Int'l Brotherh'd of Electrical Workers, Local 781

INT'L BROTHERH'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 781 581 organizations, to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. TUCSON RAMADA CATERERS, INC., Employer. Dated------- ------------ By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1015 Tijeras Street, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico , Telephone No. 247-2520, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 781, AFL-CIO i and Georgia Pacific Corporation , Tissue Products Division? Case No. 3-CD-134. August 18, 1965 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges by Georgia Pacific alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in conduct to force Georgia Pacific to assign certain work to members of the IBEW rather than to its em- ployees who are represented by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and its MacDonough Local No. 387, AFL-CIO.' A hearing was held before Hearing Officer, Thomas J. Sheridan, on April 15, 22, and 23, 1965. 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. Briefs were filed by Georgia Pacific, IBEW, and Paper Mill Workers and have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Brown and Jenkins]. IHerein called IBEW or Respondent . The name of this Union was amended at the hearing. 2 Herein called Georgia Pacific or Employer. 8 Herein called Paper Mill Workers. The name of this Union was amended at the hearing. 154 NLRB No. 43. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Georgia Pacific is a Georgia corporation with plants located in various States of the United States. It is engaged in the manufac- ture of household tissue paper at its plant located in Plattsburgh, New York. During the past 12 months it shipped goods and mate- rials valued in excess of $500,000 from points located within the State of New York to points outside the State of New York. We find that Georgia Pacific is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 781, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and its MacDonough Local No. 387, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The basic facts This dispute arises out of the renovation, conversion, and certain additional construction of a pulpmill and pulpwood handling facil- ity at the Plattsburgh, New York, plant of Georgia Pacific." On or about September 29, 1964, Northeast Constructors, Inc., was awarded the contract by Georgia Pacific for all of the work, except electrical work necessary in the modification of existing facilities. It is this work which is in dispute .5 The disputed work involves the installa- tion and relocation of electrical equipment, switch gear, and lines to support the operation of the pulpmill and digester room. It includes the installation of fans, motors, control panels, switches, light fix- tures, a prebuilt 750 KVA substation, and conduits necessary to con- nect the various equipment. Georgia Pacific awarded this disputed work to its electrical department employees under the supervision of 4 Specifically, the work involved the establishment of log handling and log chipping operation, woodchip storage areas, refining area , liquor preparing area, sulphur storage area, and the construction of a digester building. The purpose of the construction and modification is to replace an operation using wastepaper with one using woodpulp in the manufacture of tissue paper products. S The Hearing Officer properly denied Georgia Pacific's motion to amend the descrip- tion of the disputed work to "installation and relocation of electrical equipment, switch gear, and lines and all work done by electrical employees employed by Georgia Pacific Corporation at the Tissue Products Division, Paper Mill, Georgia Pacific plant in Platts- burgh, New York...:' INT'L BROTHERH'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 781 583 its Project Engineer Cluff. The electrical department employees are a part of the Employer's production and maintenance unit. Paper Mill Workers has represented these production and main- tenance employees under a collective-bargaining agreement with Georgia Pacific since 1963 when the latter purchased the plant in- volved from Vanity Fair, and before that time under contracts with the former owners. Paper Mill Workers has never been certified by the Board as representative of the employees in this unit. Northeast Constructors commenced work on the project in Novem- ber 1964. In January 1965, IBEW Business Agent Wray called on Georgia Pacific Engineer Cluff and advised him that IBEW was interested in the electrical construction work at the pulpmill. Cluff told Wray that there was as yet no final decision as to the scope of the electrical work to be performed on the job, that Georgia Pacific planned to use its own employees for most of the work, but that the delivery schedule of the electrical equipment might make it necessary for Georgia Pacific to subcontract part of the electrical work. Wray told Cluff, in effect, that this was their work and they (IBEW) intended to do it. Cluff promised to notify Wray during the follow- ing week of Georgia Pacific's decision on the electrical work. The following week Wray called Cluff. Cluff told him that the decision on the electrical work had not been finalized as the equipment delivery dates were not yet firm, but that Georgia Pacific would use its own employees as long as they were capable before subcontracting any of the electrical work. General Superintendent Richard Tessmer, for Northeast testified that on Friday, February 19, he was told by his job engineer, Robinson, that there would be a picket on the job the following Monday morning. Tessmer immediately telephoned this information to Cluff. On Monday Tessmer contacted Wray and asked if North- east could get a contract with IBEW. Wray told him that the chances were nil for this. Shortly thereafter Cluff asked Tessmer if Northeast had the capabilities for doing the electrical work on the job if Georgia Pacific had to contract it out. Tessmer stated that Northeast could not because it could not get a contract with IBEW. After this conversation Tessmer again asked Wray and was told that Northeast could not get a contract with IBEW. On Tuesday, February 23, there were two pickets on the jobsite from about 7:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. with signs that read : NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC PREVAILING WAGE RATES FOR ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION WORK ARE NOT BEING PAID ON THIS JOB LOCAL UNION 781 I.B.E.W. 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the day picketing began, and each day thereafter until the picketing ended, all crafts employed by Northeast except the iron- workers refused to cross the picket line. The ironworkers, the only craft which worked that day, continued working each day until the afternoon of February 25, when they also walked off the job. Georgia Pacific's employees, however, continued working during the picketing. On February 23, Georgia Pacific's Personnel Manager Barr called Wray to protest the picketing. He told Wray that Georgia Pacific had a bargaining agreement with the Paper Mill Workers represent- ing Georgia Pacific's employees and that the Georgia Pacific elec- tricians were capable of doing the electrical work. Wray replied that he was sorry about the work stoppage, but referring Barr to the wording of the picket sign, asserted that the picketing was informational. On February 24, Cluff, Barr, Wray, Tessmer, Paper Mill Workers Representative Scarselletta, IBEW Local President Long, and Car- penters Union Business Agent Turbide met at the office of Georgia Pacific's Plant Manager Wardwell. Barr explained Georgia Pacific's position, its contract with Paper Mill workers, and the adequacy of its electrical department to perform the disputed work. Wray stated IBEW's claim to this work. The following week Wray telephoned Cluff and explained the benefits of hiring IBEW em- ployees for such work. Cluff countered with the justification for utilizing their own employees. Wray said he regretted the difficulty caused by the informational picket and Cluff replied that Georgia Pacific was taking this to the National Labor Relations Board. B. Contentions of the parties Georgia Pacific contends that the work herein, which is essentially electrical work performed in connection with the modification and renovation of existing facilities, should be performed by its electrical department employees who are represented by Paper Mill Workers. The Employer asserts that it has always assigned such work to its employees in the past; that such assignment is more efficient and economical; that these employees possess the skills required to per- form the work; and, that by performing this work these employees will gain knowledge and experience helpful to them in subsequent maintenance of this electrical equipment. The Employer further contends that its employees are familiar with the specific tasks in- volved because they have performed similar work in the past; that hiring IBEW employees would require preparation of detailed INT'L BROTHERH 'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,- LOCAL - 781 585, drawings and specifications and additional supervisors, and that it. would be. necessary to lay off some of its present electrical department employees. - IBEW contends. that the disputed work should be performed by, IBEW members. It points to.the area practice that electrical,con- struction work is performed by IBEW members and asserts that most of the work covered by the contract between the Employer and North- east is new construction work. IBEW declined to take a position concerning whether the IBEW picketing violated 8 (b) (4) (D). Paper Mill Workers does not actively claim the work in dispute and takes no position on the alleged 8(b) (4) (D) violation. It asserts, however, that it has accepted the Employer's work assign- ment in this instance . It further asserts that its members have always performed such work in the past and that they possess the skills necessary to do the work. - C. Applicability of the statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act has been violated. The evidence shows that in January 1965, after Northeast had commenced work at the Georgia Pacific plant, Wray asserted IBEW's claim to the work in dispute and told Clufi that IBEW intended to do this work. The Employer refused to assign the work to IBEW members. Thereafter, on February 23, IBEW posted pickets at the plant. As set forth above, this picketing caused an immediate work stoppage by all crafts employed by the general con- tractor Northeast except the ironworkers who worked only for 3 days after picketing started. We therefore find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) has occurred. Accordingly, we also find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. D. 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 various relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein : '1. Certification; collective-bargaining contracts Neither Paper Mill Workers nor IBEW has been certified by the Board with respect to the employees involved in the instant proceed- ing, although Paper Mill Workers received from the Board on or 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about December 16, 1957, authorization to enter into a union-security contract for these employees. Paper Mill Workers has represented employees in the production and maintenance unit at this plant, employed by the Employer, or the plant's former owners, since about 1947. The current agreement, effective for the period October 1, 1964, to October 1, 1967, covers the electrical department employees who have been assigned the disputed work. The Employer's assign- ment of the disputed work is not inconsistent with this collective- bargaining contract. 2. Company and area practice The record shows that the Employer has never used outside elec- tricians. Instead it has always used its own electrical department employees to perform the electrical work on such jobs even when utilizing outside contractors for other installation and construction. It appears that other employers in the area customarily hire IBEW members to perform electrical work on construction projects. We find that the Employer's uniform longstanding practice of assigning all electrical work to its own employees outweighs the area practice insofar as this case is concerned and favors the Employer's assignment of the disputed work. 3. The "Miami Agreement" IBEW relies on the so-called Miami Agreement of 1965 under which in-plant unions are to perform maintenance work while build- ing trade unions are to perform construction work. However, Paper Mill Workers is not a party to this agreement which involves only the building trade unions. Accordingly, we are unable to give any weight to this factor in determining the assignment of the work in dispute herein. 4. Employer's assignment and efficiency of operation Although it appears that the greater cost involved in engaging an outside contractor to do the electrical work was not a determining factor in the assignment, the Employer produced testimony that to do so would require a layoff of electricians at the plant. The Em- ployer claims that because its employees are already familiar with the plant and its present electrical equipment and wiring, it is only necessary to prepare sketches and to give verbal instructions and these employees can perform the work, whereas outside electricians would require detailed plans and instructions and a larger super- visory force would be necessary. Moreover, additional efficiencies accrue from the assignment made. Thus, the employees performing the electrical work acquire a familiarity with the equipment and any INT'L BROTHERH 'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 781 587 peculiarity in the layout during installation. Therefore they are better able to maintain the equipment. This results in a more effi- cient operation of the plant. The Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its electrical department employees is therefore con- sistent with efficiency of operation. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute Upon consideration of all pertinent factors and the entire record, we shall assign the work in dispute to the employer's electrical department employees represented by the Paper Mill Workers. They are admittedly sufficiently skilled in the performance of the work and they have performed it to the satisfaction of the Employer, who desires that they continue on the job. This assignment conforms to the Employer's consistent past practice, and results in more effi- cient operation and maintenance of the electrical equipment after its installation. We therefore conclude that the Employer's assign- ment of the work to its electrical department employees should not be disturbed. We shall, accordingly, determine the jurisdictional dispute by deciding that the Employer's electrical department em- ployees, rather than IBEW members, are entitled to the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the dis- puted work to the Employer's electrical department employees who are represented by Paper Mill Workers but not to that Union 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. Employees of the electrical department of Georgia Pacific Corporation, Tissue Paper Division, in its plant at Plattsburgh, New York, currently represented by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and its MacDonough Local No. 387, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all electrical work in con- nection with the renovation, conversion, and construction being per- formed at the plant site under the current contract between Georgia Pacific and Northeast Constructors, Inc. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 781, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to its members. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 588 IDEChSIONS :OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,, BOARD Local Union. No. 781, AFL-CIO, shall; ,notify the Regional, Director for Region 3, in writing, whether it will. or will, not 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 members. of IBEW rather than to its electrical department employees. Vacuum Platers, Inc. and Local Union No. 199, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 30-CA-91. August 19,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On May 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, findings that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner,2 and orders that the Respondent, Vacuum Platers, Inc., Mauston, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following addition : IAs the Respondent engaged in other 8(a) (1) conduct, we find it unnecessary to, and we do not, rely upon the Trial Examiner's findings that the statements made by Super- visors vanetta and Stoughtenger to various employees during the organizational drive constituted violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 2 The telephone number for Region 30 , given at the bottom of the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision , is amended to read: 272-3866. 154 NLRB No. 48.