Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers

BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS 1035 3 By inducing and encouraging employees of Gulf to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Gulf to cease doing business with Crescent Towing & Salvage Company, Inc, Aiple Towing Company, and any other employer or person, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication I APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Gulf & Caribbean Towing Company, Inc, or of any employer other than Crescent Towing & Salvage Company, Inc, to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require Gulf & Caribbean Towing Company, I`nc, or such other employee, to cease doing business with Crescent Towing & Salvage Company, Inc, or with any other person SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC & GULF DISTRicr, HARBOR & INLAND WATERWAYS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Labor Orgamzatron Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, Local Union No 25, AFL-CIO and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. Case No 7-CD-31 December 21, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING '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 Section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair practice shall have arisen . " On April 3, 1959, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (herein called Pitts- burgh) filed charges and amended charges with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, alleging, inter alga, that International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No 25, AFL-CIO (herein called Iron Workers), had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the mean- 1125 NLRB No 102. 1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was charged , in substance, that from March '25 to 27, 1959, Iron Workers had induced and encouraged the employees of Pittsburgh , Darin & Armstrong, Inc. (herein called Darin ), and other employers to engage in a concerted refusal in the course . of their employment to perform services with an object of forcing or requiring Pittsburgh to assign certain work to members of Iron Workers, rather than to Pittsburgh's own employees. 'Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections 102.79 and 102.80 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hearing was held on June 9, 1959, before Herman Corenman , hearing officer. Pittsburgh, Iron Workers, and Darin 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 National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes , Building and Construc- tion Industry (herein called the Joint Board ), also appeared, and was permitted to intervene as amicus curiae. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by Pittsburgh, Iron Work- ers, and the Joint Board, which have been duly considered by the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Pittsburgh is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of glass, paint, chemicals , brushes, and related products. During the year 1958 it manufactured and shipped across State boundaries products valued at in excess of $10,000,000. The parties stipulated , and we find, that Pittsburgh is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 25, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. TILE DISPUTE The dispute concerns certain glass and curtain wall work at a Reynolds Metal Company project in Soutlifield Township , Michigan. Darin, the general contractor , subcontracted the work to Pittsburgh, the Charging Party. Pittsburgh assigned the work to its own employees, who were represented by Local Union No. 357, Brother- BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS 1037 hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL- CIO (herein called Glaziers), under a prior Board certification.' Thereafter, Iron Workers claimed the work to be within its special jurisdiction. The International unions of Glaziers and Iron Workers had previ- ously been involved in a number of jurisdictional disputes and, in late 1956, representatives of the two Internationals met to work out an agreement to settle such disputes. On March 12, 1957, the Interna- tionals executed an agreement containing, inter (ilia, a provision whereby jurisdictional disputes would be submitted to the Joint Board for decision. Charles Peck, a director of industrial relations for Pitts- burgh, was present as a representative of the glass industry at some of the meetings leading up to the agreement, and actively participated in the discussions. Peck was not present on March 12, when the main agreement was signed, but did attend a meeting on April 3, 1957, at which Iron Workers and Glaziers Internationals executed a supple- ment to their main agreement. Peck did not sign the main agreement or the supplement, stating that in his opinion the jurisdictional agree- ment would create new problems. On April 1, 1958, Darin mailed to Pittsburgh a purchase order con- tract for work to be performed on the Reynolds project. On the face of the contract was a specification that the work was to be supplied "subject to conditions on the reverse side of this order . . . ," and on the reverse side Were a number of conditions, including the following : You agree to be. bound by the Rules, Regulations and Procedures of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Building and Construction Industry in the as- signment of work and/or settling of jurisdictional disputes on work to be done at the job site. The parties stipulated that a representative of Pittsburgh signed the purchase order contract on April 24, 1958. In March 1959, Iron Workers protested Pittsburgh's assignment of the Reynolds work to Glaziers. Darin, aware of the dispute, notified the Joint Board through a representative of Associated General Con- tractors of America, Detroit Chapter, and requested an immediate decision. Nonetheless, on March 25, 26, and 27, the Iron Workers caused a work stoppage by picketing the project, admittedly to pro- cure assignment of the disputed work. The picketing ceased on March 27 at the request of the National Joint Board. On April 3, 1959, the Joint Board issued a decision awarding the disputed work to a combined crew of Iron Workers and Glaziers. Pittsburgh re- fused to accede to the award and finished the project with its own employees. 'Advance Glass Co., et at., 7-RC-3135 (unpublished). 1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE Section 10(k) of the Act, which empowers and directs the Board to hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8(b) (4) (D) charges have arisen, also contains mandatory limitations upon the Board's authority to. make a determination of disputes in certain cir- cumstances. Thus, Section 10(k) provides: ... [T]he Board is empowered and directed to hear and de- termine 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. [Emphasis supplied.] The manifest purpose of the underscored provision is to afford the parties an opportunity to settle jurisdictional disputes among them- selves without Government intervention whenever possible 2 This provision requires that the Board withhold any determination of a jurisdictional dispute not only when there has actually been a -voluntary adjustment, but also whenever the Board has before it "satisfactory evidence" that as of the time the charge was filed, or within 10 days thereafter, the parties have agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.' In the present case, the record clearly discloses, and we find, that all parties agreed to such a method for voluntary adjustment. Thus, the two disputing locals were admittedly bound by the March 12 agreement of their respective Internationals to submit jurisdictional disputes to the Joint Board for decision. Thereafter, on April 24, 1959, Pittsburgh agreed in its subcontract with Darin to the same method for voluntary adjustment previously agreed to by the disput- ing unions. It may be noted that this condition of the Reynolds sub- contract was undoubtedly of prime importance to Darin, as Darin was the first to notify the Joint Board of the impending dispute. By signing the Reynolds subcontract, it is clear that Pittsburgh com- mitted itself to all the terms contained therein.' 3 See, e.g., Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1045, 1048; Don Cartage Co., Inc., 121 NLRB 101; A. TV. Lee, Inc., 113 NLRB 947, 951 ; TVm. F. Traylor, 97 NLRB 1003, 1006. a Ibid. • See 17 Corpus Suris Secondum 487-490; Ohio & Michigan Coal Co. v. Clarkson Coal Dock Co., 266 F. 2d 189, 192 (C.A. 6) ; Ford Motor Co. v. Pearson, 40 F. 2d 858, 868 (C.A. 9 ). Pittsburgh does not contend otherwise , and apparently concedes the existence of an agreed-upon method, but argues only that such agreement was not brought to the Board 's attention within 10 days after notice that the charge was filed. The Board has not so construed the provisions of Section 10(k), nor would it be reasonable to adopt such a construction of procedural language to override the plain purport of the substantive provisions in Section 10(k) favoring voluntary methods for adjustment of jurisdictional disputes . See Jacobson & Co., Inc., 119 NLRB 1658, footnote 5; A_ TV_ Lee, Inc., sapre at p. 951. See also the Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.83. KAISER STEEL CORPORATION 1039 It may be noted that the language of Section 10 (k) does not re- quire, and the Board has never held,5 that the agreed-upon method en- visaged by that section be set forth in a single instrument, signed by all parties to the dispute. Indeed, as the chairman of the Joint Board, R. J. Mitchell, testified, jurisdictional agreements between trade unions are virtually always signed only by the disputing unions, and not by the employers involved, who agree to be bound thereunder in separate instruments, as here, or by various other means. As we have found that all parties to the dispute had agreed upon a method for voluntary adjustment as expressly provided for by Section 10 (k) of the Act, we find that the Board is without authority to determine the dispute, and shall quash the notice of hearing. [The Board quashed the notice of hearing.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing. 6 See, e.g., A. W. Lee, Inc., supra; Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., supra; Don Cartage Co., Inc., supra. Kaiser Steel-Corporation and Charles Rado and Laurence W. St. John United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Its Local Union No. 2869 and Walter P. Las, Eugene A. Nanney, Floyd W. Robinson, William H. Burke, Eugene Kondus, Charles Rado, Darrell Anthony, Laurence W. St. John, and Thomas J. Maloney United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, and Its Local Union No. 3677 and Alfred W. Miller and Robert A. Rankin. Cases Nos. 21-CA-2910, 21-CA-29926, 21-CB-998, 21-CB-999, 21-CB-1000, 21-CB-1001, 21-CB-1002, 21-CB-1009, 21-CB-1010, 21-CB-1023, 21-CB-1025, 21-CB-1016, and 21-CB-1017. Decem- b 1959 22 er , DECISION AND ORDER On March 17, 1959, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer, issued his Intermediate Report in the above entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Respondents filed briefs in support of the Intermediate Report. 125 NLRB No. 100.