Local 408, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'L Assn.

LOCAL 408, SHEET METAL WORKERS' INT'L ASSN. 763 America, Local 1058, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the work at Allegheny Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of unloading pipe, placing the pipe in trenches, and welding the sections of pipe together, to the extent, and in the manner, that they presently perform such work as herein described. 2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 449, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been lawfully entitled to force or require Joseph B. Fay Company to assign the disputed work to steamfitters. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 449, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Joseph B. Fay Company, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to steamfitters who are its members rather than to laborers who are represented by International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 1058, AFL- CIO. Local 408, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL- CIO and Metalab Equipment Company. Case No. 7-CD-104. November 17, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, following charges filed May 22, 1964, by Metalab Equipment Company, herein called Metalab or the Employer, alleging that Local 408, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL- CIO, herein called Sheet Metal Workers, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in conduct to force or require the Employer to assign certain disputed work to employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers rather than to employees represented by Local 1654, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, herein called Carpenters. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Donald F. Sugerman on June 30, 1964. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer filed a brief with the Board which has been duly considered. 149 NLRB No. 76. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following findings : 1. The business of the Employer All parties stipulated that Metalab Equipment Company, a division of Crescent Corporation, has its principal place of business at Hicks- ville, Long Island, New York, and operates plants at that location and at Nashua, New Hampshire, Beverly, West Virginia, and Los Angeles, California; that Metalab is engaged in the manufacture, sale, distri- bution, and installation of scientific laboratory equipment and furni- ture in all 50 of the United States; that during a representative yearly period, Metalab manufactures products for interstate shipment valued in excess of $50,000 at each of its four plants; that during the first 6 months of 1964, Metalab shipped products valued in excess of $200,000 from its plants in Hicksville, Los Angeles, and Beverly to the jobsite involved in this matter, which is located at Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The parties agree, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved The parties stipulated, and we find, that Sheet Metal Workers and Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The work in dispute; background facts The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns the unloading, moving, uncrating, raising, placing, and installing of fume hoods and fume hood superstructures, and attaching the superstruc- tures to the laboratory counters and bases and to the exhaut system at Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The super- structure holds in place the fume hood, the upper portion of which is connected to the exhaust duct which removes fumes from within the hood. It consists of frames, sashes, counterbalancers, sliding doors, windows, and tracks. The Employer assigned this work to employees classified as carpenters who are represented by the Carpenters pur- suant to an agreement with the Carpenters' International. The Sheet Metal Workers maintains that employees classified as sheet metal work- ers are entitled to the work. Carpenters employed by the Employer installed the laboratory counters and bases, but the work of connecting the base portion of the LOCAL 408, SHEET METAL WORKERS' INT'L ASSN . 765 unit to the fresh-air duct was subcontracted to the X-L Sheet Metal Company which assigned sheet metal workers to do this work. These jobs are not in dispute. The disputed work generally involves the dismantling of factory fabricated and assembled superstructures, their installation and re- assembly, and the repair to any damaged parts. The fume hood is set in place, aligned, leveled, plumbed, adjusted, and secured to the base. In addition, it is sometimes necessary for aesthetic reasons to scribe, cut, and fit fillers that will occupy the space between the hood and the wall. With the superstructures in place, the full unit requires the repairing of any chipped or scraped parts, aligning the doors and sashes, and general trim work. The tools required for this work include various types of saws, 2-foot levels, plumb-bobs, hammers, planes, screwdrivers, and similar items. The Sheet Metal Workers concedes that on or about May 20, 1964, it picketed the jobsite at which the Employer was installing this scientific laboratory equipment with an object of forcing or requiring the Em- ployer to assign the unloading and installing of fume hoods to em- ployees who are members of Sheet Metal Workers rather than to carpenters to whom the Employer had assigned the disputed work, and that it thereby caused a work stoppage.' Metalab thereafter filed the instant charge. 4. Contentions of the parties The Sheet Metal Workers claims the work on the ground that the fume hood superstructures are connected to, and an extension of, the vent system which its members installed. The Employer and Carpenters contend that all phases of fume hood installation should be performed by Carpenters for the following reasons: (1) The Employer has a longstanding nationwide practice, which is in conformity with area practice, of assigning the installation of the entire unit to carpenters; (2) the fume hoods are installed in the same manner as the rest of the laboratory furniture which is done by carpenters; (3) the hoods are tied into and attached to the other fur- niture in the laboratory as integral units; (4) the assignment of the hood installation to the carpenters who install the rest of the furniture makes for efficiency; (5) the work involves the basic skills of carpen- try-minute leveling, plumbing up, adjusting sashes, doors, and align- ment, refinishing marred surfaces, and leaving the furniture in a highly finished state; (6) the handtools necessary to perform the work are those of the carpenter, not the sheet metal workers; and (7) sheet metal i As a result of the picket line, members of the Plumbers Union, Pipe Coverers Union, Painters Union, and Sheet Metal Workers Union , employed by X-L Sheet Metal Company, did not report for work that day. The next day these same trades did not report for work and in addition , employees who were members of a local of IBEW walked off the job that day at about noon. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers lack experience in this installation, as indicated by the diffi- culty encountered by the Employer at this job when some of this work was assigned to them on an emergency basis,2 and at other jobs where the Employer was forced by union pressure to assign some of the work to sheet metal workers but had to use carpenters to correct the work so performed. 5. Applicability of the statute The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director, alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Regional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed and directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act. No contention is made by any of the parties that there is an agreed-upon method for settling the dispute. On the basis of the entire record, including the admission of the Sheet Metal Workers that it struck because of the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to carpenters, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. 6. Merits of the dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to the various relevant factors, and as the Board has stated, its determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common- sense and experience and a balancing of all matters bearing on the issues.3 In reaching our conclusion below, we have considered all such factors. Neither the Sheet Metal Workers nor the Carpenters has been cer- tified by the Board with respect to any employee involved in the instant proceeding. The Employer has a contract with the Carpenters Inter- national under which it has agreed, inter alia, to recognize the juris- dictional claims of the Carpenters, in any area in which it may be per- forming work. The Sheet Metal Workers, on the other hand, has 2 At the urging of the other contractors and the State to get the hoods off the floor be- cause they were holding up work by blocking the corridors and some rooms , Danforth, job foreman for Metalab, had the foreman for X-L Sheet Metal Co and 2 sheet metal em- ployees work together with the Metalab crew of 4 carpenters for 4 hours, lifting 12 hood superstructures onto bases Testimony establishes that the sheet metal workers did not know how to lift the superstructures off the pallets or how to get the band out from under the counterweights Thus they required close supervision during this rather basic operation . They also had to be closely directed as to how to lift the hoods into place, and required the constant presence of Danforth , whereas the carpenters did the work with- out any direction from him. IN L R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573, International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411. LOCAL 408, SHEET METAL WORKERS' INT'L ASSN. 767' advanced no contractual claim to the work in dispute. Such evidence, as there is on area practice reflects that in this particular locality, work of the kind in dispute has usually been assigned to carpenters. It also appears that marked efficiency would flow from installing the bases and superstructures at the same time rather than having such work handled as a two-step operation, as would be required if the dis- puted work were assigned to the Sheet Metal Workers. 'Further, the traditional skills of the carpenter are involved in the work; i.e., minute leveling, plumbing up, adjusting sashes, aligning doors, repairing-the finish of any marred unit, and replacing or repairing broken parts. The traditional tools of the carpenter are used rather than those of the sheet metal worker which consist of a pair of snips and a torpedo level. The carpenters the Employer hired in this area were all skilled in this work for they had performed similar operations for other employers. However, the sheet metal workers were without knowledge, experience, or skill in this work as demonstrated by the fact that when sheet metal workers performed this work for a period of 4 hours for the Employer, they required constant and close supervision. Conclusion Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the entire record, we shall not disturb the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its carpenters. The Sheet Metal Workers has no contractual claim to the work. The work requires the skill and tools of carpenters. The Em- ployer is satisfied with the results achieved by its assigment and desires no change. Its assignment to the carpenters is consistent with past area practice and promotes efficiency and economy of operation. Ac- cordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that carpenters represented by the Carpenters, rather than sheet metal workers represented by the Sheet Metal Workers, are en- titled to the work of unloading, moving, uncrating, disassembling, assembling, raising, placing, installing, and repairing fume hoods. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees represented by the Carpenters, but not to the Carpenters or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: 1. Carpenters who are represented by Local 1654, United Brother- hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD perform the work of unloading, moving, uncrating, disassembling, assembling, raising, placing, installing, and repairing of fume hoods at Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. 2. Local 408, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL- CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to sheet metal workers who are represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Sheet Metal Workers shall notify the Regional Direc- tor for Region 7, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to sheet metal workers rather than to carpenters. Local Union No. 269, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Arthur J. Hazeltine and Mercer County Division, New Jersey Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association , Party to the Contract Local Union No. 269, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Frank Keorkle and Mercer County Division, New Jersey Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, Party to the Contract Mercer County Division, New Jersey Chapter, National Electri- cal Contractors Association and Frank Keorkle and Local Union No. 269, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract Local Union No. 269, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Frank Keorkle and Mercer County Division, New Jersey Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 02-CB-337, 22-CB-461, 22-CA-1459, and 22-CB-571. November 18, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On January 2, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Local 269, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Local 269, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Mercer County Divi- sion, New Jersey Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, herein called Respondent Association, did not engage in any unfair 149 NLRB No. 74.