Millwrights 1102, United Brotherhood Carpenters, Etc.

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Millwrights Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Dis- trict Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinities ; Charles Duncan, Business Agent of Local 11021 and General Riggers and Erectors, Inc. Cases Nos. 7-CD-34 and 7-CD-37. April 5, 1960 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which provides 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 labor practice shall have arisen. . . ." On July 15 and October 2, 1959, General Riggers and Erectors, Inc., filed charges that the Millwrights and Duncan had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of General Riggers and other employers to engage in, strikes or concerted refusals to work with the object of forcing or requiring General Riggers to assign certain work to members of the Millwrights rather than to employees who were members of Machinery Movers, Riggers & Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 575 , Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections 102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appro- priate hearing upon due notice . The hearing was held on December 3, 4, 7, and 8, 1959, at Detroit, Michigan , before Hearing Officer Herbert C. Kane. All 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 officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The district Council, Millwrights Local 1102, and its business agent, Charles Duncan, filed a brief with the Board. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 makes the fol- lowing findings : 1. General Riggers is a Michigan corporation engaged in the erecting, dismantling, and processing of machine tools and the trans- I The named labor organizations are herein collectively called Millwrights. z Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and. Members Bean and Jenkins]. 127 NLRB No. 2. MILLWRIGHTS 1102 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 27 portation thereof in interstate commerce. During fiscal 1958, it pur- chased approximately $750,000 worth of goods and services directly from outside the State of Michigan. During the same period General Riggers received approximately $750,000 in revenue for services per- formed out of State. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Millwrights Local 1102, the United Brotherhood, the District Council, and Riggers Local 575 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute : a. Facts Case No. 7-CD-34: Having received a contract for the installation of an air compressor at the Chrysler-Trenton plant, General Riggers started to install this machinery with its own employees, all of whom were members of Riggers Local 575. Duncan demanded that this work be assigned to members of Millwrights. On July 13, 1959, members of Millwrights employed by other contractors on the job left their work and congregated on and around the compressor com- ponents, preventing the Company's employees from continuing their installation work. Certain of these Millwrights carried wrenches and threatened the employees. Such interference continued on July 14 and 15. Millwrights did not remain on or about the compressor at all times but, intermittently, throughout these 3 days, they prevented the Company's employees from working. As a result of this incident, all work on the compressor was halted until a brick wall was erected, separating the disputed operation from all others on the project. The wall constituted the side of the powerhouse. After its construc- tion, the installation of the air compressor was completed by employees who were Riggers and two employees who were Millwrights. Case No. 7-CD-37: This case involves a dispute and work stoppage at Waterworks Park in Detroit where the Company was installing pumps and related equipment. On September 29, 1959, under au- thority of the Carpenter's District Council, Millwrights Local 1102 placed a picket line at the contractors' entrance to the Park. The pickets carried signs which alleged that General Riggers was violating the terms of the Dunlop Agreement and was discriminating against the Millwrights. Business agents of Local 1102 were present during the picketing and only General Riggers' employees crossed the line to work. After 4 days, the picketing ceased and work was resumed. Although representatives of the United Brotherhood were aware of the picketing and participated in a conference called to discuss the strike, there is no evidence that they took any action to end the picketing. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 'b. Contentions of the parties Millwrights and Duncan contend that both the Chrysler-Trenton and Waterworks project were Building Trades jobs and that, because of the Dunlop Award governing the assignment of work between millwrights and riggers on such jobs, the Company's employment of riggers on certain work was improper. It is also urged that General Riggers delegated jurisdictional matters to Allen, business agent of Riggers' Local 5T5, and, as the Riggers had agreed to be bound by the Dunlop Award, the Company was retroactively bound by its dele- gation to Allen. Thus, a method of voluntarily adjusting both dis- putes existed. The Millwrights specially urge that the Board may make no finding of violation with regard to the dispute at the Chrys- ler-Trenton installation, for that dispute was not only voluntarily adjusted, but Millwrights were employed in the final operations and the work has been completed. General Riggers contends that it was neither a signatory nor a party to the Dunlop Award and, therefore, cannot be bound by it. More- over, neither dispute was voluntarily adjusted. Rather, General Riggers capitulated under pressure on the Chrysler-Trenton project. c. Applicability of the statute Section 10(k) of the Act empowers and directs the Board to hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8(b) (4) (D) charges have arisen. However, before the Board may proceed to a determina- tion of the dispute in Section 10(k) proceedings, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. In order to conclude that reasonable cause exists, the Board must find some evidence in the record showing a strike or a concerted refusal to work, or an inducement or encouragement of employees to engage in such conduct, for the purposes proscribed by that Section of the Act.' The record contains ample evidence that the Millwrights caused work stoppages at the Chrysler-Trenton and Waterworks projects to compel General Riggers to assign certain disputed work to Mill- wrights rather than to the Company's own employees who belong to the Riggers. Although the Chrysler-Trenton job has been completed, the under- lying dispute has not been resolved. Indeed, the work was finished only because General Riggers acceded to the Millwrights' jurisdic- tional claims. With regard to the Waterworks project, it was not completed at the time of the hearing herein. We find, therefore, that 'Local 450 , International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Houston Chapter ), 119 NLRB 1725, 1729. MILLWRIGHTS 1102, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 29 a determination of the Board is necessary and that neither of these cases is moot. Moreover, General Riggers is not a signatory to the Dunlop Award relating to the disputed work and the Company's referrals of Mill- wrights to Allen do not indicate that the handling of jurisdictional problems had been delegated to the Riggers. Here, there is no agreed upon method for voluntarily adjusting jurisdictional disputes such as would free this Board from the Act's mandate to hear and deter- mine the dispute.4 Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Millwrights and Duncan violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D). We further find that the dispute involved in this proceeding is properly before us for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. d. Merits of the dispute An employer is free to make work assignments without being sub- ject to pressures by a labor organization seeking the work for its members, unless the employer is failing thereby to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the.bargaining representa- tive for employees performing such work or unless an employer is bound by an agreement to assign the work in dispute to the claiming union. Millwrights have no order or certification. Nor do they have a contract claim to the work. Accordingly, we find that Millwrights are not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)°(D), to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to Mill- wrights rather than to Riggers. However, we are not by this action to be regarded as assigning the work in question to the Riggers. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and from the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act : 1. Millwrights Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ; Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinities; Charles Dun- can, Business Agent of Local 1102, and other officers, agents, and representatives, are not and have not been entitled, by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Gen- eral Riggers and Erectors, Inc., to assign the work of unloading, handling, assembling, and adjusting machinery and machine parts to its members rather than to members of Machinery Movers, Riggers & 4 Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, Inc., 115 NLRB 1757, 1766-1767. '30 '; DECISIO1 S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, the Millwrights and Duncan, shall notify the Re- Igional Director for the Seventh Region in writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring General Riggers and Erectors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to mem- bers of the Riggers. Building Service Employees International Union, Local 32-J, AFL-CIO and Hewitt-Robins, Inc. Case No. 2-CD-177. April 5, 1960 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE STATEMENT OF THE CAn 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 ... 11 On August 17, 1959, Hewitt-Robins, Inc., herein called Hewitt- Robins, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region a charge alleging in substance that Building Service Employees Inter- national Union, Local 32-3, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had engaged in, and induced and encouraged the employees of several employers other than Hewitt-Robins to engage in, a strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring Hewitt-Robins to assign particular work to members of 'Respondent rather than to employees of Hewitt- Robins who are not members of Respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections 102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations (Series 8, 1959), the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hear- ing was held before James J. Graham, hearing officer, on various dates between October -29 and November 23, 1959. Hewitt-Robins and Respondent 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. No briefs were filed by .any of the parties. 127 NLRB No. 7.