Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union No. 513

GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 513 1343 If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101 , Telephone 583- 4583. Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union No. 513, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO and Miscellaneous Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer- ica and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. Case 14-CD-P20. June 24, 1966 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 under Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by Miscellaneous Drivers and Help- ers- Union, Local No. 610, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer- ica (herein called Local No. 610 or the Teamsters), alleging that Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union No. 513, affiliated with Broth- erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL- CIO (herein called Glaziers or Respondent), had threatened to cease work in order to force or require 'Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (herein called Employer) to assign the disputed work to members of the Respondent rather than to, employees represented by the Teamsters. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Philip L. Curd on April 14, 1966. All parties who appeared at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. A brief was filed by the Teamsters and has been duly considered. 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 the case, the Board makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated as follows: Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com- pany is a corporation chartered under the laws of Pennsylvania and engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing glass products, paint products, and related products. During calendar 159 NLRB No. 85. 1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD year 1965;'the Company''received'at its' St. Louis, Missouri, facility, hoods and materials directly from firms, located 'in States other than the State of Missouri, which-.goods and materials were valued in excess of $50,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in com- merce -within' the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the' purposes of the -Act: to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and 'we find, that botli the Teamsters and the Glaziers are 'labor'organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Statement-of facts The work dispute involves the assembly of shower doors and tub enclosures. The only difference between the two items is that shower doors have small handles, while tub- enclosures have long bar handles which also serve as towel racks. Both the glass and metal compo- nent parts,of the assembly are precut and come from other coin- panies. 'In assembling a shower door, vinyl tape,is pressed around the edges of the ;four sides of precut glass. The top, bottom, and two metal sides, all precut of channel type construction, are next separated. Then the top is tapped on the glass, using a rubber mal- let. Thereafter, the two_ sides and the bottom piece are tapped in place. 'A screw is inserted at each of.the four corners fastening the assembly together.. Four rollers used to slide the shower door are then attached using brackets, and finally, the small handle is attached to the shower door or the long towel bar to the tub enclo- sure, using screws in each instance. The Employer received 124 unassembled metal framed glass shower doors and assigned the assembly work to employees in its warehouse represented, by the Teamsters. Respondent complained about the work assignment and the Employer stopped the assembly operation. Respondent threatened to strike should the work again be assigned to employees represented by the Teamsters. Respondent represents "A" and "B" glaziers. The difference between them is that "B" are less skilled and like employees repre- sented by the Teamsters herein are paid about $1.50 per hour less than "A" glaziers. The Employer only employs "A" glaziers. Employer has since contracted the work to St. Louis Shover Door Company where "B" division glaziers are completing or have com- pleted the work. Because it has so little need for them, apparently the Employer cannot obtain from Respondent a "B" glaziers' con- tract and for that reason Respondent has refused to furnish the GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION N0. 513 1345 Employer with "B" glaziers. Presently, Employer indicates no pref- erence regarding which labor organization 'should be assigned the work. B. Applicability of the statute The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D). On the basis of the entire record, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of that section of the Act has been com- mitted and that a jurisdictional dispute exists and is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. 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 the var- ious relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein : 1. Skills and experience The record indicates that members of both the Teamsters and Respondent have the necessary skills and training to perform the work in dispute. Thus, employees represented by the Team- sters have for the past 2 years, on two previous occasions, performed the work of assembling approximately 12 shower doors. They also have exercised similar skills in the past 3 years by assembling mir- rors and a product called glide-a-door, which consists of two metal framed sliding doors with mirrors to close the opening in a double- door closet. During the past 5 years, Employer's "A" glaziers, rep- resented by Respondent, have been using similar skills in assembling glass patio doors. Therefore, the factors of skill and experience needed to perform the disputed work do not appear to favor either union over the other. 2. Contracts and certifications Both the Teamsters and Respondent were certified in 1961 and each has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. But none of these clearly covers the contested assembly work. Respond- ent's certification covers "glaziers and apprentices" and its collective- bargaining agreement designates the type of work covered as the "installation of all types" of glass and glass substitutes at jobsites and includes metal assembly which has been traditionally and by past company practice performed by the glaziers. The record reveals that the shower doors involved herein were to be installed by a con- tractor other than the instant Employer and that the Company's 243-084-67-,vol. 15 9-8 6 1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD glaziers have not assembled shower doors in the past. Accordingly, neither Respondent's certification nor contract supports its claim to the work. In contrast, the Teamsters' certification expressly includes "glass cutters, metal fabricators and assemblers," and excludes "gla- ziers fabricating and assembling metal in the shop for installation by [company] glaziers." To some extent, the Teamsters collective- bargaining agreement parallels its certified unit by expressly includ- ing the classification of "assemblers." As the work in dispute involves only the assembly of shower doors the contract and certifi- cation would seem to favor the Teamsters' claim. 3. Other agreements and awards The record reveals that Employer is not a party to any method of resolving any jurisdictional disputes and that neither labor organi- zation is a party to any agreement regarding the disputed work. Respondent introduced several Joint Board awards favorable to itself involving the "installation" of glass shower door enclosures. As that is not the type of work in dispute herein, no --eight is accorded these awards. 4. Efficiency and economy The record indicates that Employer's competitors use "B" glaziers whereas Employer has'only "A" glaziers, and to date, Respondent has refused to make "B" glaziers available. Thus, if the work were awarded to glaziers, Employer presumably would have to use the already employed, and higher priced "A" glaziers; thereby placing itself at a competitive disadvantage. Even if "B" glaziers were pro- vided in the event an award were made to Respondent, this would necessitate special hiring for each occasional job inasmuch as Employer does not engage in this work on a regular basis. On the other hand, an award to Employer's present employees represented by the Teamsters would be more economical as such employees, who are paid about the same as "B" glaziers, are already available and experienced. Under these circumstances, the factors of efficiency and economy favor the Teamsters' claim. 5. Custom and practice Evidence was introduced as to area and industry practice show- ing that companies which engage in the shower door business use "B" glaziers to do the kind of work in dispute. But the record does not reveal the practice where "B" glaziers are unavailable. There- fore, this evidence is of little relevance. However, the Employer's practice of assigning the assembly of shower doors on two previous GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 513 1347 occasions in 2 years to the employees represented -by Teamsters seems to support the Teamsters' claim. Conclusions- as to the Merits of, the Dispute On the basis of the record as a whole, and on an appraisal of all the relevant considerations, we believe that the work in dispute should be awarded to the warehouse employees of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. The fact that Employer's assignment conforms to its past practice and is consistent with economy and efficiency of operation, the fact that warehouse employees have sufficient skill and experience to do - the work, and the job function is in accord with the Teamsters' collective-bargaining agreement and certifica- tion lead us to conclude that Employer's original assignment of the work should not be disturbed . Therefore, we shall determine the present dispute by assigning the disputed work to warehouse employees of - Employer presently represented by the Teamsters, rather than to glaziers who are represented by Respondent . In mak- ing this determination, we are not assigning the disputed work to Local 610, Teamsters, or its members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following deter- mination of the dispute. 1. Warehouse employees - employed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, currently represented by Miscellaneous Drivers and Help- ers Union, Local No. 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood ,of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are entitled to 'assemble the glass shower doors at its plant facility in St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union No. 513, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO; is not and has not been entitled, by-means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to assign the above work to its members. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union No. 513, affili- ated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to glaziers, rather than to the warehouse employees of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.