Local 450

LOCAL 450 135 Objection 8: As the Employer does not except to the Regional Director's recommendation that this objection be overruled, we adopt his recommendation. Inasmuch as we agree with the Regional Director that the Employer's objections should be overruled, we will certify the Petitioner as representative of the Employer's employees. [The Board certified International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees in the unit found appropriate.] Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL- CIO and The Austin Company. Case No. 39-CD-f4. October 25, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING On April 1, 1957, The Austin Company filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, alleging that Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. 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 charge and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The hearing was held at Houston, Texas, from May 28 to 31, 1957, before Edwin Youngblood, hearing officer. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, and upon consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Austin Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. Austin was a member of Construction Employers Association of Texas on August 31, 1955, when the latter association entered into a contract with the Union, effective initially until April 30, 1958. The- 119 NLRB No. 18. 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contract, like its predecessor, contained the following provision, known as section 20 (g) of the Working Conditions: Where plant steam or air is used on a job, a Light Equipment Operator shall be employed. The contract also provided that in the event a "jurisdictional dispute" arose, the dispute should be settled in accordance with the practice of the Building and Construction Trades Department or the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. On or about March 4, 1957, during the term of this contract, Austin was engaged in a certain job at the Freeport (Texas) plant of Dow Chemical Co. In connection with the job, Austin used compressed air obtained from Dow's plant lines. The plant-line valves, known as headers, were turned on and off by Dow's employees, at Dow's insistence, and therefore Austin had no need for any employees of its own to perform this work. The Union nevertheless demanded that Austin abide by section 20 (g) and employ operators, a demand Austin rejected. The Union accordingly caused other employees of Austin to engage in a strike. The strike was terminated 4 days later, on March 8, when Austin replaced its compressed-air equipment with equipment operated by electricity. On or about April 1, 1957, likewise during the term of the contract and while still engaged on the Dow job, Austin used steam obtained from Dow's plant lines. As with the compressed air, the header valves were operated by Dow's employees. The Union demanded that Austin nevertheless comply with section 20 (g) and employ operators. The record further shows that the Union suggested to Austin that it could insert a pipe and valve between the header valve operated by Dow's employees and the particular piece of Austin's steam-activated equip- ment, thus providing a valve to be turned on and off by the operator. Austin refused the Union's demand, whereupon the Union caused other employees of Austin to engage in a strike. The strike termi- nated later that month, on April 25, after a hearing in a United States district court on the Regional Director's petition, later granted, for an injunction against the Union under Section 10 (1). CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Austin contends that an object of the Union's strikes was to force it to assign the work of operating Dow's plant or header valves to its own operators, who came within the coverage of the Union's con- tract, rather than have the work done by Dow's employees. Austin further contends that the contract does not constitute an assignment of such work for the simple reason that the work was not Austin's to assign. The Union contends that its sole object in striking was to force Austin to comply with section 20 (g) of the contract and employ operators where plant steam or air was used. S & S AUTO PARTS CO. OF WISCONSIN, INC. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE 137 Section 10 (k) of the Act generally empowers and directs the Board to hear and determine disputes over an employer's assignment of "particular work" to one group of employees rather than another. However, the Board is not authorized to hear and determine other types of disputes. The present dispute, involving Austin's refusal to employ operators while using Dow's plant steam or air, clearly does not involve Austin's assignment of particular work to certain employees rather than others. The record is clear that Austin had no control or authority over the operation of plant steam or air valves, and thus had no authority to assign this particular work to any employees whatsoever. It is therefore not the type of dispute which, the Board is authorized to hear and determine. We find that the dis- pute between Austin and the Union does not involve the assignment of particular work, within the meaning of Section 10 (k), but rather involves Austin's voluntary contractual commitment to employ a light-equipment operator where plant steam or air is used on a job. We find that in striking Austin the Union did not have a pro- scribed object within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). Accord- ingly, we find that we are without authority to determine the pres- ent dispute, and shall grant the Union's motion to quash the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding. [The Board quashed the notice of hearing.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing. S & S Auto Parts Co. of Wisconsin, Inc. and Lodge 621, Interna- tional Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner S & S Auto Parts, Petitioner and Retail Clerks Union Local 1116, AFL-CIO and International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO. Cases Nos. 18-RC-3343 and 18-RM-264. October 25, 1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William D. Boetticher, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins] . 119 NLRB No. 21.