Local 169

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quired for them to perform the electrical maintenance work there. It appears, instead, that the unique intricacies of the fissionable mate- rial production process, and the extensive training and skill required for adequate performance by these employees have produced very spe- cialized workmen particularly adapted to the processes of this plant. Unlike craftsmen, however, specialists, because of their close integra- tion with production workers, are not entitled to separate representa- tion on a craft unit basis.' Indeed, the Board has indicated in an earlier proceeding involving the entire maintenance group of this very plant, and on the basis of a more comprehensive record, that "the em- ployees become specialists equipped to do the job required in the Em- ployer's plant rather than particular kinds of craftsmen." 4 Accordingly, on these facts and on the basis of the record as a whole, we find that the employees sought are not craftsmen entitled to sepa- rate representation. As no other basis appears for establishing a separate bargaining unit for them, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] $ Saco-Lowell Shops, 94 NLRB 647. * E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 111 NLRB 649. See, also, E. I. DuPont do Nemours & Co., 116 NLRB 286, and 107 NLRB 1504, each in- volving the Employer's Dana Plant, devoted to production of "heavy water" and also operated on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission , where the Board twice refused to find pipefitters (maintenance mechanics ) to be craftsmen. Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Carpenters District Council of Tri- Counties, Illinois and W. H. Condo, Brick Contractor and Mason Contractors' Association of East St. Louis . Case No. 14-CD-65. December 12, 1957 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 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 paragraph (4) (d) of Sec- tion 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen." On August 21, September 18, and October 2, 1956, W. H. Condo, Brick Contractor,' and Mason Contractors' Association of East St. Louis,' hereinafter referred to collectively as Charging Parties, joint- ly filed with the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region a charge Hereinafter referred to as Condo. 2 Hereinafter referred to as Association. 119 NLRB No. 102. LOCAL 169 727 and amended charges alleging that Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Lo- cal 169, and Carpenters' District Council of Tri-Counties, Illinois, hereinafter called District Council, have engaged in activities pro- scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was alleged in sub- stance, that Local 169 and the District Council had induced and encouraged employees of Condo and other employees to engage in a concerted refusal to work in the course of their employment with an ob- ject of forcing or requiring Condo and other employer members of the Association to assign certain work to members of Local 169 rather than to employees who are members of International Hod Carriers, Build- ing and Common Laborers Union of America, Local 454, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Hod Carriers. Pursuant to Sections 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations the Regional Director investigated the charges and pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. Thereafter, on December 10, 1956, a hearing was held before Thomas C. Hendricks, hearing officer. All parties except the Hod Carriers ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear- ing on the issue. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. A brief was filed by the Charging Parties. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Condo is a partnership existing under the laws of the State of Illi- nois and maintains its principal office and place of business in East St. Louis, Illinois, where it is engaged in the brick and masonry contract- ing business. It is a member of the Association which represents it in collective-bargaining matters. During the period from April 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956, Condo, in the course of its business, furnished goods or services valued in excess of $100,000 to enterprises which shipped goods or furnished services valued in excess of $50,000 to States other than the States in which they are located. Upon the foregoing facts the Board finds that Condo is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated and the Board finds that Local 169 and the District Council are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE DISPUTE A. The Facts The Association, on May 14, 1956, executed on behalf of its mem- bers a contract with the Hod Carriers in which jurisdiction for the building and dismantling of scaffolding for masonry purposes was awarded to the Hod Carriers. Further, for a number of years pre- viously, Condo had assigned the building and dismantling of all scaffolding exclusively to the Hod Carriers. Condo employs brick- layers and hod carriers but no carpenters. During the year 1955, Local 169, through its various agents made numerous claims to Condo and other members of the Association for the erection of scaffolding over 14 feet high. On November 15, 1955, the Association wrote a letter to the Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes calling its attention to the "Carpenters Union's" demand for brick masonry scaffolding work which was then being assigned to the Hod Carriers and referred the "matter to the Board requesting that the Board take appropriate action to relieve us of this situation." This letter was written on W. H . Condo letter- head and was signed in the name of the Association by "W. H. Condo, Pres." As the result of this communication the Joint Board wrote letters to the presidents of the International Unions of Bricklayers, Carpenters and Hod Carriers suggesting that they "discuss the situa- tion [referring to the erection of masonry scaffolding] and perhaps assign representatives to eliminate the type of dispute." A carbon copy of this letter was sent to the Association. The Association's November 15, 1955, letter to the Joint Board was its only communi- cation to that Board concerning the Carpenters claim for scaffolding work. In August 1956, Condo was engaged on a project for the construc- tion of a new high school in East St . Louis. The general contractor on the job was J. J. Altman and Co., hereinafter called Altman. On August 8 or 9, 1956, pickets for Local 169 appeared at the project carrying signs which read : On Strike the Carpenters, Local Union 169, contractor refusing to recognize rulings of National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Dispute. It is conceded that Condo was the "contractor " referred to in the picket sign and that Local 169 had a current dispute with Condo concerning the erection of masonry scaffolding over 14 feet high. Local 169's claim for the scaffolding work was based in part upon a decision dated April 28, 1920, of the National Joint Board for Jurisdictional Awards in the Building Industry in which that Board allegedly awarded the building of all scaffolds over 14 feet high to LOCAL 169 729 carpenters . Neither Condo nor the Association, however, was a party involved in that decision and was not bound thereby. On August 9, J. J. Altman sent a telegram to the Joint Board advising it of the dispute between Local 169 and Condo concerning the erection of scaffolding. Also during August 1956 , Condo's employees worked on the con- struction of an office, garage, and truck shelter for the Union Elec- tric Company at French Village, Illinois. The General Contractor on this job was William H. and Nelson Cunliff Company , hereinafter called Cunliff. On August 21, 1956, Knute Campbell , who was Cunliff's super- intendent on the job, appeared at the only entrance to the project carrying a picket sign bearing the same legend as the signs carried at the high school project. It is conceded that Campbell picketed the project at the direction of Local 169, and that the picketing was in furtherance of a dispute between Local 169 and Condo. On August 23 , 1956, while the picketing was still in progress Richard G. Hungerford, Cunliff's construction engineer, wrote a letter to the Joint Board stating that Local 169 and the Hod Carriers were involved in a dispute concerning the erection of scaffolding by Condo and that Local 169 was picketing the Union Electric project. The picketing 'at both the high school and Union Electric projects continued until October 1 , 1956, when enjoined by the District Court under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The record does not indicate that any formal action was taken by the District Council to authorize the picketing here in question. How- ever, the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters provides that the District Council may make rules to govern the action of Local unions , and the trade rules of the District Council claim the building of scaffolding for carpenters. The rules also pro- vide that "no member shall employ or work with a nonunion man." Local 169 has no separate trade rules of its own and it is conceded that the Local abides by the trade rules of the District Council. Further, the business agent of Local 169 who was directly responsible for order- ing the picketing of the projects is also a delegate to the District Council. B. Contentions of the parties The Charging Parties contend that Local 169 picketed the high school and Union Electric projects for the purpose of forcing them to assign the construction of scaffolding to members of Local 169 rather than to employees on the project who are members of the Hod Carriers, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. They also contend that the District Council shared in the responsibility for the picketing and thereby also violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D). 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 169 concedes that the picketing of the projects concerned was for the purpose of causing the reassignment by Condo of the Con- struction of scaffolds. It takes the position, however, that the notice of hearing in the proceeding should be quashed on the ground that the parties had agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute by a submission of the dispute to the Joint Board. The District Council disclaims responsibility for any of the picketing that occurred. C. Applicability of the statute As the picketing of the high school and Union Electric projects was for the purpose of forcing or requiring Condo to assign the erection of scaffolding to members of Local 169 instead of to those employees who are members of the Hod Carriers and as the record does not contain "satisfactory evidence that they [the parties] have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute" within the meaning of Section 10 (k) (as hereinafter discussed), we find that the dispute in question is properly before us. D. Merits of the dispute Local 169 is not the certified bargaining representative for em- ployees performing scaffolding work for Condo. Nor does it have a contract with Condo or the Association for the performance of this work. It claims, however, that the parties concerned have agreed upon a method for the settlement of the jurisdictional dispute relating to the construction of scaffolding. In so claiming, it apparently relies upon the fact that both it and the Hod Carriers are bound by the Joint Board's processes for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes and the fact that the Association and Condo, on November 15, 1955, 9 months before Local 169 picketed the projects herein concerned, sought the assistance of the Joint Board for the settlement of prior disputes concerning the erection of scaffolding arising on other projects. It is well established that the Board must withhold any determina- tion of dispute under Section 10 (k) where there is "satisfactory evidence" that the parties have "agreed upon methods for the volun- tary adjustment of the dispute." 3 It is also established that where the Employer concerned in the jurisdictional dispute submits the dispute to the Joint Board and where the Unions involved are bound by the Joint Board's processes, such facts will be regarded as "satis- factory evidence" that a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute has been agreed upon.' In the instant case, however, we find 8 See Manhattan Construction Co., Inc., 96 NLRB 1045. 4 See Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association of the Peoria Area, 114 NLRB 924. LOCAL 169 731 that the evidence presented falls short of establishing that either the Association or Condo submitted the dispute to the Joint Board. The fact that the Association, some 9 months prior to the picketing at the high school and Union Electric projects, sought the assistance of the Joint Board is not sufficient to establish submission to the Joint Board's processes by the Association or Condo.-' Further, the fact that the general contractors on the high school and Union Electric projects advised the Joint Board of the dispute involving Condo cannot be regarded as a submission to the Joint Board by Condo or the Association. We find, therefore, that the Board is not precluded from making its determination in the proceeding. It is settled Board law that an employer may make work assign- ments free of strike pressure by a labor organization "unless such em- ployer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work," or the claiming union has an existing contract right upon which to predicate a lawful claim to the work in dispute a As Local 169 is neither certified nor has any contract rights to the work in question, we find that it was not and is not lawfully entitled to force or require Condo to assign such work to members of Local 169 rather than to its employees who are members of the Hod Carriers. However, we are not, by this action, to be regarded as "assigning" the work in question to the Hod Carriers.' We further find that the District Council shared Local 169's responsibility for the picketing of the high school and Union Electric projects. The District Council's trade rules governing Local 169, Ni-hich has no trade rules of its own, claim the building of scaffolding for carpenters and provide that "no member shall work with a non- union man." These two rules, when read together, in effect place a mandate upon the local union members of the District Council to strike whenever scaffolding is assigned to employees other than car- penters. Accordingly, when Local 169 picketed the projects herein concerned it was carrying out the District Council's mandate.' DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act: 6 See Farnsworth & Chambers Co., Inc., 111 NLRB 1307. 6 See International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1294 (Cargill, Inc.), 108 NLRB 813. 7 See Local Union No. 553, Affiliated with United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL (Alton Water Company), 106 NLRB 186. 8 Members Murdock and Bean dissent from this portion of the Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute. They would find that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the District Council directed or authorized the picketing and therefore shared responsibility for the picketing. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Local 169 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Carpenters District Council of Tri-Coun- ties, Illinois, and their agents are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require W. 1-I. Condo, Brick Contractor or any employer member of the Association to assign the work of erecting or dismantling scaffolding to employees who are members of Local 169 rather than to employees assigned by W. H. Condo, Brick Con- tractor, or any other employer member of the Association to perform such work.9 2. Within then (10) days from the date of this Decision and De- termination of Dispute, Local 169 and the District Council shall notify, in writing, the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region whether or not they accept the Board's Determination of Dispute and whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring W. H. Condo, Brick Contractor, or any employer member of the Associa- tion, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 169 rather than to other employees assigned to perform the work by their employers. 0In making a broad determination covering other employers in the Association , we note that Local 169 has an announced policy for its members to attempt to obtain scaffolding work whenever such work is not being performed by carpenters and that Local 169 has in the past sought to require other members of the Association to comply with that policy, although such members have assigned scaffolding work to the IIed Carriers . Therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act we have broadened our determination so as to protect all employer members of the Association from an unwarranted continuation of this jurisdictional strife. See Anning-Johnson Company, 113 NLRB 1237. Moss Amber Mfg. Co. and Los Angeles Joint Board, Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-92657. December 1P2, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER On May 21, 1957, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 119 NLRB No. 104.