither case did a Joint Board decision issue. Although the work at both job sites was completed, the conflicting jurisdictional claims of the two Unions are still being asserted . We find that the mere submission of a dispute to the Joint Board by one of the parties to such dispute does not constitute the requisite "adjustment " called for by Section 10 (k).9 Nor is there any evidence that the parties have "agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the disputes." It is true that both the Pipefitters and the Riggers are signatories to the Joint Board plan . There are , however, other parties to these disputes , e.g., the employer against whom the pressure for re- assignment is exerted . In this connection , it appears that the Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association was signatory to the Joint Board plan until April 14, 1952, at which time it withdrew . Its withdrawal carried all its local branches , including the Philadelphia Association, out of the Joint Board's jurisdiction . In turn, a number of the instant piping contractors (York, Bowers, and others ) were members of the Philadelphia Association , and their connection with the Joint Board also ceased on April 14. As the charged violations all occurred after that date, each of the disputes (I and IV) in- volving such contractors had at least one party who had not "agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute." Moreover , the same conclusion is compelled as to dis- putes II and III for both Rohm & Haas and Hoffman,1° respec- tively, were manufacturers who apparently had never assented to the Joint Board plan . Accordingly, we find, pursuant to clear Board precedent ,' that, under these circumstances , the Board is not precluded from determining these disputes.' In contrast , we note that only two of the charged violations-- involving United Engineers & Constructors , Inc., general con- tractor at the Delaware Station Powerhouse job and at the Crombey Station Powerhouse job of the Philadelphia Electric Co.--would be subject to dismissal on the grounds that all the parties to such disputes had previously agreed to refer all juris- dictional controversies to the Joint Board. The parties thus 9 See United Brotherhood of Carpenters R, joiners et al (Ora Collard), 98 NLRB 346. 10 We do not believe that the conduct of the parties at the Byberry dispute ( III) establishes an agreement on methods of voluntary adjustment as contemplated by Section 10 (k). 11 International Union of Operating Engineers et al . (Empire State Painting &Waterproofing Co.), 99 NLRB 1481; United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners et al (Ora Collard), supra. 12 In this connection, the Pipefitters makes several other arguments, all of which we find to be without merit. First, its reliance on General Warehousemen R. Employers Union et al. (Roy Stone Transfer Corp ), 99 NLRB 662, is unpersuasive. That case is clearly inapposite. Second, the fact that the Pipefitters ' contract with the several contractors provides for a joint arbitration board is of no materiality for that arbitration board has no power over the Riggers. The Board has previously rejected a similar contention . See Local 26, International Fur & Leather Workers Union (Winslow Bros.), 90 NLRB 1379, 1381, 1384. Lastly, the possibility of some future agreement between the Unions on a method of adjustment of these disputes is irrelevant . See Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 556 (Safeway Stores , Inc.), 101 NLRB 181. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had at the time the charge was filed "agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the disputes " within the meaning of Section (k).13 Indeed , the Joint Board actually settled the principal dispute at the former job site. We therefore find that the disputes in question, excluding the two last mentioned , are properly before us for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. E. Merits of the dispute At the time the Pipefitters sought the assignment of the dis- puted rigging work for its members, the several piping con- tractors and manufacturers had assigned such work to rigging contractors , who employed riggers . The Pipefitters objected not only to the subcontracting , but also to the fact that riggers rather than pipefitters were doing a particular type of work. The disputes in essence were therefore over employers' assign- ments of work to members of one labor organization , rather than to members of another labor organization. It is now well established that an employer is free to make such assignments free of strike pressure by a labor organ- ization, " unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre- sentative for employees performing such work."'* It does not appear that the instant employers against whom the Pipefitters' pressure was exerted are failing toconformtoany such order or certification 's of the Board . This does not, however , preclude a determination that the Pipefitters ' contracts cover the assign- ment of the work in dispute .'6 Indeed, the Pipefitters claims that is has immediate contract rights upon which it can pred- icate a lawful claim to the work in dispute. The Pipefitters contends that the several piping contractors were contractually obliged to assign the disputed work to pipe- fitters , either directly or through a subcontractor who employed pipefitters to do such work ; that the piping contractors breached their contractual obligations ; and that, where necessary, "[the Pipefitters] struck to enforce compliance with the contract." The Pipefitters fails, however , to distinguish between the different contractual relationships at each of the job sites . For, in two of the instant disputes , an employer , other than the piping con- tractor, made the disputed work assignment . In such cases, the 13See Carpenters Local 943 et al. (Manhattan Construction Co.), 96 NLRB 1 045, petition for review dismissed 198 F. 2d 230 (C. A. 10). MPile Drivers , Bridge, Wharf and Dock Builders , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , Local Union No. 34, AFL ( Klamath Cedar Company ), 105 NLRB 562; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 16, CIO, (Juneau Spruce Corp), 82 NLRB 650. is The recent certifications awarded the Pipefitters on December 1 and 2, 1953, are of no materiality in this proceeding. 'SNational Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians , CIO, et al. (National Broad- casting Co.), 105 NLRB 355. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 199 Pipefitters have no legitimate contract claim and, indeed, can point to no breach by the piping contractor. Thus, at dispute II, Rohm & Haas awarded 2 contracts, 1 es- sentially for piping work and the other for rigging work. The piping and rigging contractors had agreements with the Pipe- fitters and the Riggers, respectively. Rohm & Haas, however, had no contract with either Union. The Pipefitters protested Rohm & Haas' work assignment and attempted to force a change in contractors. But Rohm & Haas violated no contract. The fact that the piping contractor was operating under an agreement with the Pipefitters does not subject Rohm & Haas to any of the obligations of that agreement. Indeed, neither was the piping contractor in violation of its contract with the Pipefitters for it assigned all of its work to the pipefitters. Under these circum- stances, we find that the Pipefitters' contract does not entitle its members to the work in question.17 The very same conclusion is compelled in dispute Ill. There too the Pipefitters lacked privity of contract with Hoffman, the employer who made the disputed work assignment to riggers by way of a rigging contractor and the employer against whom the Pipefitters exerted pressure for reassignment of such work. Moreover, the only possible breach of contract there is between Hoffman and the piping contractor. Assuming, arguendo, such a breach, it would have no bearing on the Pipefitters' rights as against either Hoffman or the piping contractor. Accordingly, we reject the Pipefitters' contentions with regard to its con- tracts insofar as disputes II and III are concerned. The Pipefitters' argument has more substance at the remain- ing dispute sites. For, at disputes land IV, the piping contractor made the disputed work assignment. Dispute I concerns Local 420's contract and dispute IV concerns Local 428's. The rel- evant portions of both contracts have already been set forth. For the contracts to insulate the Pipefitters' actions, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) The Pipefitters' contracts must embrace the disputed rigging work, and (2) the contracts must otherwise be valid, enforceable instruments. York was the piping contractor in disputes IA and B. Through the Philadelphia Association, York had a contract with Local 420. Article VI, section 3 of that contract, upon which the Pipe- fitters primarily relies, precludes the subcontracting by York of rigging work to contractors hiring other than pipefitters or, more generally, precludes the use by York on all its rigging work of any group other than pipefitters. The Pipefitters thereby made clear its contractual purpose. That purpose was to monop- olize the disputed rigging work on all 'materials which the piping contractors were to handle. This conclusion is buttressed by actual practice under the contract. For, a number of piping 17 Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council et al (Westinghouse Electric), 83 NLRB 477, 481-482; International Hod Carriers Union et al. (Middle States Tel Co.), 91 NLRB 598, 603-604. 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contractors, including York, admitted that their subcontracting relationships with rigging contractors embraced the very work in dispute which fell within their contract with the Pipefitters. We find, however, that we cannot enforce this contract so as to justify the Pipefitters' otherwise improper conduct. The basis for this finding is that the union-security provisions (article II, section 4, and article VIII, section 1) of Local 420's contract are patently unlawful.18 In substance, they condition employment by a piping contractor on membership in the Union. The Act, however, states that union membership may be made a con- dition of employment only "on or after the thirtieth day follow- ing the beginning of . . . employment or the effective date of [the] agreement, whichever is later." No such 30-day grace period is provided for in this contract. Nor can article VI, section 3, upon which the Pipefitters' defense turns, be sepa- rated from these other articles. Article VI, section 3, is an in- tegral part of the fabric of illegality which runs through the entire contract. Indeed, article VI, section 3, is itself illegal in- sofar as it provides that the undisputed rigging work will be done only by members of Local 420. We will not, as a matter of policy, allow such a contract to determine the dispute with re- gard to York's assignments in the Pipefitters' favor.19 The Pipefitters makes the very same argument with respect to Local 428's contract. That contract was involved at dispute IV where Bowers awarded a subcontract to a rigging contractor. The Pipefitters maintains that such conduct was a breach of Bowers' contractual obligation. The only provisions in that con- tract upon which Bowers' breach might possibly be predicated are article III, section 5, and article X, section 1. Neither arti- cle mentions the disputed rigging work. Nor do those articles refer to any broad work jurisdiction capable of being incor- porated into the contract. We do not believe the terms of this contract warrant a finding that the disputed work had been assigned to pipefitters. It follows that Bowers could not have been in breach of contract. Accordingly, we reject the Pipe- fitters' contention. Furthermore, we find that the evidence relating to custom, practice, and AFL decisions concerning the disputed work is of no materiality. Only where both competing unions have an imme- diate contractual claim to the disputed work would the Board consider such evidence material." Finally, we view these disputes as more than an isolated series of occurrences. As already mentioned, there is a pattern of conduct by the Pipefitters which is nothing less than a con- tinuing plan to effect a Pipefitters' monopoly of the disputed work in the Philadelphia area. We have illustrated that pattern with specific instances which show the range of employers who 18 See, e.g., Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 95 NLRB 399; 97 NLRB 642. 19 The cases cited by the Pipefitters are, accordingly, inapposite. 20 Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council et al. (Westinghouse Electric), supra UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 201 have been subject to the Pipefitters' pressure. We do not be- lieve that a determination limited to those particular employers would have the desirable deterrent effect onfurther aggressive action growing out of this jurisdictional dispute. Therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will broaden our determination so as to protect all employers in the Philadelphia area from an unwarranted continuation of this jurisdictional strife. In so acting , we remain cognizant of the other media available to the parties for settlement of this dispute; for example, agreement to use the Joint Board's facilities. We do not intend to discourage the use of such media. Indeed, we be- lieve that by broadening our determination, we may encourage an expeditious use of those media for the effectuation of a final adjustment of the underlying jurisdictional dispute between the two Unions. We find, accordingly, that the Pipefitters (Locals 428 and 420) was not lawfully entitled to require any of the above employers and are not lawfully entitled to require any employer to assign the disputed rigging work to members of the Pipefitters rather than to employees assigned by the employers to perform such work. However, we are not, by this action, to be regarded as "assigning " the work in question to the Riggers.21 DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of disputes pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act: 1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 428, AFL, and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 420, AFL, and its agents, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require any employer in the Philadelphia area to assign the rigging work on any equipment to members of Locals 428 and420 rather than to members of Riggers and Machinery Movers, Local Union 161, affiliated with the International Association of Bridge, Structur- al and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL. 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, the Respondents (Locals 428 and 420) shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing as to what steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Disputes. Members Murdock and Beeson took no part in the consid- eration of the above Decision and Determination of Disputes. 21 Ibid.