Intl B'hood of Electrical Workers, Local 480

INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480 629 , of employment, including safe work practices and/or safety rules, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All employees employed in overhead line construction and maintenance, including timekeepers and material clerks; underground construction and maintenance; electric service; substation construction and maintenance; communication construction and maintenance; appliance service; meter test- ing, installation, and repair; Pensacola repair shops; Pen- sacola garage; warehouse section, Pensacola and Panama City stores; meter readers and cutout collectors; steam elec- tric generating plants, Crist Scholz and Lansing Smith; excluding all office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, watchmen and/or guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. GULF POWER COMPANY, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 527-6361, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480 and Vickers Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation. Case No. 15-CD-54. January 5,1966 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Vickers Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, herein called Employer, alleging that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, herein called Local 480 or IBEW, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Fallon W. Bentz on July 6, 1965. The Employer, Local 480, and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 792, herein called Local 156 NLRB No. 50. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 792 or IUE, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity 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. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief which the Board has duly considered. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Brown, Jenkins, and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged at Jackson, Mis- sissippi, in the production of various components for the,aerospace industry. The Employer annually receives directly from outside the State of Mississippi goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, and annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Mississippi. We find that the Employer is engaged iil 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. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED We find that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 792, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The work at issue The disputed work which gives rise to this proceeding is the installa- tion of test stands and other related production equipment in a new addition of the Employer's plant at Jackson, Mississippi. i After entering an appearance , Local 480's counsel filed a motion to quash notice of hearing. When the Hearing Officer stated that he would refer the motion for the Board's determination, counsel demanded that right to present evidence in support of the motion and objected to holding of the hearing. The Hearing Officer advised counsel that he could present such evidence when it was appropriate and for the purpose of conducting an orderly hearing the proper time for such presentation was after the Charging Party had placed its evidence in the record . Whereupon , counsel was granted time to file an interim appeal on such ruling to the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the Board advised that it would consider the motion in its Decision . At the conclusion of the recess period, Local 480's counsel refused to participate further in the proceeding. The Hearing Officer, however, did place into the record , as a rejected exhibit, eight affidavits submitted by counsel in support of his motion. The Hearing Officer's referral of the motion for the Board's determination was proper and his proceeding with the hearing was in no way prejudicial to Local 480. We have duly considered the motion and as we find it without merit it is hereby denied. INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480 631 B. The background facts The Employer contracted with M. T. Reed Construction Company, herein called Reed, to construct an addition to the Employer's plant in Jackson, Mississippi. Reed subcontracted with Matthews Electric Company, herein called Matthews, to install the complete power and lighting installation in the new addition. The employees of Matthews are represented by Local 480. Matthews' contract with Reed does not call for the performance of the work in dispute. Local 792 was certified in 1957 as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. Successive bargaining agreements have been executed since that time and the current agreement expires in 1966. The Employer, upon completion of the contracted construction work, began to install test stands and other related production machin- ery in the new addition. It assigned the installation of the equipment to its maintenance electricians who are represented by Local 792 of the IUE. In order to meet certain production schedules and dead- lines, the Employer sought from Matthews the services of two addi- tional electricians to work with and assist its own employees in the electrical installation work. Matthews, the owner, questioned whether IBEW members would work with the Employer's employees repre- sented by the IUE. A meeting was arranged to discuss the possibility of utilizing Matthews' electricians and was held April 30, 1965. It was attended by John Erickson, Local 480's business manager; Robert Majors, Employer's personnel manager; L. E. Matthews; and Ed Carsley, maintenance foreman for the Employer. Erickson stated at this meeting that if IUE and IBEW members worked together, the IUE would probably raise a jurisdictional dispute issue, and that if it did not, then the IBEW would. Majors informed Erickson that if it appeared that there was to be a jurisdictional problem, he would have to follow his customary practice and use the Employer's main- tenance electricians to perform all of the work. During this meeting, Erickson referred to the work as "work that belonged to his people." According to Majors and Carsley, no mention was made during this meeting of the comparative rates of pay of IBEW members and IUE members. On May 6, 1965, Erickson, in reply to an inquiry by Perry, vice president of Local 792, respecting the disputed work, stated that Local 792-was doing electrical construction work in installing the produc- tion machines and that this work belonged to Local 480. On May 10, 1965, picket signs were placed at the Employer's plant by the IBEW protesting substandard 'ages and conditions of the Employer's construction electricians On that same date, Ben Juley, ,632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an IUE International representative, met Erickson and Ralph Brum- mett of the Jackson Building Trades Council. Erickson claimed that the picket lines were protesting the fact that IUE members were doing work that belonged to the IBEW. Juley contended that the work was covered by Local 792's contract with the Employer and that he would not agree to give it up. Erickson then stated, "That's our work and we're going to get it." As a result of the picketing, employees of Reed and other employees of subcontractors, who were still performing certain work on the Employer's new addition, ceased working and did not work further until the picketing was enjoined, June 22, 1965, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. C. Contentions of the parties The Employer contends that the disputed work is similar to work which has always been done by its maintenance electricians and that they have performed such work to its satisfaction. The Employer points out that the installation of the machinery involved herein requires leveling a machine, connecting any required water and air sources and the plugging of the electrical connection to the buss duct. According to the Employer, the plugging phase of the installation operation involves the same principle as plugging a lamp into a wall outlet and this phase of the installation is the crux of the IBEW's claim to the disputed work. The Employer further asserts that such plugging requires no specialized skills, experience, or training. The IUE agrees with the Employer that its members should per- form the disputed work. The IBE'V contends that the disputed work is electrical construction work and that it should be assigned to its members.2 D. Applicability of the statute We find that there is reasonable cause to believe from the record before us that the action of Local 480 in picketing the Employer's plant, which caused employees of Reed and other employees of sub- contractors to cease working, was undertaken in an attempt to force the Employer to assign to Local 480's members the work of installing test stands and other related production equipment in the new addi- tion to the Employer's plant, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Accordingly, this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. ,'We make this finding despite the fact that the IBEW in its motion to quash notice of hearing asserts that it was not claiming the work herein found to be in dispute. In view of other evidence in the record establishing to the contrary, this belated disclaimer is self-serving and can be given little weight. INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480 E. Merits 633 Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving consideration to various relevant factors, and the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based upon common sense and experience in balancing such factors.3 1. Contract; company practice The IUE was certified in 1957 to represent a unit of production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Mississippi plant, and since that time it has entered into successive collective- bargaining contracts with the Employer. Although the current con- tract includes the maintenance electricians to whom the Employer has assigned the disputed work, there is no specific coverage therein respecting this work. In the past, however, work assignments similar to the disputed work have always been assigned by the Employer to its maintenance electricians. 2. Skills involved The record indicates that the disputed work involves the moving and leveling of machinery, the connection of any required water or air sources, and the plugging of the machinery into the buss duct. Appar- ently the only electrical work involved is the final stage of plugging the machinery into the buss duct which is comparable to plugging a lamp into a wall outlet. In view of the minimal electrical work involved, there appears to be no particular skill, knowledge, or experi- ence required and either of the contending groups is qualified to per- form the work. F. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute On the basis of the record as a whole, and on appraisal of all the relevant factors, we conclude that the maintenance electricians rep- resented by Local 792 of the IUE are entitled to the work in dispute. In so concluding, we have noted the Employer's past practice of assign- ing similar work to its electrical maintenance employees, the Employ- er's assignment of the disputed work to its electrical maintenance employees and their satisfactory performance of such work, and the fact that these employees possess the required skills. In making this determination, which is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding, we are assigning the disputed work to electrical maintenance employees of the Employer who are represented by Local 792 of the IUE but not to that Union or its members. s International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 , AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. Maintenance electricians employed by Vickers Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, who are represented by Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 792, are entitled to perform the installation of test stands and other related production equipment in the new addition to the Employer's plant at Jackson, Mississippi. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, is not entitled to force or require Vickers Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, its successors or assigns, to assign any of the above work to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, shall. notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring Vickers Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, its.successors or assigns, by means proscribed by Section: 8(b) (4),(D) of the Act,.to assignn_ the above-described work to. employees.,of such Company .represented by such Union. Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals Division and, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local Union '625, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 9-RCS?85, 9-RC-6.95, and 9-RC-6296. January 5,1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mark Fox. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the'National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for Region 9 these cases were transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs,have been filed by the Employer and the Plumbers 2 1 The petitioning unions are hereinafter referred to as . Machinists and Plumbers. • w The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs adequately-present the issues and positions of,the.piirties.. 156 NLRB No. 61.