Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, Etc.

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All motormen, derrickmen, and floormen employed by the Employer in drilling operations, ex- cluding all office clericals, professional employees, guards, drillers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. Although the question of eligibility was at issue, neither party has taken any position with respect to it. While the record is not too specific on the point, it appears that the minimum time consumed in drilling a well is approximately 10 days and that a majority of the employees hired at the drilling site work 10 or more days a year for the Employer.5 In these circumstances we believe that only those employees who have worked 10 or more days during the year preceding the eligibility date provided in this Direction of Election have a substantial and continuing interest in conditions of employ- ment with the Employer and that the selection of this figure will insure a representative vote. We therefore find that in addition to those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period im- mediately preceding the date of the Decision and Direction of Elec- tion, employees who have worked 10 or more days during the year preceding the eligibility date for the election herein directed are eligible to vote. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] e Testimony of the Employer shows that employees with lesser periods of employment than 10 days a year are usually those who for one reason or another are found un- qualified for the job , leave the job before its completion , or apply for work near the completion of the job. Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, and Plumbers and Gas Fitters Local No. 107, United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation . Case No. 9-CD-59-1. November 20, 1962 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a charge filed by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) by Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (UA), herein called Local 522, the Pipefitters or Respondent, and by Plumbers and Gas Fitters Local No. 107, UA,1 herein called Local 107. Pursuant to notice, a 1 Although Local No 107 was not actively engaged in this dispute, members of Local 107 do backup work for members of Pipefitters Local 522 . Locals 107 and 522 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer . Accordingly , Local 107 appeared at the hearing and agreed to be bound by any determination the Board might make. 139 NLRB No. 93. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1141 hearing was held on April 17, 18, and 19, 1962, at Louisville, Kentucky, before Charles B. Slaughter, hearing officer. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine 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. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer and by International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 681, herein referred to as the IAM z or Local 681. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a manufacturer of cigarettes and smoking tobacco. During the calendar year 1961 it shipped from its plant in Louisville, Kentucky, to points outside of the State of Kentucky products valued in excess of $1,000,000 and also caused goods valued in excess of $1,000,000 to be brought into the State of Kentucky. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 522 and Local 107, UA, and Local 681, IAM, are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The work at issue The Employer and the IAM have a collective-bargaining agree- ment covering the Employer's machinists and welders. The Em- ployer and the Pipefitters are parties to a collective-bargaining agree- ment covering the Employer's pipefitters. As part of its regular maintenance and plant layout work, the Employer has been engaged in a continuous program of erecting hand and guard rails throughout its plant in Louisville, Kentucky, for the purpose of protecting per- sonnel and equipment. The Employer utilizes metal pipe and angle iron 3 for the fabrica- tion and installation of these protective barriers. There are three general methods for connecting metal pipe sections in the construc- 2 Lodge 641 and Local 802, IAM, although served with all formal papers , have no direct interest in the instant proceedings since they represent units of employees at other plants of the Employer not involved in this case. s At the hearing, Respondent conceded the angle iron work to the IAM to whom it had traditionally been assigned by the Employer. 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of these railings: by slip joints, welded joints, or threaded joints 4 Frequently hand and guard rails have been constructed by a combina- tion of welded and slip joint construction. Welded joints are more durable, but more expensive than slip joints. In welded joint con- struction where the pipe rail to be installed requires a sharp angle bend, a burning torch will be employed to cut a notch in a straight piece of pipe, which is bent around so that the notched edges meet. The notched edges are then welded together. The bending may be accomplished manually using a vise to hold the pipe. It is the work of burning, welding, and bending of metal pipe and metal pipe joints for hand and guard rails which is in dispute herein. Incidental to its production processes, the Employer also installs various types of gauges and recorders for the purpose of recording and controlling air conditioning, steam systems, humidity, etc. These recorders normally fall into one of two classes, those which are di- rectly bolted or screwed to a permanent surface, such as the humidity recorders, and those which are first affixed to a panel. Such a panel is fabricated by cutting out component parts from heavy gauge steel, welding the parts together into a square or circular frame or bracket, cutting a panel board from a piece of thin boilerplate (which is welded to the bracket), and then attaching the panel and bracket to a piece of strap iron which in turn is mounted upon a wall or column. The fabrication of the metal bracket and panel boards, the mounting of recorders on such panels and affixing the entire installation to a supporting structure, such as a wall or column, are work operations also in dispute here.' Where the recorder is used to measure the flow of gas or liquids through tubes or pipes, the work of leading them onto the panel concededly belongs to Respondent's members.' B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D) During the winter of 1961-62 Respondent held a number of meet- ings with the Employer and the IAM to process Respondent's griev- ances concerning the Employer's work assignments, including the two kinds of work in dispute. On or about March 7, 1962, during one such meeting, Robert T. Woodden, shop steward for Respondent, advised the Employer that unless it "straightened out" the work assignment dispute, "there would be a strike in 2 weeks." In a letter 4 There is no dispute as to installations using slip joints, which work has regularly been done by machinists, nor as to guard rail assembly by means of threaded joints which, it is conceded, is the work of pipefitters. B There is no dispute as to the fabrication of wooden panels. There is likewise no issue respecting the assignment of attaching small recording devices, such as humidity recorders, directly to a permanent surface, where there is no need to fabricate a panel. Attachment of these smaller devices has normally been assigned to Respondent's members e At the hearing there was also some evidence of a dispute over checking of vacuum lines, but it appears that this dispute has been resolved and it was not made an issue in this proceeding. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1143 dated March 13, 1962, received by the Employer shortly thereafter, Moore, Respondent's business agent, confirmed the prior statement of Woodden that, unless Respondent received greater cooperation from the Employer in the handling and disposition of its grievances, it would strike the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant on March 21, 1962.' Moore testified that, as business agent for the Respondent, he represents it in collective bargaining, negotiates conditions of employment, and processes grievances. C. Contentions of the parties No party contests the existence of a jurisdictional dispute. Respondent rests its claims to the disputed work on a number of grounds. It argues that article VII of its contract with the Employer which contains the same language as that incorporated in prior con- tracts with the Employer over a number of years, clearly assigns it the guard and hand rail work. It urges that the constitution of the UA and a delimitations agreement approved by the presidents of the IAM (International) and the UA also place this work in its jurisdiction. It contends that any contrary historical assignments by the Employer have been in derogation of the latter agreement ,and are inconsistent with jurisdictional awards made by the AFL in 1911 and 1912. Respondent asserts that welding and burning, tradi- tionally, are functions of the pipefitter trade. It also contends that where a pipefitting system is installed by pipefitters, they should also be assigned the work of fabricating and installing any recorders to be used on that system, and it states that its members have in- stalled the majority of the recording devices. Lastly, Respondent urges that, inasmuch as the Employer has since 1934 regularly ob- tained plumbers and pipefitters from the R. J. Meyers Company, a local plumbing contractor, the Employer is bound by local construc- tion industry pipefitting practices in the assignment of pipefitting work to its own employees. In support of its own claims to the disputed work, the IAM con- tends that : The Employer has historically assigned to its members all the types of work in dispute; such an assignment is not inconsistent with industry practice; the Respondent's contract is ambiguous; the UA constitution does not govern the assignments of the work; the UA-IAM agreement was terminated by the IAM in 1960; all welders have historically been represented under the IAM's contract with the Employer; and Respondent over many years of bargaining negotia- tions with the Employer has never asserted any right to bargain for this work. The IAM further contends that, if Respondent were truly entitled to this work under the terms of its constitution and the UA- IAM agreement effective from 1954 to 1960, Respondent should have 7 Moore also authorized the prior statement by Woodden. 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD established its claim during that period pursuant to the agreement, an action Respondent failed to take. The Employer, which asserts that the TAM is entitled to the dis- puted work, advances a number of the same arguments as the IAM. Primarily, however, the Employer relies upon its past practice of assigning the various types of disputed work to the LAM. It further argues that the tools and skills required to perform the work are those of machinists or welders, who are part of the machinist unit, and not the tools or skills of pipefitters. D. Applicability of the statute Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pur- suant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated. The record shows that Respondent's shop steward, Woodden, after authorization by Respondent's business agent, Moore, threatened the Employer on or about March 7, 1962, that a strike would occur in 2 weeks unless the Employer "straightened out" the work assignments in dispute herein by assigning this work to pipefitters represented by the Respondent rather than to machinists and welders represented by the IAM. Moore himself repeated this threat to the Employer in a letter dated March 13, 1962. We find that Moore and Woodden are agents of Respondent and that Respondent is responsible for their actions.8 We find that the foregoing conduct establishes that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent, through its agents, has violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. E. The merits 1. Contract provisions The relevant provision of Respondent's current contract, which has appeared in prior contracts since 1948, states : "All repairs and main- tenance on pipe work and new work shall be performed only by mem- bers of the United Association." The record indicates that metal pipe is used at the Employer's Louis- ville plant for plumbing systems, for slip joint, threaded, and welded guard rails, in the construction of fences and in the fabrication of ladders and roller conveyors. While Respondent's members have been assigned all plumbing system work and the installation of threaded pipe rails and although it claims the welded guard rail work, Re- spondent does not claim any right to work on or to install pipe which 8 See Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Picker X-Ray Corpora- tion), 128 NLRB 561, 564; Local 'Union No. 751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, etc. (The Mengel Company), 123 NLRB 1321, 1329. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1145 is to be used in slip joint railings, ladders, fences, or roller conveyors, nor is there any indication that its members have installed pipe for any of these purposes. In the light of these concessions by Respondent and the Employer's work assignment practices, it cannot be said that the terms "pipe work" and "new (pipe) work" have been understood by the parties to have a precise or all-inclusive meaning. Hence, we do not view the foregoing contractual assignment as dispositive of the work in issue.9 While the contract between the Employer and the IAM does not contain any language precisely bearing on the disputed work, it is clear that the IAM represents the machinists who have usually been assigned the nonwelding parts of the disputed work and the welders who have always done the welding work. Respondent's current col- lective-bargaining agreement does not include a welder classification. Even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement did precisely cover the disputed hand and guard rail work, Respondent has acquiesced in the assignment of most of this work to machinists and welders and has thereby waived its right to claim such work under its contract.'° 2. Custom of the Employer (a) Hand and guard rails Respondent and the IAM each claims that the Employer has as- signed the disputed work to its members for a substantial period of time. The record reflects that the Employer has had contractual relations with both Unions for approximately 20 years. Up until 1949 a machinist (usually Arthur Sauer) was assigned the work of erecting rails made of pipe (but not requiring the use of threaded joints). By letter dated February 23, 1949, Respondent's then busi- ness representative wrote the Company calling its attention to the fact that this work had not been assigned to Respondent's members and requesting that it be so assigned in the future. A number of con- ferences between representatives of the Employer and the Respond- ent ensued. Another letter dated January 20, 1950, to the Employer from the same business representative made reference to these interven- ing conferences and repeated Respondent's work claim. There is no indication, however, that the Employer changed its pertinent work as- signments at that time and the matter was apparently dropped by the Respondent until 1960. Meanwhile Sauer or other machinists con- tinued to do this work. In 1960 Respondent again began making de- mands for any hand and guard rail work which required bending or 9LocaZ 28, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO ( Capitol Electrotype Company, Inc.), 137 NLRB 1467. 10 Id. 1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD welding pipe. The record indicates a few instances where the Em- ployer acceded to Respondent 's demands in order to avoid a dispute. In at least one instance Respondent made a specific demand for the work, but it was nonetheless done by Sauer. Even when the instal- lation was assigned to Respondent 's members it appears that the weld- ing was done by a welder from the machinists unit. Hence, during a period of about 10 years prior to 1949 and , to the present, the Em- ployer has, with a few exceptions, continued to make regular assign- ments of the fabrication and installation of nonthreaded hand and guard rails to machinists, usually to Sauer. In all instances, whether it was Sauer, another machinist, or a pipefitter who performed the installation, a welder from the mechanists unit has done the welding. (b) Gauges and recorders The record indicates that most of the gauges and recorders, re- quiring the fabrication of a steel frame and panel, which have been installed at the Employer's Louisville plant by its own employees," have been erected by machinists.'a 3. Customs in the industry There is no indication in the record that the Employer' s normal assignments to machinists of the disputed hand and guard rail work and the disputed installation of recorders, which require the fabri- cation of a metal bracket and panel, are contrary to any custom or practice in the industry. 4. Customs in the immediate geographical area The Respondent attempted to show that the Employer's assign- ments of the disputed work are contrary to custom and practice of other employers in the Louisville area. Although the Employer employs its own plumbers and pipefitters, it has, since 1934, regularly obtained the services of additional pipe- fitters from the R. J. Meyers Company, a plumbing contractor in Louisville, Kentucky. The Meyers pipefitters are brought to the Louisville plant to handle the installation of new equipment which n On a number of occasions, the Employer has purchased new equipment from a ma- chinery contractor and has, as part of the purchase agreement, utilized the services of the seller's employees in the installation of the equipment and any necessary recording devices. Employees of these outside contractors who have erected recorders were mem- bers of the IAM or of the Sheet Metal Workers. 12 At the hearing, in support of its claim to the work of constructing steel brackets and panels and attaching recorders thereto, Respondent adduced testimony that its members have been assigned the work of installing some 30 or 40 small recording devices, pri- marily humidity recorders. However, as these smaller recorders are attached by bolts directly to a supporting structure and do not require the fabrication of a metal bracket and panel , we do not believe the assignment of such small recorder installations to Re- spondent's members is a relevant consideration to our determination here. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522 , ETC. 1147 is not set up by the equipment contractor. Their services have not been utilized in the erection of hand and guard rails, and it does not appear that they have ever installed recorders. Meyers is a member of a multiemployer bargaining association of plumbing contractors in the Louisville area which has a contract with the Respondent and Plumbers Local 107. This agreement defines the jurisdiction of Re- spondent and Plumbers Local 107 to include, inter alia: 13. All piping for railing work and racks of every description, whether screwed or welded... . 22. The setting, erecting and piping of instruments or measur- ing devices, thermostatic controls, gauge boards, and other con- trols used in connection with power heating, refrigerating, air conditioning, manufacturing, mining, and industrial work.... The Respondent urges that, inasmuch as this agreement covers the disputed work, the Employer's assignment of such work to machinists is contrary to local industry practice. We disagree. The Employer is a cigarette manufacturer, whereas Meyers and its fellow plumb- ing contractors are in the construction industry. We are unable to attach any substantial significance to a pattern of work assignments in a different industry although in this geographical area. The record is silent as to whether any other cigarette manufacturer or any manu- facturer in the Louisville area recognizes the aforementioned work jurisdiction of Respondent. Moreover, as stated, it does not appear that the Meyers pipefitters have been used for any of the disputed work. 5. Agreement between UA and IAM The agreement relied upon by the Respondent between the UA and the IAM was entered into on April 29, 1954. Under the terms of this agreement the UA was recognized as having : ... jurisdiction over the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in its entirety as in keeping with its Jurisdiction of Work granted to it by the American Federation of Labor and subsequent deci- sions as granted and decided by the Atlanta and Rochester Con- vention action of the AFL in the years 1911 and 1912 respectively. SECTION B. The Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry shall and does embrace the unloading, handling, installing, servicing, rig- ging, laying out, fabricating, welding and testing of all pipe work, self-contained pumps and compressors, self-contained units and appurtenances that are an integral part of a Plu,,,ibing or Pipefitting system regardless as to the mode or method of making the joints or connections or dismantling thereof [with exceptions not relevant hereto.] .. . 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SECTION F. Appurtenances mentioned in Section B shall mean the installation and servicing of such equipment that becomes an accessory, attachment, extension or supplement to any of the various Plumbing and Pipefitting systems installed by members of the United Association, for example, gauges, temperature con- trol devices, recording instruments and flow meters in connection with plumbing and piping sections, damper controls for boilers, heating and air conditioning systems, oil burners and underfed stokers except stokers used on locomotives. There was some dispute in the record as to the current status of this agreement. The IAM placed in evidence a telegram dated Octo- ber 6, 1960, from its president to the president of the UA, canceling the agreement. Respondent, on the other hand, asserted that this telegram should be disregarded because there was no provision in the agreement for unilateral rescission. Under any circumstance, it seems clear that the LAM refuses to be bound by the agreement, and the Employer has not incorporated the terms of the agreement into its collective-bargaining contracts with Respondent or the IAM. In view of these factors we are unable to accord this agreement any sub- stantial weight in our determination. In any event, it is not clear whether it was intended to apply to protective guard or hand rails which, although made of pipe, do not conduct or transmit substances as do ordinary plumbing systems. Moreover, it does not appear that Respondent made any claim to the disputed guard and hand rail work or the disputed recorder work on the basis of this agreement or on any other ground between 1954 and 1960. 6. Union constitution The only constitution placed in evidence was that of the UA, as revised and amended August 7 to 11, 1961. The jurisdictional claims of the UA, as set forth in this document, appear to cover both areas of the disputed work.13 However, Respondent's contract with the Employer does not incorporate the jurisdictional claims of its inter- national constitution. It specifies only "all repairs and maintenance on pipe work and new work." There is likewise no reflection in the record of any attempt by Respondent to bargain for the full scope of its jurisdiction, as outlined in its constitution. 13 The jurisdictional claims include: 13. All piping for railing work and racks of every description whether screwed or welded . . . . s : • a s $ s 22. The setting, erecting and piping of instruments, measuring devices, thermo- static controls, gauge boards, and other controls used in connection with power, heat- ing, refrigerating, air conditioning, manufacturing, mining, and industrial work. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1149 7. Jurisdictional grants and awards of the AFL There is a conflict in the evidence concerning historical internal jurisdictional awards made by the AFL with respect to the disputed hand and guard rail work. Respondent contends that it has received a broad grant of jurisdiction over all pipefitting work, based on pro- ceedings of the AFL at its conventions in 1911 and 1912, wherein it was "declared that both for harmony and practicability the pipefitting trade should be represented in the American Federation of Labor, also in the Building Trades Department by one general association of the pipefitting industry, namely the [UA]...." The IAM, on the other hand, read into the record certain excerpts from the so-called "Green Book" 14 of "Decisions Rendered by the National Board for Jurisdictional Awards in the Building Industry" (of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO), which appear to place the disputed guard and hand rail work outside the jurisdiction of the UA. In view of this conflict, we are not persuaded that the broad, nonspecific jurisdictional grants of the 1911 and 1912 conven- tions are material to our present determination. 8. The nature of the work In further support of its claim to the disputed hand and guard rail work Respondent urges that the welding and bending of pipe should be awarded to it because welding is an essential element of the pipe- fitting trade. Welding is used in all the metal trades as a process of joining metals together, i.e., in ironworking, machinist work, and boilermaking as well as pipefitting. This Board, as well as the AFL- C10, has long recognized that welding used in the performance of a basic craft skill is included in the basic craft unit and that welders are represented by the union having jurisdiction over that craft.15 Thus welding is a subsidiary skill, used in all metal trade crafts. It is not peculiar to pipefitting, and welders may appropriately be part of a machinist unit. Respondent also argues that its members should be entitled to per- form the disputed recorder installations where they have been given the work of erecting the plumbing and pipefitting system whose func- 14The excerpt reads as follows: Decision rendered March 11, 1920. Pipe railing consisting of standard size cut and threaded pipe not used in connection with structural or ornamental iron work is awarded to the plumbers and steamfitters. Interpretation rendered September 15, 1920. Iron pipe railing consisting of a preponderance of slip joints made rigid with or without set screws, pinions, rivets supported by a threaded joint and flange at base or wall is the work of the ironworkers. Where, however, the preponderance of joint is of standard size cut and threaded iron pipe it belongs to the plumbers and steamfitters. 15 C. F. Braun & Co, 120 NLRB 282, 284-288, pa8sine. Whether welding may also be an independent craft skill is not in issue here. 1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions are to be recorded. There is little merit in this argument. The installation of a plumbing system may call for the use of a pipe- threading and pipe-bending machine, pipecutters, stillson wrenches, etc. (all typical pipefitter's tools), as well as all the skills of a plumber or pipefitter. Recorders, on the other hand, may be installed on panels which have been fabricated by bending and cutting piece's of plate steel and welding them together. Installation of a piping sys- tem is typical plumber's work. Installation of recorders, which re- quire the fabrication of a steel frame and panel, on the other hand, calls for the skills of welders and metal workers who have been traditionally represented as part of the Employer's machinist unit. CONCLUSION As we stated in the J. A. Jones case,16 we will, pursuant to the Supreme Court's CBS decision," determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of disputed work only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. On the entire record, we believe that machinists are entitled to the work in dispute. Respondent's claims to the hand and guard rail work, based on its contract, are not well founded. Not only is the language of the contract ambiguous, but Respondent's acquiescence, for 15 or 20 years prior to 1960, in the assignment of this work to machinists and welders represented by the IAM indicates that it waived whatever rights it had in this regard. Even assuming the continued vitality of the UA-IAM agreement of 1954, the same infer- ence also arises from Respondent's failure to claim either category of the disputed work prior to 1960, when the IAM withdrew from its commitment thereunder. In view of Respondent's consistent failure to claim or attempt to bargain for the full area of its jurisdiction as outlined in its constitution, we are unable to accord much weight to that document. Against this background of Respondent's acquiescence in the Em- ployer's assignments of the work in dispute, we have the Employer's unqualified assignment of all welding to welders represented by the IAM. The Employer has also assigned the nonwelding work on pipe hand and guard rail installation for over 20 years to machinists represented by the IAM, except in a number of instances where it sought to avoid a dispute. Although local custom and practice in a different industry are somewhat at variance with the Employer's assignments of this work, there is no indication in the record that '° International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. 37 N L.R B v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers anion, at al. (Columbia Broad- casting System), 364 U.S. 573. PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522 , ETC. 1151 this assignment is contrary to any practice in the tobacco or cigarette industry, of which the Employer is a part. As to the disputed installation of recorders, which requires the fabrication and welding of a steel panel, this work seems to us to call upon the skills of the Employer's machinist unit, particularly the skills of a welder. In most instances the Employer has assigned this work to that unit. Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute as to the welded pipe hand and guard rail work by deciding that machinists and welders, rather than pipefitters, are entitled to perform its in- stallation as well as all bending, cutting, burning, and welding of pipe required therefor. We shall determine the dispute as to the recording devices which require a fabricated metal panel by deciding that machinists and welders are entitled to fabricate the necessary metal panels and brackets, attach recording devices thereto, and affix the entire installation to a supporting surface. Our present determinations are limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to these proceedings. In making these determinations with re- spect to the railings and the recorders requiring a metal panel, we are assigning these categories of disputed work to machinists and welders represented by the IAM and not to the IAM or its members. In view of the above, we find that Respondent was not and is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or re- quire the Employer to assign the work of installing welded pipe guard and hand rails or the work of installing recording devices, requiring the fabrication of a metal panel, to its members rather than to employees represented by the IAM. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 1. Employees engaged as machinists and welders, currently rep- resented by Local Lodge No. 681, International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, are entitled to install welded pipe hand and guard rails and to perform any bending, cutting, burning, and weld- ing necessary therefor and are also entitled to install recording devices requiring the fabrication of a metal panel, to fabricate such panels, and to affix the entire installation to a supporting structure, at the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation plant in Louisville, Kentucky. 2. Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require Brown & Wil- 1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD liamson Tobacco Corporation to assign to employees engaged as pipe- fitters, who are currently represented by Pipefitters Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the following work : (a) Installing welded pipe hand and guard rails and performing all burning, cutting, bending, and welding necessary thereto. (b) Installing recording devices on a fabricated metal bracket and panel, fabricating such brackets and panels, and attaching the entire installation to a supporting structure. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Pipefitters Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Brown & Williamson To- bacco Corporation by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to assign the disputed pipe rail work and the disputed recorder work (involving the fabrication of a metal panel) to pipefitters rather than to machinists and welders. Local 991, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO ; Local 1406, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL- CIO; South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO and Union Carbide Chemicals Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation. Case No. 23-CD-46. November 21, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed on May 16, 1961, and amended May 23, 1961, by Union Carbide Chemicals Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation, hereinafter called Carbide or the Company, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, issued a complaint dated July 13, 1962, against Local 991, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO ; Local 1406, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; and South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District International Longshoremen's As- sociation, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondents or the ILA, al- leging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of 139 NLRB No. 94.