Michigan State Assn. of Journeymen, Etc.

740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), the assignment of the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. Michigan State Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL- CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 816 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 70 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO and Pipefitters Local Union No. 636 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 85 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 777 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 154 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada , AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 388 of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO and Michigan Dis- tribution Contractors Association, Inc. Cases Nos. 7-CD-99(2), 7-CD-99 (3), 7-CD-99 (4), 7-CD-99 (5), 7-CD-99 (6), 7-CD-99 (7), 7-CD-99(8), and 7-CD-99(9). May 20, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by the Michigan Distribution Contractors Association, Inc.,' herein called the Employ- ers, alleging that Michigan State Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & 1 Charging Party's name, as amended at the hearing 152 NLRB No. 89. MICHIGAN STATE ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 741 Canada, AFL-CIO; and United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO; Local No. 816; Local No. 70; Local No. 636; Local No. 85; Local No. 777; Local No. 154; and Local No. 388,2 herein called the Respondents, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act by threats, coercion, and restraint for the purpose of forcing the Employers to assign certain work to members of the United Asso- ciation rather than to members of the laborer's group represented by the State of Michigan Laborers District Council, herein called the Laborers .3 A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas R. Wilks on various dates between September 9 and 22, 1964. (All dates hereinafter refer to 1964 unless otherwise indicated.) 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 upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employers, the Respondents, and the Laborers filed briefs which have been duly considered 4 Upon the entire record, the National Labor Relations Board a makes the following findings : 1. The Business of the Contractors All parties stipulated that the 16 members of the Michigan Distribu- tion Contractors Association , Inc., performed services in the year pre- ceding the alleged violation in excess of $1,000,000 for the Consumers Power Company of Michigan, and, further, the Consumers Powers Company is engaged in business in the State of Michigan as a public utility, having its principal office at Jackson, Michigan, and that fur- ther during the preceding years the Consumers Power Company's gross volume of business was in excess of $25,000 and that it purchased raw materials from outside the State of Michigan in excess of $50,000. The Employers submitted uncontested evidence that the Michigan Distribution Contractors Association , Inc., is an incorporated associa- tion, composed of the individual members, for the purpose of collective bargaining. We find that the Michigan Distribution Contractors Association, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2 The complete names of the various locals appear, as amended, at the hearing. s The Laborers , whose name appears , as amended , at the hearing , was permitted to intervene as a party in interest because of a collective -bargaining agreement between it and the Employers 4 The National Utility Contractors Association, Inc , was granted leave to file a brief, amicus curiae. 6 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 [ Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Labor Organizations Involved The parties stipulated that the Respondents and the Laborers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute A. The Facts The Employers Association was formed in the early part of March and the articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan Cor- poration and Securities Commission on April 7. The member com- panies are engaged in the laying of gas distribution pipelines" for major utility companies in the State of Michigan. They normally employ three classifications of employees in this work : welders, labor- ers, and operating engineers.? The operating engineers are not involved in this particular case. In March the Employers and the Laborers entered into a collective- bargaining agreement. Thereafter, the Respondents and the Employ- ers entered into negotiations. Several meetings were held and the Respondents submitted a proposal. The third and crucial meeting took place May 6 between representatives of the Respondents and the Employers. At this meeting the Employers submitted their proposal for a contract and a subcommittee was set up to work on it. One of Respondents' proposals was that, in addition to welders, there be an additional pipefitter classification, either "fitter" or "helper" but the Respondents did not spell out what work the "fitter" or "helper" would do." Although there were a number of other unresolved issues involv- ing wages and working conditions, the subcommittee apparently broke up on this issue and reported back to the full working group, with the Employers refusing to negotiate on this item which they viewed as an effort to have fitters instead of laborers assist the welder. The Employ- ers assert the representatives of the' Respondent' threatened, as the meeting broke up, to close down individual contractors if the addi- tional classification was not added to the contract. The Respondents deny such threats were made. In any event, shortly thereafter, some members of the Employers were temporarily shut down as welders left 6 The work involved here is on gas "distribution " pipelines as distinguished from "main line" work. "Main line" pipelines are cross-country gas pipelines while "dis- tribution" work is the construction of "feeder" pipelines into various cities and town- ships , and. to homes and , offices. - Although , some of the Employers do both "main line" and "distribution" work, others do only "distribution " work. The Michigan Distribu- tion Contractor's Association, Inc, concern is limited to the "distribution " activities of its members. 7It appears , however, that on some distribution work, the Employers have also utilized "fitters" In addition to welders, laborers, and operating engineers. 8It appears that the parties, in referring to this proposed additional job classification, referred to such classification interchangeably as "fitter," "helper," or "apprentice 11 MICHIGAN STATE ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 743 their jobs at the request of various business agents of Respondent Locals, or as the result of threats or files, and in at least one instance there was brief picketing by Respondents. A number of contractors and a representative of the Laborers testi- fied for the Employers that the work described in the notice of hearing was historically performed by laborers." However, the Respondents produced considerable evidence that on many jobs welders were assisted by fitters rather than by laborers. Respondents also produced con- tracts between certain of its locals, and individual members of the Employer Association, indicating that members of Respondents were used as "helpers" or "fitters" on distribution contracts. The Employers acknowledged that this was true in certain cases but asserted they had been forced to add such additional job classifications under duress. It was also brought out by Respondents that most of the welders were members of United Association Local 798, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that these men frequently bring their own "helpers," with them and both are hired by the Employer, even though the helpers are not members of the Laborers. B. Contentions of the Parties The Employers contend that the Respondents are in fact seeking work for fitters which is assigned to the Laborers under contract, and the result sought would be in conflict with area practices and would create ine$iciences and increase costs. The Laborers take the position the work outlined in the notice of hearing constitutes work performed by welders' helpers who normally are unskilled laborers. It agrees with the Employers that the demand of May 6 was a demand by the Respondents to reassign some of the work from laborers to "fitters" represented by the Respondents. The Laborers maintain that all the work, which it claims to have histori- cally done for the Employers, was assigned under its contract with the Employers. The Respondents contend this case is simply a collective-bargaining dispute that does not involve competing claims for specific work. The contract proposal for "consideration" of a "fitter," "helper," or "apprentice" classification was one of many items subject to the give and take of contract negotiations. They state that they were com- pletely flexible on the question of what the additional classification would do, and that such a demand cannot be equated with a demand 9 The work allegedly in dispute , as set forth in the notice of hearing, is : The bending of pipe, the unrolling of copper pipe, the placing of skids and pipe over the trench , the cleaning and scaling of pipe, the cleaning, wrapping and (loping of pipe after joints have been welded, the lowering of pipe and removal of skids and the clean- ing, wrapping, and doping of pipe in the Employer 's yard, all in regard to distribution pipeline construction work as to pipelines transporting gas and oil performed , or to be performed, within the State of Michigan by members of the Michigan Distribution Con- tractors Association... . '744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for specific work. Respondents, therefore, took no position at the hear- ing on the assignment of the work set forth in the notice of hearing. However, while not conceding there is a jurisdictional dispute or that they have claimed the work spelled out in the notice of hearing, Respondents urge the Board to weigh certain considerations if we were to find reasonable cause for concluding a jurisdictional dispute exists. C. Applicability of the Statute It is our opinion that the record in its entirety does not establish that a jurisdictional dispute exists. Moreover, even if we could find a dis- pute over specific work assignment, the evidence brought forth by the parties is insufficient to make an assignment of the work for the whole State of Michigan, as requested by the Empolyers and the Laborers. Accordingly, we find that there is no dispute herein which is cognizable under Section 10 (k) of the Act. We conclude that Respondents' contract proposal for an additional job classification did not, a fortiori, constitute a demand for specific work performed by the Laborers. Respondents' proposal for an addi- tional job classification was assumed by the Employers to be a request for assignment of laborer's work to members of Respondents' locals. Accordingly, no effort was made to determine the actual meaning of Respondents' proposal. We cannot, on the record before us, accept this unsubstantiated conclusion as a fact. Indeed, the nature of the work involved indicates the possibility of arrangements which would not result in displacement of laborers, even were we to assume that laborers have in all instances performed the described work.10 As we are con- fronted only with a term, which has never been defined to a common, meaning for both parties, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the additional classification proposed by the Respondents must be consid- ered, per se, to constitute a demand for the reassignment of specific, work from the Laborers to the Respondents. Under the circumstances, since the Employers and the Respondents were only in the early stages of contract negotiations and have attached no boundaries to the work sought, we can find only the shadow and not the substance of clear and direct conflicting claims.11 Moreover, even if we were to find contra- 10 Although distribution and mainline are the two broad categories of pipeline work, the record indicates that the demands may differ from one job to another. Thus, on distribution work, depending on the nature of the job and the type of pipe involved, crews were estimated at between 5 and 100 men, and the amount of pipe laid per day as between 200 and 1,500 feet. Fitters are employed on mainline work and have also been employed by some of the Employers involved herein on some of the distribution work as well. It is not inconceivable that Respondents' eventual proposition for use of the fitters would be in situations where distribution work was analogous to mainline work, and fitters used in place of additional journeymen welders "Despite the ambiguity of the record, it is evident that Respondents do not claim all the work set forth in the notice of hearing. Thus, even had we found a 10(k) situation existed, we would necessarily lack clear conception of what specific work was in dispute. CAPITOL AVIATION, INC. 745 dictory claims for specific work, we would be unable, on the record before us, to make a statewide assignment of all the work set out in the notice of hearing, for that record shows only that in the State of Michi- gan both laborers and fitters have worked as helpers to welders doing distribution work. Further, as members of Respondents are appar- ently employed as helpers in at least some areas of the State, we are unconvinced from the state of this record that economics and experi- ence dictates that Laborers must be assigned the work statewide. As we have held that Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) of the Act were intended to deal with competing claims for specific work,12 and as we are unable to find, on .the entire record, that such a dispute here exists, we shall, therefore, quash the notice of hearing. [The Board quashed the notice of hearing.] 12International Typographical Union and Pueblo Typographical Union, Local No. 175, AFL-CIO ( Rocky Mountain Bank Note Company), 145 NLRB 921. Capitol Aviation, Inc. and International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-5247, 13-CA-5645, and 13= CA-5761. May 21, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon an original and amended charges (Case No. 13-CA-5247) duly filed on November 7 and 13 and December 7, 1962, by International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois), issued his com- plaint against Capitol Aviation, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. This complaint was later withdrawn after the parties had entered into a settlement agreement on March 8, 1963. The settlement agreement provided for an offer of reinstatement and payment of back- pay to three alleged discriminatees. By this settlement, Respondent also agreed, in general terms, to bargain with the Union and, specifi- cally, not to grant unilateral wage increases without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over such matters. Subsequently, on May 27,1963, the Union filed a charge (Case No. 13-CA-5645) alleging a violation of Section 8(a) (5). After an investigation of this charge, the Regional Director for Region 13 notified the parties that he was withdrawing his approval to the settlement agreement. Thereafter, 152 NLRB No. 80.