Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102

MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 1102 79 Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102 , United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and its Agent George Horn and Port Huron Sulphite and Paper Com- pany. Case No. 7-CD-79(2). December 11, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act following charges filed by Port Huron Sulphite and Paper Company, herein called the Company, alleging that Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,1 and its agent George Horn, had threatened, coerced, or restrained the Company, with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to assign certain work to members of Respondent Union rather than to the Company's own employees who are members of Local 156, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 156. A duly scheduled hearing was held before William Naimark, hearing officer, on August 16, 17, 23, and 24, 1962. 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 briefs filed on behalf of Respondent Union and Respondent Horn and on behalf of the Company have been duly considered. Upon the entire record, the Board makes the following findings : 2 1. The Company is engaged at Port Huron, Michigan, in the manu- facture of lightweight papers and related products. During its last fiscal year, it sold and shipped to points directly outside the State of Michigan products valued at $8,000,000. During the same period, it purchased raw materials valued at approximately $5,000,000 from points directly outside the State of Michigan. We find that the Com- pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent Union and Local 156 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The dispute : A. The facts In 1961, the Company began an expansion program consisting of the construction of a new warehouse, the erection of a new paper 1 Herein called Respondent Union or Local 1102. 2 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 140 NLRB No. 22 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD machine, herein called the No. 7 machine, and the construction of a building to house the No. 7 machine. At prejob conferences in 1961 and early 1962, the Company related to representatives of Building and Construction Trades Unions, including Respondent Union, its intention to contract out all construction work involved in its expan- sion program with the exception of the erection of the No. 7 machine which, it indicated, would be assigned to its maintenance employees. Respondent Horn, business agent or representative of Respondent Un- ion, asserted that the machine erection should be performed by mill- wrights represented by Respondent Union and that it would use every legal means to secure the work. Local 156, the representative of the Company's maintenance employees, asserted and maintained its claim to the work and the Company stood fast in its assignment of the work to its maintenance employees. Subsequently, in February 1962, the Respondent Union invoked the Internal Disputes Machinery of the AFL-CIO in an effort to secure the disputed work for its members. On May 10, 1962, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, to which the dispute was referred, sent it back to the local level for settlement. The resultant meeting on June 8, 1962, attended by representatives of the Building and Construction Trades Department, the Company, and Local 156, produced no change in the positions of the parties and no solution to the dispute. Thereafter, on June 19,1962, two members of the Respondent Union began to picket the Company's plant with a sign reading: Sulphite Paper Mill Co. assigns work to other than members United Brothers Carpenters and Joiners. (This is informational only.) Employees of the contractors engaged in constructing the building for the No. 7 machine walked off the job and those who had not yet begun work refused to enter the premises. Picketing by the two men con- tinued until enjoined on July 16, 1962, and no work was performed during that time. At the end of the hearing herein on August 24, 1962, the Company introduced into evidence a letter dated July 31, 1962, written by the executive assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO to the president- secretary of the International Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers. This letter indicated that the claim of Local 1102 to the disputed work had been withdrawn by the Building and Construction Trades Depart- ment. The Respondent Union and Horn disclaimed any previous knowledge of the action to which the letter referred. However, in their brief filed with the Board subsequent to the hearing, Respondent Horn and the Respondent Union indicated their acquiescence in the withdrawal of Respondent Union's claim by its superior, the Building and Construction Trades Department.' 3 By letter to the Board dated November 14, 1962, copies of which were served upon the parties, the Respondents reaffirmed the position taken in their brief MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 1102 51 B. Contentions of the parties The Company contends that Local 1102 violated Section 8(b) (4) (D), that that Union is not entitled to the work, and that the Board should award the work to the Company's maintenance em- ployees. Local 156 takes no position as to whether Local 1102 violated the Act, but otherwise agrees with the Company. The Respondents deny any violation, and take the position that having submitted the claim of Local 1102 to the AFL-CIO Internal Disputes Machinery, they are bound by the result therof and have made no claim to the work since the result came to their attention. The Respondents move that the notice of hearing be quashed. C. Conclusions as to the applicability of the statute We find it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of the contentions advanced with respect to a proper award of the work inasmuch as there are, at present, no competing claims necessary to establish a dispute cognizable under Section 10 (k) of the Act. While it is true that conflicting claims to the work existed in the earlier stages of the proceeding, the Respondents, since learning of the Building and Con- struction Trades Department's withdrawal of the challenge of Local 1102 to the Company's work assignment, have consistently manifested their intention to be bound by that decision. Therefore, the present posture of the matter is that Local 1102 is no longer making any claim to the work, and all the parties are in agreement with the Company's assignment. Thus there has been, in effect, a settlement of the dispute. In these circumstances we shall quash the notice of hearing. [The Board quashed the notice of hearing.] MEMBER LEEDOMM, dissenting : I do not agree that the Respondents have withdrawn all claim to the work in dispute. The Respondents have expressed their acquies- cence in the Building and Trades Department's withdrawal of their claim with obvious reluctance, declaring at the same time their dis- satisfaction with that action and their continued belief that the dis- puted work falls within their jurisdiction. Such an equivocal position does not, in my view, give assurance that further work interruptions will not occur. As I do not believe, in the circumstances of this case, that the dispute has been settled, I would not quash the notice of hear- ing but would proceed to a determination on the merits. Whether an unequivocal disclaimer by Respondents would have warranted quashing the notice of hearing is a matter I do not have to decide.