United Association of Journeymen

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD finding does not per se preclude the employer from adding to, or sub- tracting from, the employees' work assignments. While that finding may be determined by, it does not determine, job content; nor does it signify approval, in any respect, of any work task claims which the certified union may have made before this Board or elsewhere." On total consideration of the entire problem, we do not think it would be appropriate to resolve here the unit placement of services of musicians in particular dispute. The issue as to these employees is so inextricably woven with the broader problem that its resolution could not be accomplished without what would amount to a recon- sideration of the unit itself, which, as we have stated above, we shall not attempt in this kind of proceeding. Accordingly, in all the circumstances of this case we shall dismiss ABC's motion to clarify. This dismissal is not to be deemed as a de- cision on the merits of the dispute in any manner, either in its broad aspects or as bearing on the question of the unit placement of the non- musical services of any employee or the question of union membership requirements of any employee. [The Board denied the motion.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Order Denying Motion. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 449, AFL and J. B. Ruthrauff, d/b/a Refrigeration Equip- ment Co. and Weston Sales & Service Co., Inc. and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. Cases Nos. 6-CD-33,6-CD-34, and 6-CD-35. May 6,1955 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ." On July 12,13, and 14,1954, respectively, charges were filed with the Regional Director for the Sixth Region by the various employers named as Charging Parties below, alleging that the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, Local 449, AFL, hereinafter called the Plumbers, had engaged in and was engaging in certain activ- 112 NLRB No. 85. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN 609 ities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Charging Parties are : J. B. Ruthrauff, d/b/a Refrigeration Equipment Co., here- in called Ruthrauff; Weston Sales and Service Co., Inc., herein called Weston, and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, herein called A & P. Read comprehensively, these charges allege in substance, that the Plumbers had induced the employees of Ruthrauff, Weston, A & P, and of Thorofare Markets, Inc., herein called Thorofare,' to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to perform certain work in the course of their employment with an object of forcing or requiring Ruthrauff, Weston, A & P, or Thorofare to assign the work of "setting, aligning, and leveling of refrigerated display cases" at certain specified con- struction projects to members of the Plumbers, rather than to em- ployees who were members of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Pittsburgh and Vicinity, AFL, herein called the Carpenters, or of any other labor or- ganization, trade, craft, or class. 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 hearing, upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing was held on August 12, 1954, before W. G. Stuart Sherman, a hearing officer of the Board. Re- frigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an employer association of which Ruthrauff, Weston, and 10 other employers are members, was permitted to intervene in the hearing. This Association is sometimes referred to herein as the Re- frigeration Contractors. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence hearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On September 20, 1954, the parties submitted to the Board a stipula- tion to correct the record in certain respects, which was duly matte part of the record herein by order of the Board dated September 23, 1954. On October 11, 1954, counsel for the Charging Parties and the Re- frigeration Contractors filed a brief, which the Board has duly con- sidered. Upon the entire record in this case, as corrected by the stipulation of September 20,1954, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Commerce data concerning A & P, Thorofare, and the Refrigera- tion Contractors Association were introduced by stipulation of the parties at the hearing. Upon the basis of such data, we find that at 1 A & P and Thorofare are sometimes referred to jointly herein as the Grocery Companies. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD least one employer at each of the several dispute sites is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Plumbers and the Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. I. THL FACTS A. The background The work stoppages forming the specific subject of the instant charges occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in a background of similar work stoppages occurring during the year preceding the instant charges. All such stoppages affected the completion of supermarket building construction projects of A & P and Thorofare, and all arose as a result of the assignment by these companies of a portion of the work tasks necessary to the installation of refrigerated display cases (viz, the leveling, aligning, and setting of such cases) to their own maintenance crews. These maintenance crews were staffed in whole or in part by members of the Carpenters, and the work tasks such crews were assigned to perform had long been the subject of an intraunion jurisdictional dispute between the Carpenters union, on the one hand, and the Plumbers union (the Respondent here), on the other. The Plumbers' work jurisdiction claims, going back many years, extend to all work tasks related to the maintenance and installation of refrigera- tion, air-conditioning, and heating equipment. Neither A & P nor Thorofare employ any members of the Plumbers. Both, however, require from time to time, the kind of specialized re- frigeration services which members of the craft represented by the Plumbers are qualified to perform. At supermarket construction jobs of the type here subjected to stoppages, A & P and Thorofare usu- ally require such specialized services particularly for the "connect- ing up" of refrigerated display cases to the refrigerating machines. To obtain such services, the Grocery Companies subcontract refrigera- tion work to employers like Weston and Ruthrauff, who are in the refrigeration contracting business, and who employ members of the craft represented by the Plumbers. The Grocery Companies have experienced difficulties, however, in obtaining performance of such subcontracts, at least since March 1953, whenever they reserved for or actually assigned to their own maintenance employees the work of leveling, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display cases.2 On or about October 1, 1953, the Plumbers obtained from the Re- frigeration Contractors Association an associationwide collective-bar- 2 The Plumbers ' activities in connection with some of these stoppages formed the subject of two prior S (b) (4) (D) charges dated respectively in December 1953 and May 1954 (Case No G-CD-29, and 6-CD- 31) Both sets of charges were withdrawn upon the basis of a Regional Office investigation disclosing informal adjustment of the disputes UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN 611 gaining agreement covering a craft unit of pipefitters and contain- ing, among others, the following provisions : 3 Article I (c) In order to avoid jurisdictional controversies with other trades, the party of the second part [Plumbers union] insists that the party of the first part procure and embrace in their job contracts and specifications all of the unloading, han- dling from curbstone delivery, erection and installation of pip- ing, fixtures, appurtenances and appliances that are necessary to make a complete refrigeration and/or air conditioning in- stallation, all of which are embraced in the United Association's jurisdiction of work, including all service work. Article II, Section J. (A) The handling, assembling, instal- lation and servicing of all multiple, commercial and industrial refrigeration shall be performed on the job or in the shop of the employer by a journeymen at the prevailing wage and working conditions established by Agreement with the Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Contractors, Pittsburgh Association... . (B) The handling, assembling, installation and servicing of all makes of individual units used for home air conditioning and refrigeration may be performed on the job or in the shop of the employer by a journeymen member of Local Union No. 449, at the prevailing wage rate established by this Agreement. .. . Article IX, Section 5. Pipefitting of every description being installed under the supervision of those employing journeymen of the United Association in the pipefitting industries must be handled, erected and installed by Journeymen members of the United Association.. . . This contract was in effect at the time of the events immediately giving rise to the instant charges. B. The events upon which the instant charges are based 1. The Plumbers' activity in connection with the A & P project A & P began construction of a supermarket building at Bridge- ville, Pennsylvania (to replace one that had burned down at that location ) sometime prior to February 1954. In February 1954, Harold Greiff, the Plumbers' assistant business agent, advised Ruthrauff, 8 Subsequent to the making of this contract, the Plumbers obtained Board certification of its representative status as a result of a Board-conducted consent election held on April 22, 1934. The election involved a unit of "all journeymen steamfitters, including com- mercial and domestic air conditioning and refugeration journeymen, appientices and appli- ance servicemen employed by members of the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Con- tractois Association of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, excluding all other employees and guards, pintessiouat employees and supmvnsors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended " The Refugeratnon Contiactors Association at that time embraced 11 enmplo3eis, including \Veton and Rutluauff 369028-56--vol 11 2-40 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during the course of a conversation. concerning the construction job, that he anticipated A & P's assignment of the "leveling, aligning, and setting" work to the Carpenters. In that event, Greiff stated, the Plumbers "wouldn't furnish steamfitters for connecting up the cases." Greiff further requested of Ruthrauff that he "insist" that A & P permit him (Ruthrauff) to "set the fixtures." Ruthrauff re- plied that he would worry about that if he obtained the subcontract; and that he could only "bid" on the work that A & P asked him to bid on. Greiff then told Ruthrauff : "You tell the Company I ordered you to bid on this work." At this point Ruthrauff told him: "When I have to take orders from you I will get out of the refrigeration business." The next day, Ruthrauff' made efforts to obtain the A & P refrigeration work. A & P, however, reserved for its own maintenance crews, comprised largely of members of the Carpenters, the work of leveling, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display cases for its ^n, 2n Bridgeville store. It asked various refrigeration contractors for bids limited to the "connecting up" of the refrigerated display cases to be placed in the Bridgeville store, and on June 4 it awarded such bid to Ruthrauff. Sometime between June 25 and July 8, 1954, pursuant to A & P's directions, A & P maintenance employees completed the work of un- loading refrigerated display cases, of setting them in place, and bolt- ing them together. On July 8 or 9, A & P notified Ruthrauff by telephone that it desired to have the "connecting-up" refrigeration work for which it had con- tracted on June 4, begun on July 12. In compliance with this request, Ruthrauff began performance of his contract on July 12. He assigned one of his employee pipefitters (Bazner) to go to the project on that day to do certain preliminary work, such as the unloading of materials and the placement of compressors in the basement. Bazner completed all or most of this preliminary work with the assistance of several of the A,',' P maintenance men on July 12. At approximately 3: 30 or 4 p. in. on that afternoon, Harold Greiff, assistant business agent of the Plumbers, visited Ruthrauff at the lat- ter's office to inquire when RuthraufF would begin the Bridgeville job. Ruthrauff advised Greiff that lie had begun work on the project that morning. Greiff then stated that Ruthrauff's men were not supposed to begin work on that project if they found that the refrigerated display cases had been set by members of the Carpenters and that he would direct Bazner not to work on the project further. Bazner did not re- port to work on the Bridgeville project the next clay, although Ruth- rauff had expected him to do so, explaining to Ruthrauff that Greiff had informed him the job was "struck." Ruthrauff testified he did not direct any other of his employees or members of the Plumbers to go to the Bridgeville job because lie felt that such direction would UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN 613 be futile, in the face of his knowledge that the Plumbers would not permit the pipefitters to work on jobs where members of the Car- penters had set the display cases.' As of the time of the hearing, A & P had not yet opened its Bridge- ville store. It was unable to do so because the refrigerated display cases had not been "connected up," all other work on the project having been completed. Two or three weeks requiring three or four men, was needed to complete the work of connecting up the refrigerated display cases. As all parties apparently agree, the work of connecting up of such cases requires a considerable amount of technical competence and skill of the kind possessed by the pipefitters employed by Ruth- rauff or by other refrigeration contractors. 2. The Plumbers' activity in connection with the Thorofare project Thorofare was engaged, in June 1954, in the construction of a super- market in the Borough of Avalon, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Following its customary practices, its construction plans reserved for its own maintenance crew, some of whom were members of the Car- penters covered by the contract between Thorofare and the Carpenters, the work of leveling, aligning, and setting of the refrigerated display cases to be installed in the Avalon project. Sometime prior to June 24, 1954, Thorofare requested "bids" for the "connecting up" of such refrigerated display cases and on June 24 awarded such bid to Weston. On June 30 Thorofare assigned the work of leveling, aligning, and setting the refrigerated display cases in the Avalon store to its own maintenance crew. This work was completed on July 1. On July 7 Weston began work under its subcontract. It assigned one of its employees, a pipefitter, to the Avalon project on that day, assigned an additional pipefitter on July 9, and a third on July 12. On the afternoon of July 12, Weston was informed by phone, by one of the employees he had assigned to the Avalon project, that Greiff had directed the pipefitters not to do any more work on the Avalon proj- ect because the refrigerated display cases had been set by Carpenters. Weston directed the other two pipefitters to pick up their supplies and report to the office. On the following day, July 13, Weston went to the Plumbers' office to explore how completion of the job could be effected. He was told by Greiff and Aiken (another officer or agent of the Plumbers), that Weston should have Mr. Fry (Thorofare's treasurer) "put pressure on the Carpenters" to get the Carpenters to release its claim to work involving the setting, leveling, and aligning of refrigerated display cases. Greiff also stated that: (1) He would keep the men off the job until an understanding could be obtained * Ruthrauff had been a member of the Plumbers prior to his acquisition of the refrigera- tion business and knew the Plumbers ' mtiaunion rules obligated the members of the Plumbers not to work on such jobs 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from Thorofare of just what future assignments would be; and (2) that Weston was to refuse to accept job contracts in the future "unless the contract provided for the entire job including setting, leveling, and aligning" of the refrigeration cases. As of the time of the hearing the work of "connecting up" the re- frigerated display cases remained uncompleted although all other con- struction work on the project had been done. As a result, Thorofare was unable to go through with its original plan for opening of the Avalon store on July 27. Its managerial official testified that Thoro- fare has suffered extensive losses, which included, among others, losses caused by the spoilage and deterioration of perishable and semiperish- able food with which it had stocked the store in anticipation of the July 27 opening.' Meanwhile, concurrently with the Avalon project, Thorofare was engaged in construction at Connellsville, Pennsylvania (a locale about .50 miles from Pittsburgh). Weston was interested in bidding on this job, but before doing so, he wished to explore with the Plumbers whether he would "be permitted" to do the work. He therefore asked one of his employees to find out the Plumbers' attitude. The em- ployee reported to Weston that Greiff advised that the Plumbers' members "wouldn't be able to go to Connellsville, unless [Weston] had the complete job, including the setting, leveling, aligning, and connecting up of the refrigeration." II. THE CONTENTIONS OF TIIE PARTIES In asserting that the Plumbers have violated 8 (b) (4) (D), Weston, Ruthrauff, and the Refrigeration Contractors Association contend the Plumbers have induced employees of the Association's members concertedly to refuse to perform work on the Grocery Companies' construction projects, because the latter refuse to respect the Plumb- ers' work jurisdiction claims, and had assigned to their own mainte- nance crews the work of leveling, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display cases, instead of reserving such tasks for indirect assignment to Plumbers employed by members of the Refrigeration Contractors Association. These employers also contend that, in view of the range of the Plumbers' activities, the Board should make an areawide de- termination of dispute. No other party to the proceeding filed briefs. The record other- wise discloses, however, that the Grocery Companies agree substan- 5 On August 13, 1954 (the day after the hearing) the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an injunction against the Respondent Union puisuant to Section 10 (1) of the Act ieetraiiiing it from engaging in the activities foini- ing the subject of the instant charges, pending the Board's determination herein Accord- ing to the Refrigeration Contractors' brief herein, the Plumbers thereafter completed the "connecting up" woik at the A & P and Thoiofaie projects. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN 615 tially with the position of the Refrigeration Contractors Association and its members. The record establishes nothing definitive in the way of an argument or a "defense" by the Plumbers. The latter produced no witnesses, and with one exception, submitted no affirmative evidence in this pro- ceeding. The exception is the Plumbers' production (as the sole union exhibit) of the associationwide collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Plumbers and the Refrigeration Contractors Association referred to in the factual statement above. The Plumbers' inclusion of this contract in the record and certain questions posed by the Plumbers' counsel in the course of his cross-examination of employer witnesses, suggest the Plumbers' reliance on such contract as providing a lawful basis for the assertion of a claim over the leveling, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display work, and hence as constituting a "defense" to the charged violation of 8 (b) (4) (D). III. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE The charges, which were duly investigated by the Regional Di- rector, allege violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D), and the Regional Director was satisfied, on the basis of such investigation, that viola- tions of the section had been committed. Our review of the record in this proceeding is directed solely to determining whether, on the evi- dence adduced in support of the charges, there is reasonable cause to believe that the Plumbers have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. This statutory provision prohibits a union's exertion of strike pressures in aid of a demand upon "any employer" for the assign- ment of "particular work to employees in a particular labor organiza- tion or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work :..." Our study of the virtually undisputed evidence adduced in support of the charges reveals a conflict in the Pittsburgh area between the Plumbers, on the one hand, and the Carpenters, on the other, resulting from the overlapping jurisdictional claims of the two unions over work relating to the installation of refrigerated display case equip- ment. The situations which immediately gave rise to the filing of this case involve the attempts of the Plumbers to obtain for its members, the leveling, aligning, and setting work in connection with the instal- lation of such equipment which the Grocery Companies, in accord with their business judgment, had assigned to Carpenters. The par- ticular facts which tend to support the charged violation of 8 (b) (4) (D) herein include those establishing that the Plumbers induced a 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cessation of work on the Grocery Companies' construction projects on the part of Plumbers' members by invoking as to them the obligations of a long-standing intraunion rule. This rule apparently provided the Plumbers were not to work on construction projects at which a portion of the tasks regarded as being Plumbers' work, had been as- signed to, or performed by, other crafts. As expressed by the Plumbers' agent, at a time concurrent with the strike activity here in- volved, the Plumbers "pulled" its members "off" the Grocery Com- panies' sites, because the refrigeration cases had been set by Carpen- ters, whereas the Plumbers regarded such work as plumbers' work which should have been subcontracted by the Grocery Companies to refrigeration contractors employing Plumbers. In apparent justification of the Plumbers' activity, its counsel sug- gested at the hearing that such activity was actually occasioned by the fact that Weston and Ruthrauff had committed a "breach" of their contractual commitment to the Plumbers under the Refrigeration Contractors' agreement by accepting the kind of subcontracts awarded to them here by the Grocery Companies. Examination of the Refrigeration Contractors' collective-bargain- ing contract reveals that the specific provision to which Plumbers' counsel made reference is that contained in article I (c), quoted in full, supra. Although all that this article states is that the Plumbers "in- sists" upon the refrigeration contractors' procurement of complete- job service contracts, we may assume without so deciding, that this provision in fact obligates the employer parties to the agreement to refuse the more limited kind of job contracts which the Grocery Coin- panies here awarded to Weston and Ruthrauff. The obligations of the refrigeration contractors were not, of course, binding upon the Grocery Companies. We further find that the terms of this contract could not provide the Plumbers with a valid defense to conduct forcibly requiring the Refrigeration Contractors to procure, for as- signment to their employees, the disputed work from the Grocery Companies. This is so, because, apart from any other reasons which may be pertinent, we find that article I (c) of the contract is an inte- gral part of a discriminatory scheme for the effectuation of a Plumbers' monopoly over the work that Plumbers regards as being "plumbers' work." Thus the contract reveals that once the Refrigera- tion Contractors procure job contracts of the kind described under article I (c), they are obligated to assign the work content of such con- tracts in accord with the terms of article II (5) and article IX (5) of the contract also quoted above. These articles restrict the refrigera- tion contractors to the employment of Plumbers' members only, for at least part of the work tasks over which the Plumbers claims jurisdic- tion. Such discriminatory restriction, however, is per se illegal within UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN 617 the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.' Its existence in the con- tract, under the circumstances, thus brings this case within the scope of the Board's rulings in the recent decision involving the Philaclel- phia locals of the Plumbers.' The Board held, in that case, that a col- lective-bargaining contract providing for the employment of union members only in the performance of work tasks encompassed in the union's jurisdictional claim was invalid and unenforceable; and that, therefore, such a contract could neither "insulate" a union's strike-supported demands upon the contracting employers for the assignment of the work tasks in dispute from the reach of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, nor serve as a basis for the Board's determina- tion of the merits of the union's claims. We regard the Philadelphia Plumber' case as dispositive of the situation presented here." We find, upon all of the foregoing facts, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Plumbers have engaged in and are engaging in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act in attempting to require employers to assign to Plumbers' members the work of level- ing, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display cases. We find, fur- ther, that the dispute over the assignment of these work tasks is prop- erly before us for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. The Merits of the Dispute; and the Scope of the Determination It automatically follows from what we have said above, that the Plumbers have no legal warrant for their direct or indirect claim that there be assigned to Plumbers employed by the employer members of the Refrigeration Contractors the work of leveling, aligning, and setting of the kind here before us, Which had been assigned to car- penters employed by the Grocery Companies. We so find. It remains only therefore, to consider whether, in accord with the request of the Refrigeration Contractors, our determination of the dispute situation here before its should be broad enough in scope to 6 Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act allows the imposition of union membership as a condition of employment under certain specified conditions, only on or after the 30th day following the beginning of employment, or the eltective date of the agreement, whichever is later The per se illeaality of the contract articles, noted above, stems from the fact that they exceed, on their face, the permissible bounds of this statutory provision In so finding, we note that the forbidden aspects of article II (5) and article IX (5) make no allowances foi the fact that under aiticle I (b) of the agreement, the employers have a puipoited contractual eight to hire nonunion plumber craftsincn. Should the employers do so, they could not, however, utilize such ciaftsnien foi the performance of the kind of work dealt with in articles II and IX Accordingly, and as the employers heie involved have a very small complement of employees (Weston has 'S, and Rutlnauff, 12, plumbers), the prac- tical operative effect of the forbidden assignment of work provisions may well be to render it economically unfeasible for such employers to hire any nonunion members The result- ing complete "closed-shop" condition is obvious 7 Uinted Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fittinq Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 420, et al., 108 NLRB 186, hereinafter called the Philadelphia Plumbers case. 6 We do not pass upon what effect this contract would have had as a defense absent the presence of provisions violative of Section 8 (a) (3) 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD afford protection to all employers in the Pittsburgh area who have been or are likely to be affected by the Plumbers' jurisdictional claims. In support of this request, the Refrigeration Contractors have made an unchallenged evidentiary showing that strike activity similar to that which immediately preceded the filing of the instant charges had been induced by the Plumbers on 8 or 9 separate construction projects in the Pittsburgh area during the past several years, and had in- volved directly the employees of 6 or 7 of the 14 members of the Refrigeration Contractors' Association. They established, also, the long-standing and continuing design of the Plumbers to effect a Plumbers' monoply over the disputed work in the Pittsburgh area. In light of such showing, we agree that, absent our broad determina- tion of the dispute situation, there is a real danger that unwarranted jurisdictional disputes will continue to recur throughout the area in which this Plumbers local operates.' We note, in this connection, that, in the ancillary injunction proceedings instituted in this case under 10 (1) of the Act, the General Counsel requested and obtained from the United States District Court for the Western District of Penn- sylvania a broad restraining order, pending our determination here, which broadly provided protection to any employer in Allegheny County from such potential threat of the Plumbers' continuing its un- lawful attempts to effectuate its work assignment plans. Under all the foregoing circumstances, we find it will effectuate the policies of the Act to broaden our determination of dispute herein so as to provide protection to all employers in Allegheny County from an unwarranted continuation of this jurisdictional strife.19 We conclude, accordingly, that the Plumbers were not lawfully en- titled to force or require, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), the Grocery Companies, or the employer members of the Re- frigeration Contractors' Association (including Weston and Ruth- rauff), and are not lawfully entitled to similarly require any other -employer or association of employers in Allegheny County, Penn- sylvania, to assign the work of setting, leveling, and aligning of re- frigerated display cases on supermarket or on other store construc- tion projects to members of the Plumbers rather than to members of the Carpenters, or members of the carpenters' craft." DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following determination of disputes pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act. 9 Its local juiisdiction extends to all of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 10 Cf The Philadelphia Plumbers' case cited supra, footnote 8. 11 By this action, however, we are not to be deemed as making an assignment of the ,disputed work to Carpenters, or to any other trade, craft, or class of employees. ALUMINUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 619' 1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 449, AFL, is not and has not been lawfully entitled to force or require, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), any employer in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to assign leveling, aligning, and setting of refrigerated display case work on any supermarket con- struction project or any other store construction project to members of said Local 449, rather than to carpenters or to members of Carpenters District Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL. 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and De- termination of Dispute, the Respondent Union (Local 449) shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing, what steps the Respondent has taken herein to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Disputes. MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Determination of Disputes. Aluminum Workers International Union, Local No. 135, AFL and Leona H. Boness. Case No. 13-CB-303. May 6, 1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On August 5, 1954, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, fuiding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act and recom- mending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed- exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On February 1, 1955, the Board issued its Decision and Order,' to which a copy of the Intermediate Report was attached, in which it reversed the Trial Examiner on the sole ground that Boness, on Sep- tember 9, 1953, had made a proper tender of dues, and found that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by causing the unlawful discharge of Leona Boness after she had made a proper tender of back dues which was refused. The Board there- fore ordered that the Respondent make Boness whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against her. On February 15, 1955, the Respondent filed with the Board a motion for reconsideration and/or remand, alleging, inter alia, that, 1 111 NLRB 411 Subsequently, on February 7, 1955, the Board issued an Order Cor- recting Decision and Order 112 NLRB No. 80.