United Assn. Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry

1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organizational or union activities and our officials will not use vituperative language to employees with respect to their self-organizational or union activi- ties to interfere with, restrain or coerce them in the exercise of rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to rein- state any of our employees, or in any manner discriminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement with backpay to Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ- ees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. All our employees are free to join or assist United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from doing so. BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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 questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston- Salem, North Carolina, Telephone No. 723-2381. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local No. 573, AFL-CIO; Clatsop and Tillamook Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO and Northwest Natural Gas Company and International Chemical Workers Union, Local 133. Case No. 36-CD-36. Jan- uary 19, 1966 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Northwest Natural Gas Company, herein called the Company, alleging that United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called the Plumbers, and Clatsop and Tillamook Counties Building and Con- struction Trades Council, herein called the Council, violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Arthur J. Hedges on October 21 and 25, 1965. All parties appeared 156 NLRB No. 101. UNITED ASSN. PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY 1071 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. Thereafter, the Company filed a brief and the Plumbers and Council filed a joint brief. 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : 1. The business of the Company The Company is an Oregon corporation engaged in the distribution and sale of natural gas in the States of Oregon and Washington. During the past fiscal year, it purchased in excess of $1 million worth of natural gas which originated from points outside these States. During the same period, its sales exceeded $1 million. The Company operates as a public utility under the supervision of the public regula- tory bodies of Oregon and Washington. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce 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 Plumbers, the Council, and International Chemical Workers Union, Local 133, herein called the Chemical Workers, are labor orga- nizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The dispute a. The work in issue; background facts The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding is the new construction of gas mains and lines in Astoria, Oregon, including service lines to customers, prior to the introduction of gas into these mains and lines. The mains are pipes laid under a street or road, and the service lines are underground pipes leading from a main to a customer's gasmeter. This work is performed by the Company's own employees, who are classified as welders, pipemen-welders, pipemen, and helpers, and who are represented by the Chemical Workers. The Plumbers and the Council in behalf of the Plumbers and various other unspecified unions affiliated with the Council, claim that their respec- tive members are entitled to the disputed work. 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company employs approximately 550 employees in its 5 operat- ing departments who work throughout its 11 geographical districts in Oregon and a portion of Washington. Of these departments, the distribution department is concerned with the distribution of gas from the point of supply to the customer's premises; the customer service department does work on the premises of a customer; the gas dispatch and measuring department is responsible for the flow of gas into and through the system; the general services department manages prop- erty, tools, and other equipment; and the stores and purchasing depart- ment makes available the equipment necessary for the Company's operations. The distribution department, which has about 400 employ- ees, is composed of work crews of from 2 to 4 employees. In addition to installing new mains and service lines, they maintain and repair existing pipelines, including the servicing of breaks and leaks, and handle other emergencies. For many years prior to 1958, the Company manufactured its own gas. Since then, it has purchased the natural gas which is distributed by its own pipe lines throughout the various geographical districts. Except for the period between August 1946 and June 1948, during which time the Company used members of Building and Construction Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, the Company has used its own employees for new construction or has contracted out such work to other firms, depending upon the availability of its manpower and equipment. Since 1934 the Company has had a contractual bargain- ing relationship with the Chemical Workers and its predecessor cover- ing all employees in the various operating departments, including those engaged in the disputed work, in a companywide unit. The col- lective-bargaining agreements between the Company and the Chemi- cal Workers require mutual discussion prior to the subcontracting of new construction and provide that no employee should be laid off as a result of subcontracting. In Astoria, where the Company is engaged in new construction and where the instant dispute arose, the installation of mains and service lines is being performed by two crews of the Company's employees and by six crews of employees of subcontractors, who employ members of the Plumbers and other unspecified unions affiliated with the Council. On August 5, 1965, Cecil T. Odenborg, the Plumbers' business repre- sentative, telephoned Ray Dreeszen, the Company's district manager, and complained that employees of the Company, rather than members of the Plumbers, were installing pipes. A meeting was held later in the day attended by Odenborg, Eugene Koch, business representative of the Council, Dreeszen, and two other company officials. At this meet- ing, Koch stated that the work of "ditch digging and laying of pipe and so forth" belongs to employees who are members of the union UNITED ASSN. PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY 1073 affiliated with the Council. After a company representative explained that the assignment of the disputed work was in accord with its agree- ment with the Chemical Workers and that members of the Council were performing a major share of this work for subcontractors, Koch threatened to picket 1 and to place the Company on an unfair list if the Company did not cease using its own employees. On August 13, 1965, the Company's office in Astoria was picketed with a sign which read : "Northwest Gas UNFAIR to Organized Labor Sub Standard Wages and Working Conditions Clatsop and Tillamook Building & Trades Council." The picketing ceased after 1 hour, on the same date as the Company filed the charge herein. At the hearing, neither the Plumbers nor the Council would give an assurance against the resump- tion of picketing. b. Applicability of the statute In a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board is only required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated before making a determination of the dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practices have arisen.2 As shown above, there is testimony that the Plumbers and the Council claimed the work in dispute for their respective members and threat- ened the Company with picketing if it did not accede to their demand. Although the Plumbers and the Council admit responsibility for the picketing, they deny the threat to picket and contend that the only object of the picketing was to protest substandard working conditions. Without resolving the conflicts in testimony, we find that there is rea- sonable cause to believe that the Plumbers and the Council threatened to picket and picketed the Company with an object of forcing the Company to reassign the disputed work. Accordingly, the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. c. 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 rele- vant factors. The Board has held that its determination in jurisdic- tional dispute cases is an act of judgment based upon commonsense and experience in balancing such factors .3 Collective-bargaining agreements: The Company has a long history of bargaining agreements with the Chemical Workers covering the i Koch used the phrase "to put a banner " on the Company , but the record is clear that this is a threat of picketing. 2International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 66, AFL-CIO (Frank P. Bodalato & Son), 135 NLRB 1892; Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO ( Western Electric Company, Inc ), 141 NLRB 888, 893. $International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con- etructson Company), 1&i5 NLRB 1402, 1410. 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD disputed work. The Plumbers and Council have had no contracts with the Company, but have agreements with firms to whom the Company has subcontracted new construction. Company, area, and industry practice: As noted, the Company has assigned new construction work to its own employees and has also used subcontractors for new construction in its companywide operations, including the Astoria district. There are approximately 30 utility companies in the United States and Canada which use their own employees, who are represented by other locals of the Chemical Work- ers in employerwide bargaining units, to perform work of the type in dispute. It appears that another local of the Plumbers represents all employees of one utility company, including the employees engaged in new construction work. Skills of the employees : The Plumbers and Council point to their representation of employees used by subcontractors of the Company and the latter's apparent satisfaction with their skills and experience in performing the work in question. The Company's employees also possess the required skills for the performance of the work in dispute. Efficiency and economy of operations : The Company's employees perform new construction work during seasonal periods, when weather conditions are more suitable for such work. During other periods, in view of their versatile experience, these employees are used in other departments of the Company. As the Company's employees are also trained to work on mains and lines which carry live gas, they are readily available, while engaged in new construction, to handle emer- gency repairs on other existing equipment. Members of the Plumbers or Council do not have training for such versatility. During the past 5 years, the Company has been able to furnish employment for its new construction employees without any layoffs. Having considered all the relevant factors, we believe that the employees represented by the Chemical Workers are entitled to the work in dispute. We rely primarily on the long bargaining history between the Company and the Chemical Workers covering the employ- ees now engaged in new construction; these employees are sufficiently skilled to perform the work and have done so to the satisfaction of the Company, which desires to continue to utilize them; and the use of the Company's employees provides an efficient and economical operation. The assignment of more of the disputed work to nonemployees of the Company would necessitate a layoff of company employees. Accord- ingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute by deciding that employees represented by the Chemical Workers are entitled to the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the employees of the Company, who are represented F. H. SNOW CANNING COMPANY 1075 by the Chemical Workers, but not to that Union or its members. Our determination is limited to the particular controversy that 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 Northwest Natural Gas Company, who are repre- sented by International Chemical Workers Union, Local 133, are enti- tled to perform the work of new construction of gas mains and lines in Astoria, Oregon, including service lines to customers. 2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local No. 573, AFL-CIO, and Clatsop and Tillamook Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, are not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign the above work to employees who are represented by them. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination, the Plumbers and the Council shall notify the Regional Director for Region 36, in writing, whether they will refrain from forcing or requir- ing the Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. F. H. Snow Canning Company, a Division of the Borden Company and National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-6489. January 19,1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alexander T. Graham, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Fol- lowing the hearing and, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Pro- cedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for Region 4, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs have been filed by the Employer and the Petitioner. 156 NLRB No. 95. 217-919-66-vol. 15 6-6 9