Boilermakers, Local 204

BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 1241 AFL-CIO, Local No. 3, and who operate tractors which require main- tenance or repair at the San Francisco Water Department Aqueduct project jobsite, are entitled to assist employees of American Pipe and Construction Company, who are represented by International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 1546, in performing jobsite repairs and maintenance. 3. International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 3, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to force or require American Pipe and Construction Company to assign the work of performing jobsite repairs and maintenance on tractors at the San Francisco Water Department Aqueduct project to its members, except to the extent permitted above. 4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determi- nation of Dispute, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 3, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requir- ing American Pipe and Construction Company, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute, and not assigned to it in this Determination of Dispute, to its members rather than to employees represented by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 1546. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO (Ha- waiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd.) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO (Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd.) and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO. Case 37-CD-9 and 10. September 23, 1966 DECISIONS AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following two charges alleging violations of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The first of these charges (Case 37-CD-9) was filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as LAM or Lodge 1245, and alleged that International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and 160 NLRB No. 98. 1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Boiler- makers, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D).. The second charge (Case 37-CD-10) was filed by Boilermakers and alleged that IAM had vio- lated the same section of the Act. Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co.,' Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, is the employer whose work assignments are involved in both charges.' A hearing 2 'was held before Hearing Officer William F. Roache, on March 15, 16, and 17, 1966, at which all parties 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 briefs were filed by IAM, Boilermakers, and the Company, all of which the National Labor Relations Board has duly considered.3 Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the follow- ing findings : 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a Hawaii corporation, engaged as a general con- tractor in the building and construction industry throughout the State of Hawaii. During the calendar year 1965, in the course and conduct of its overall business operations, the Company purchased materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were sold and shipped to the Company in the State of Hawaii directly from suppliers at points and places outside the State of Hawaii. We find, accordingly, that-the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED - The parties stipulated and we find that the International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Build- ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE WORK IN DISPUTE The notice of hearing specifies the work in issue as all millwright and rigging work performed by the Company in the State of Hawaii. 'The name of the Company appears in the caption and the body of this Decision as that name was amended at the hearing. , The notice of hearing was issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the Board. $ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 1243 The scope of the work assignment dispute was, however, narrowed at later stages of this proceeding. Thus, Carl Guntert,4 business rep- resentative of the IAM, stated at the hearing that IAM claimed only that rigging work which is performed in connection with millwright work and, further, that JAM did not claim millwright work with respect to vessels, tanks, and boilers, which he conceded belonged to employees represented by Boilermakers. For its part Boilermakers conceded in its brief that work on a certain type of conveyor to be installed at the site of the dispute should be performed by employees represented by IAM wherever jurisdiction thereover has been ceded to JAM by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Exhaustive definitions of rigging and millwright work were read into the hearing record.' These work assignments may, however, be more simply described. Thus, the millwright work in issue here is, generally speaking, the function of assembling and setting machinery or other plant' equipment in place. The rigging work in dispute here is, in the main, the job of assembling slings and hoists, attaching them to equipment to be moved, moving such equipment to the point where it is to be emplaced and, finally, the removal and disassembly of the hoisting gear. IV. THE DISPUTE A. Background At the time the present dispute arose, the Company was a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with IAM and another agreement with Boilermakers both of which agreements , in general terms, deal with the disputed work. The Company was also a party to an Asso- ciated General Contractors (AGC) Agreement with the Honolulu 4 Based on the parties ' stipulation at the hearing, we find that Guntert is an agent of the IAM within the meaning of Section '2 (13) of the Act. 5 This included the following description of "millwright " from the Dictionary of Oc- cupational Titles-"Installation man ; machine erector ; maintenance mechanic ; plant changer. Installs machinery and equipment according to layout plans , blueprints and other drawings in an industrial establishment , using hoists , lift trucks, handtools and power tools : Reads blueprints and schematic drawings to determine work procedures. Dismantles machines , using hammers , wrenches , crowbars and other handtools . Moves machinery and equipment using hoists, dollies, rollers , and trucks Assembles and installs equipment such as shafting, conveyors and train rails using handtools and power tools. Constructs founda- tion for machines using handtools and building materials , such as wood , cement and steel. Alines [ sic] machines and equipment using hoists, jacks , handtools , squares, rules, micrometers and plumb bobs , assembles machines and bolts , welds, rivets or otherwise fastens them to foundation or other structures , using hand and power tools. May operate engine lathe to grind, file and turn machine parts to dimensional specifications. May repair and lubricate machines and equipment." The parties stipulated to the following description of rigger (construction )-"Worker engaged in erecting and operating machines to hoist and convey equipment , such as struc- tural beams , metal tanks and wall and floor slabs at construction site ; moves and erects derrick hoists and cranes , using knowledge of various methods of sliding and lifting equipment , splices ropes and metal cables to form hoisting slings," 1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Building and Construction Trades Council and other unions, includ- ing United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Carpenters), which has a color- able claim to the work here in issue.6 Although Carpenters, which was served with the notice of hearing, has declined 7 to offer a claim to the disputed work, its interests must be considered in view of an oral agreement between it and Boilermakers, pursuant to which, Boil- ermakers argues, Boilermakers is entitled to perform millwright and rigging work falling within Carpenters' jurisdiction in Hawaii whenever Carpenters has insufficient numbers to perform such work. The Company is one of a number of subsidiaries of the Dillingham Corporation. Through itself and its subsidiaries, Dillingham is engaged in various enterprises in the State of Hawaii including land development, ship repair, and construction. The Company is a general contractor in: the building and construction industry. Its operations and the operations of other subsidiaries of Dillingham, such as Hawaiian Land Company and Kapalama Shipyard, Inc., sometimes overlap. Dillingham's director of industrial relations, Riley, handles the labor relations of its subsidiaries as well as those of the Company, and he was concerned with the present dispute. In 1952 the Company was principally engaged in the operation of the Kapalama plant or shipyard in Honolulu. On April 4, 1952, the International Association of Machinists was certified by the Board as collective-bargaining representative of all the Company's employ- ees employed at that shipyard excluding floating equipment opera- tors, crews represented-by the Operating Engineers, office and clerical employees and the usual statutory exclusions. Shortly thereafter, in August 1952, Lodge 1245 of the IAM entered into a collective- bargaining agreement with the Company 5 covering all the Com- pany's employees employed in and working out of the Kapalama plant. Since 1952, Lodge 1245 has represented these employees, some- times in a single, unit and at other times in two separate units, one consisting primarily of the Kapalama shipyard employees and the other composed largely of construction employees.9 All of the IAM 6 See, e g, Ilfillwvrights , Local Union No. 1102 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Don Cartage Company), 154 NLRB 513 and 157 NLRB 10. 7 The attorney representing Boilermakers in this proceeding stated that he also repre- sents Carpenteis. He averred on the record that Carpenters has elected in this case not to assert a claim to the disputed work although it considers such work as falling within its jurisdiction. 8 Under the name Hawaiian Dredging Company, Limited I The unit was divided in this fashion for the first time in 1956 This continued until 1963 when the employees were again combined in a single unit. Both the 'Company and Kapalama Shipyard , Inc., were parties to the 1963 agreement covering this single unit In 1965 the IAM entered into a new agreement covering the employees of Kapalama Ship- yard, Inc., leaving the Company 's construction and garage employees to be represented in a separate unit under another JAM contract. BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 12455 construction contracts since 1960 have included the classifications of "Machinist, Erection (Millwright)," "Rigger," and "Rigger, Work- ing Foreman." - On April 8, 1960, in Case 37-RC-582 the Board certified, as joint collective-bargaining representatives of the employees of the Com- pany and Hawaiian Land Company, the following labor organiza- tions : Honolulu Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO, and/or United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745; Operators, Plasterers, and Cement Masons Inter- national Union, Local 630; and Construction & General Laborers Union, Local 368, AFL-CIO. The unit certified consisted of carpen- ters; cement finishers; masons and their apprentices, and/or helpers; laborers and/or tool operators. Excluded from this unit, inter alia, were employees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between the Company and the I'AM and regular Kapalama Plant employees temporarily assigned to construction jobs. Following this certification the Company, in July 1960, entered into an AGC agree- ment with the foregoing labor organizations. This agreement speci- fically excluded from its coverage any employees of a signatory employer who were already represented under a collective- bargaining agreement with that employer regardless if their work classifications might fall within claimed jurisdiction of the unions signatory to the AGC agreement. Thus, construction employees of the Company rep- resented'by the IAM were excluded from this unit both by the terms of the certification and the subsequent AGC agreement. In June 1963, following the filing of certain decertification 10 and representation 11 petitions, the interested parties entered into a memo- randum of understanding pursuant to which these petitions were withdrawn. As part of this understanding the IAM relinquished rep- resentation rights to Local Union No. 3 of the Operating Engineers for all equipment operators, truckdrivers, crane helpers, and pile- driver men which were included under the IAM's contract with the Company covering the period August 16, 1960, through August 15, 1963.12 On their part, the Council and the Operating Engineers with- drew any claim to representation of other classifications included under the IAM contract. Since "Machinist, Erection (Millwright) ;" "Rigger;" and "Rigger, Working Foreman" were among such other Case 37-RD-35. Decertification petition filed by one Texeira , an individual 11 Case 37-RC-924. Petition for representation filed by Honolulu Building and Construc- tion Trades Council , AFL-CIO. 12 Inasmuch as the period from 1960 to 1963 was one of the periods , mentioned above, during which the IAM unit was divided into a shipyard group and a construction group, these were actually two collective -bargaining agreements which reflected the effective date August 16 , 1960. The multiparty understanding of June 1963 , must, however , have refereed to the conatructiou contract inasmuch as that was the only contract of the two which coveied the claesifi-tio n "Pile Driver Man." 1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD classifications it is manifest that by the terms of this understanding, the Council, on behalf of itself and its member unions, which appar- ently include Carpenters,13 thereby withdrew any claims to represent these classifications. On October 14,196 ' 3, the Company again signed an AGC agreement with the Council. and three other unions including Carpenters. The 1963 contract did not contain a provision , as did the 1960 AGC agree- ment, excluding the employees of a member employer already repre- sented by a- labor organization which did not sign the AGC .agreement. Insofar as the Company's remaining IAM-represented con- struction employees were concerned,' however, it would appear that the necessity for. such an -exclusionary provision were obviated by virtue of the Council's aforementioned disclaimer in June of 1963 of any rights to represent these construction employees.14 It is therefore, clear from the foregoing that, at least from the mid- dle of 1963, to'the present time, IAM has represented the classifications "Machinist; Erections (Millwright)," "Rigger," and-"Rigger, Work- ing Foreman," without rival claim from the Carpenters. Not only is this conclusion supported,by the disclaimer of the Council, which was representing Carpenters' interest when the June 19,63 understanding was' reached, but it is also consistent with the disclaimer of the attor- ney for the Carpenters at the hearing. And, as will appear; this con- clusion- is, likewise consistent, with the failure of a responsible agent of Carpenters to, lay claim, to the work when the dispute herein arose. Since Carpenters maintained no jurisdiction over the Company's millwright, and rigging work,,under the 1963 AGC agreement, the aforementioned oral agreement of Carpenters to cede its, jurisdictional rights, to such -work under certain circumstances to Boilermakers has no effect upon 'the present proceedings. That is, insofar. as the Com- pany's:millwright and rigging work is concerned, Carpenters had no work assignment' rights to pass to Boilermakers. On January 14, 1965, while the classifications of "Machinist, Erec- tion (,Millwright)," "Rigger,',' and "Rigger, Working Foreman" con- tinued to, be .represented by the IAM pursuant to an agreement effec- tive in 1963, the Company entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Boilermakers. The employees represented under this is Boilermakers, in effect, contended that, since Carpenters did not directly participate in reaching this understanding, Carpenters is not bound by the Council's disclaimer. We reject this contention . The Council was obviously , representing the, Carpenters when It became a party to this understanding, because, in another part of the same understanding, provision was made for the further transfer of bargaining rights for piledriver men- which Operating Engineers obtained from IAM pursuant to the understanding-from Operating Engineers to Carpenters. 14 Further, although the 1963 agreement included "millwright" under its Carpenters- represented classifications, It did not refer precisely to the work in dispute , nor did it reflect the 'Carpenters' classification of "rigger." BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 1247 agreement were those engaged in "field construction work (including construction, erection, rigging, field fabrication, assembling, disman- tling, and repairing performed in the field) coming under the juris- diction" of Boilermakers of Hawaii. Boilermakers has never been certified by the Board as bargaining agent for this unit. At the time the present dispute arose on November 17, 1965, both the IAM's 1963 agreement and the Boilermakers 1965 agreement con- tinued in effect. B. The assertion of rival claims During the autumn of 1965 the Company was engaged in the con- struction of a Schlitz brewery at Waimalo on the Island of Oahu. By late October, work had progressed to the point where certain equipment was ready to be installed at the project. The Company, accordingly, transferred Trende, a "Rigger, Working Foreman," to the site at that time, and on or about November 11, it hired Cheat- wood, a millwright, to work with Trende. Both Trende and Cheat- wood were members of IAM. On or about November 17, 1965, while Cheatwood and Trende were in the process of installing a so-called CO? tank at the brewery site, they were visited by Yeatts, international representative of Boiler- makers,',' who inquired as to their union affiliation. On learning that they were members of IAM, Yeatts immediately went to the Com- pany's project superintendent, Kowano, and claimed that the work being performed by Trende and Cheatwood was Boilermakers' work. Kowano then contacted Robertson, the Company's industrial relations assistant, and a meeting was scheduled later that day to settle the matter. The meeting was attended, inter alia, by Robertson, Yeatts, Reynolds (an official of the Council), and Guntert, the business rep- resentative of IAM.16 During the course of this meeting, Yeatts testi- fied, he informed the Company's representative, Robertson, that, if something couldn't be done about reassigning the work of Cheatwood and Trende to members of the Boilermakers, he, Yeatts, "might have to put up a picket line." After Yeatts made this threat, Guntert, the JAM representative, countered with the threat that if Trende and Cheatwood were removed, "the Machinists will put on pickets." Rob- ertson did not attempt to settle the matter at that time, preferring to wait until Riley, the Company's (and Dillingham's) manager of 15 The parties stipulated , and we find, that Yeatts was an agent of Boilermakers within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act at all pertinent times herein. 16 Yanagi, business representative of the Carpenters was also present at one stage of this meeting, but declined to assert 'a claim to the work in dispute . The record indicates that he appeared briefly at the aforementioned meeting on November 17, authorized Yeatts to assert any rights to millwright work and then left the meeting . The parties stipulated that Yanagi was, at all times material hereto, an agent of Carpenters within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD industrial relations, was available. Meanwhile, Cheatwood and Trende were placed on a standby basis. On or about November 23, 1965, Riley came to the brewery jobsite and met with Guntert and Yeatts. After hearing the positions of JAM and Boilermakers, Riley decided to accede to Boilermakers' demand, voicing the opinion that a strike by the Boilermakers might shut down the whole construction project, whereas a strike by IAM would have a lesser effect. On the following day, Yeatts, at Riley's request, referred a rigger and a millwright-both members of Boiler- makers-to take over the work of Trende and Cheatwood. The latter employees were then laid off or reassigned. Thereafter, Section 8(b) (4) (D) charges were filed by IAM against the Boilermakers, and charges alleging the same violation were filed by the Boilermakers against IAM. V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE In every 10(k) proceeding it is necessary to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred. Case 37-CD-9: Inasmuch as Yeatts, the agent of the Boilermakers, admitted at the hearing that he threatened that Boilermakers would picket the Company unless the disputed work was assigned to, mem- bers of Boilermakers, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated by the Boilermakers and that this work assignment dispute is properly before us for deter- mination pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. Case 37-CD-10: Since, Guntert, the agent of the IAM admitted at the hearing that he likewise threatened to picket the Company if the disputed work was taken away from IAM members and reas- signed to members of the Boilermakers, we find that there is reason- able cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated by the IAM and that for this reason also the work assignment dispute herein is properly before us for determination pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.17 VI. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The Company contends that the work remaining in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by the IAM. It urges that such an award is supported by its past practice and previous assignments over its long history of bargaining with IAM. It contends that its contract with Boilermakers was intended only to cover millwright 17 No pasty urges that there is an agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Inasmuch as IA\I is not a member of the Building Trades Department of AFL-CIO, the procedures of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes are not applicable here. BOILERMAKERS , LOCAL 204 1249 and rigging work on boilers, tanks, and vessels-work which IAM has conceded to Boilermakers in this case. At the hearing it took the position that the Board's determination in this proceeding should cover all of the Employer's operations throughout the State of Hawaii. IAM urges that the work in dispute should be awarded to employ- ees whom it represents. In support of its position it relies upon its contract, the Company's past practice, the efficiency and economy of the Company's operations, and IAM's claimed jurisdiction under its international constitution. Boilermakers urges that the Board should award the work in dis- pute to employees whom it represents, and bases its claim upon its collective-bargaining agreement with the Company, its agreements with other labor organizations including its aforementioned oral agreement with Carpenters in Hawaii, its traditional jurisdictional claims, and the local area practice of other construction employers in that same State. Boilermakers also requests that the Board limit its award to the work in dispute at the Schlitz brewery project. VII. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE A. Certification As previously noted, IAM is certified whereas Boilermakers is not. IAM does not urge, however, that the Company, in reassigning the work in dispute to Boilermakers, is failing to conform to the Board's certification in Case 37-RC-121, which was issued to the International Association of Machinists in 1954. Nor would such a conclusion be warranted on the basis of an examination of the certification and of the subsequent bargaining history between the Company and IAM. For the certification, by its terms, does not deal specifically with millwright or rigging work, and the contracts entered into over the years between the Company and IAM have varied the certified unit to the point where the Kapalama shipyard employees-the nucleus of the certified unit-are now represented by IAM under a contract with a separate corporation, Kapalama Shipyard, Inc. B. Collective-bargaining agreement Both IAM and Boilermakers have a collective -bargaining agree- ment which deals in general terms with the disputed work. Neither contract, however, covers the precise work in issue. The IAM contract, which was current as of November 17, 1965, describes its unit, in pertinent part, as including "all employees of the Company, including working foremen, wherever employed in the 257-551-67-vol . 160-80 1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD state of Hawaii, who install, maintain, repair and/or service equip- ment at the construction jobsite, garage and/or shop employees." Also, as previously pointed out, this contract lists the classifications "Machinist Erection (Millwright)," "Rigger," and "Rigging, Work- ing Foreman." However, even if we were to disregard the lack of precision expressed by the general phraseology of this unit description and these job classifications, we would be unable to conclude that the Company and IAM intended them to cover "any" or "all" of the Company's millwright and rigging work. For both these parties themselves have conceded that the contract does not deal with mill- wright or rigging work associated with the installation of any equip- ment or machinery falling within the categories of "vessels, tanks, or boilers." As to Boilermakers' contract with the Company, it states that it applies ". . . exclusively in the state of Hawaii and within such area this agreement shall apply to all of the contractors field construction work (including construction, erection, rigging, field fabrication, assembling, dismantling, and repairing performed in the field) com- ing under the jurisdiction of" Boilermakers. While this coverage uses the general phrase "rigging," it does not mention "millwright" work as such. Further, the "jurisdiction" of Boilermakers is not defined or explained in the contract itself. Nor does the contract refer to the classifications "millwright" or "rigger." In view of the above, we are unable to find that either contract expressly covers the disputed work. C. Requisite skills and experience It is clear that Cheatwood and Trende, the IAM-represented mill- wright and rigger involved in the present proceeding, were each qualified to perform his part of the disputed work,:"' and that they were both performing in a manner satisfactory to the Company at the time they were released. On the other side of the coin, it is not disputed that the rigger and millwright referred by the Boilermakers to replace Cheatwood and Trende subsequently carried out their work assignments in a satisfactory manner. Accordingly, we conclude that millwrights and riggers represented by both of the competing labor organizations are qualified to perform the work in issue. D. Employer preference and practice; efficiency and economy Riley, the Company's industrial relations manager, and Guntert, the representative of IAM, both testified that the Company, has on a 18 Yeatts, the representative of Boilermakers, in fact, conceded that cheatwood and Trende would have continued to work unchallenged by Boilermakers , if they had con- sented to take out membership in Boilermakers. BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 1251 number of past occasions, assigned work similar to that now in dispute to millwrights and riggers represented by IAM. Yeatts, the represen- tative of Boilermakers, testified, on the other hand, that the Company has in the past subcontracted millwright and rigger work to specialty contractors whose employees were represented by Boilermakers. Robertson, the Company's industrial relations assistant, testified that the Company considers that it is more efficient and economical to use millwrights and riggers represented by IAM for the work in dispute than to use employees represented by Boilermakers-despite the fact that the Boilermakers contract rates are somewhat lower than the contract rates of IAM-because the IAM-represented group, established over a long history of bargaining, provides the Company ready access to a skilled pool of employees with skills applicable to the work assignments in issue as well as others. In the present case it is not apparent that this personnel policy was followed, however, for, although Trende was already a company employee when he was assigned to the Schlitz project, Cheatwood was not. Also Trende's previous assignment with the Company had been an administrative one. In any event, it is clear that the Company prefers to assign work such as that which remains in dispute to its IAM-represented employees. E. Local industry practice The Company and Kapalama Shipyard, Inc., are, according to Guntert, the representative of IAM, the only employers in the State of Hawaii with which IAM has collective-bargaining agreements covering the classifications of millwright and rigger. Boilermakers, on the other hand, has entered into collective- bargaining agreements with some seven construction firms in this State since 1960, in addition to this Company. The record indicates that a number of these firms have assigned millwright and rigging work on construction projects to employees represented by Boiler- makers, during this same period. Also, as previously noted, the Company itself has at times subcontracted some millwright and rigging work to contractors whose employees are represented by Boilermakers. F. Traditional union jurisdiction; union constitutional claims of jurisdiction; inter-union jurisdictional agreements Insofar as they may be related to the work here involved, the juris- dictional claims set out in the respective constitutions of the inter- nationals of the two disputing unions conflict. The constitution of IAM's international, however, seems more closely to describe the work in issue. Thus, that constitution asserts that the international 1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union has jurisdiction over employees engaged in the work of "... millwrights or general erectors of machinery." That constitu- tion also lays particular claim to millwright work in a brewery, i.e., "The manufacture and installation of all brewery machinery, includ- ing all soakers, pasteurizers, bottle washers, crowning machines, bottle-filling devices and conveyers." While this enumeration of spe- cific brewery assignments does not include installations of nonbrewing or nonbottling equipment, the constitution elsewhere lays claim to the installation of machinery such as "engines, motors, pumps, diesel and all other metal power devices" and the assembly of "electrical components and related accessories" which may be taken as relating in general terms to some of the nonbrewing and nonbottling installa- tions which appear to have been made at the brewery site herein. The constitution of Boilermakers International on the other hand, fails to speak in terms of the classification "millwright" and it does not refer specifically to brewery installations. It does, however, speak in terms of the work of a millwright inasmuch as it refers to ". . . laying out, aligning . . . erecting, assembling, installation" of several types of machinery and equipment related largely to heaters, boilers, and power units. It also asserts a claim to the "rigging, unloading and handling" of such equipment. A number of interunion agreements at the international level, which deal broadly with the assignment of millwright and rigging work, were introduced at the hearing. One such agreement was between IAM and the Carpenters and another was between IAM and the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers. For its part, Boilermakers had three such agreements, i.e. with Carpenters, with Plumbers, and with Sheet Metal Workers. There was also testimony, as previously noted, that Boilermakers and Carpenters have an oral agreement in Hawaii whereby members of Boilermakers may perform work falling within Carpenters' claimed jurisdiction in certain situations where Carpenters has insufficient members to carry out such assignments. In its brief, Boilermakers lays heavy stress upon these agreements at the international level as supporting its contention that its inter- national has consistently protected its jurisdiction over rigging and other work in breweries, whereas IAM's international does not appear to be concerned with rigging and has limited its claims over brewery construction. We reject this contention. The obvious purpose of each of these agreements is to deal only with the competing jurisdictional claims of the two international unions which are parties to them. These agreements do not attempt to, nor could they, establish the final jurisdiction of one union over a specific area of work as against BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL 204 1253 the claims of all other unions.19 These agreements, therefore, would only be helpful here if they disposed of the competing claims, one against the other, of the very labor organizations involved in this case. Significantly, the record reflects no agreement, either at the international or the local level, between IAM and Boilermakers. Accordingly, we are unable to attach any meaning to these agree- ments except that they support the conclusion that in fact a number of labor organizations may make jurisdictional claims in the general area of the work assignments disputed here. Boilermakers also contends that its oral agreement with Carpenters in Hawaii should be considered dispositive of the work in dispute. We reject this contention. For, consistent with our previous holding herein, since it does not appear that Carpenters has any contract right to the disputed work, its agreement with Boilermakers adds nothing to the claim of the Boilermakers in this case. Moreover, even if Carpenters continued to have some such contract right, we would not give controlling effect to its oral agreement with Boilermakers because neither the Company nor IAM was a party to that oral understanding. G. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute As the Board stated in the J. A. Jones case,20 it will, pursuant to the Supreme Court's CBS 21 decision, determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assign- ment of disputed work only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. Following this approach in the present case, we believe that employees represented by IAM are entitled to perform the work in issue. For here, as noted, there is no real question as to the usually crucial factors of the relative skills and experience of the competing employee groups, whereas the balance of all other relevant factors in our opinion, favor the claims of IAM over those of Boilermakers. More precisely, the claims of IAM, supported as they are by its 16 It is interesting to note that Boilermakers itself seems to understand these agree- ments as establishing only conditional or equivocal jurisdictional rights. For in its brief, dealing with its claims to the specific work assignments here, Boilermakers asserts some of these claims In a conditional manner, viz, "Boilermakers claim jurisdiction over the installation of all equipment shown on certain exhibits except as follows; the pump in Board Exhibit 22-1 if the Pipefitters claim it, otherwise Boilermakers . . . the piping in Board Exhibit 22-3 if the Pipefitters claim it, otherwise Boilermakers . . the pump in Board Exhibit 22-5 if the Pipefltters claim it, otherwise Boilermakers. . . ... [Emphasis supplied.) 2DInternational Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. 91N.L.R.B v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, Electrical Workers (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573. 1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective-bargaining agreement, the Company's past practice when making- assignments to its own employees, the Company's preference, and' the, relatively articulate jurisdictional declaration of IAM's international constitution to the • work of installing machinery in many areas, • particularly breweries, outweigh the claims of Boiler- makers based'on its contract with the Company, local industry prac- tice and the somewhat narrower jurisdictional declaration of its international constitution. In arriving at this conclusion on the merits, we have no intention, however, of nullifying Boilermakers'. contract with the Company nor work assignment rights thereunder. Of the greatest significance here, in our view, is that IAM's ; and Boilermakers' respective contracts with the Company do not directly conflict insofar as they relate to work assignments. Against this background. and the further fact that IAM and the Company have conceded to 'employees represented by Boilermakers a substantial portion of the Company's rigging and millwright work, our determination recognizes the vitality of work assignment rights under both agreements. That is, employees of Boilermakers have the conceded right to perform all nonmillwright rigging work and all millwright and rigging work on boilers, tanks, and vessels, pursuant to the terms of the Boilermakers contract- whereas employees represented by IAM are, consistent with IAM's contract, hereby awarded the right to perform rigging associated with millwright work, and the millwright work itself, on the Com- pany's, installation of machinery and equipment excluding boilers, tanks, and vessels. We wish to emphasize, however, that in making the letter award, we are assigning this work to millwrights and riggers represented by IAM, and not to that labor organization itself or its members. H. Scope of the determination As previously mentioned, the Company at one point, took the position that our determination should include all of its operations in the State of Hawaii. Boilermakers would have us limit our deter- mination to the Company's Schlitz brewery project where the dispute arose. In the past it has been the Board's policy to make an award broad enough to encompass the geographical area in which an employer does business (wherever jurisdictions of the competing unions coin- cide) in circumstances where there is an indication that the dispute is likely to recur 22 We believe that there is a reasonable likelihood 22 Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electiical.Workers,•AFL=CIO (West- ern Electric Company, Incorporated ), 141 NLRB 888, 897, footnote 12; International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 66, AFL-CIO (Frank P. Badolato & Son), 135 NLRB 1392, 1401. BOILERMAKERS , LOCAL 204 1255 that this dispute will be repeated. For the collective- bargaining agree- ments of both unions with the Company continue in effect, and Yeatts, the representative of Boilermakers, admittedly stated during the course of the dispute itself that he would not permit members of Boilermakers to work for the Company alongside of members of IAM.21 We shall broaden our determination accordingly.24 Otherwise our determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE IN CASE 37-CD-9 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 this dispute : 1. Employees of Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., represented by International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the following work : All millwright work and rigging work in connection therewith performed by Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., in the State of Hawaii wherever the geographical jurisdictions of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO, coincide, excluding all nonmill- wright rigging work and millwright work on boilers, tanks, or vessels. 2. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO, is not entitled to use means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., to assign the work described in paragraph "1," supra, to members of said Local 204. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron 28 After making this admission at the hearing , Yeatts appeared to qualify his position somewhat but not in it manner which would alleviate the possibility of a recurring dis- pute. Thus , lie stated that he would permit members of Boilermakers to work alongside of IAM members at a company project, but only at such time as the Company might not be a party to a Boilermakers contract. 24Our determination Is not Intended to, nor does it, concern the assignment of any millwright or rigging work on conveyors covered by agreement between the internationals of JAM and Carpenters because , as previously noted herein , any such work assignment is no longer in issue here by virtue of Boilermakers disclaimer in its brief 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL- CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20 or the Resi- dent Attorney for Subregion 37, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work described in paragraph "1," supra, to members of said Local 204, rather than to employees of Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., represented by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE IN CASE 37-CD-10 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 this dispute : 1. Employees of Hawaiian Dredging & _ Construction Co., Ltd., represented by International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the following work: All millwright work and rigging work in connection therewith performed by Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., in the State of Hawaii wherever the geographical jurisdictions of -International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 204, AFL-CIO, coincide, excluding all nonmill- wright rigging work and millwright work on boilers, tanks, or vessels. Cumberland Shoe Company and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local 327, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 26-CA-208. September 23, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On June , 14, 1966, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had 160 NLRB No. 97.