Ironworkers, Local 75

IRONWORKERS , LOCAL 75 303 International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 75, AFL-CIO and Stearns-Roger Corp. and Southeastern Arizona District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, Local 857. Case 28-CD-106 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH , BROWN, AND JENKINS general contractor. At all time material herein it was engaged in the construction of mine and mill structures at Sahuarita, Arizona, pursuant to a con- tract with Duval Sierrita Corp., herein called Duval, valued in excess of $ 100 million . During the 12 months preceding the opening of the hearing, Stearns-Roger , in the performance of said work, purchased materials , supplies, and equipment from outside the State of Arizona costing more than $50,000 . Accordingly , we find 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 in this proceeding. This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow- ing charges filed by Stear; is-Roger Corp. on Sep- tember 22 , 1969, alleging that International As- sociation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 75, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Ironworkers or Local 75, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer- tain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the assignment of the work of installing pressed metal partitions ( also referred to as window frames or curtain wall) in certain control rooms at the Duval Sierrita Corp. mine and mill structures construction project to employees represented by the Ironworkers rather than to employees represented by Local 857, Southeastern Arizona District Council of Carpenters , AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters . A hearing was held before Hear- ing Officer John L. Hollis on December 4, 1969, and March 4, 1970. All parties appeared 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 prejucicial error and are hereby af- firmed . The Ironworkers , the Carpenters, and the Employer filed briefs in support of their positions, and they have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings. I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Stearns-Roger Corp. is a Colorado corporation engaged in several States of the United States, in- cluding the State of Arizona, in business as a ' Unless otherwise specified all dates are in 1969 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Iron- workers and the Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer is engaged in erecting three con- trol rooms for Duval at the construction site. The control rooms are in the nature of buildings within buildings. In late June 1969,' the Employer scheduled the beginning of the work in dispute and an assignment of that work was made to employees represented by the Carpenters. The validity of that assignment is disputed by the Ironworkers . On July 18, carpenters began to perform the disputed work, and on or about July 23, the Ironworkers claimed the work. Following protracted attempts by the parties to resolve the dispute, the Employer, on Au- gust 13, made a written assignment of the work in favor of the Ironworkers. The Carpenters protested to the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes concerning this purported reassignment, and on August 30 the National Joint Board directed the Employer "to proceed immediately with the disputed work in accordance with the original as- signment." On September 22, work began at the second con- trol room and carpenters began to perform the disputed work. Four carpenters transported the pressed metal frames, whose installation is in issue, to the jobsite, whereupon about 225 ironworkers, assigned to various jobs around the project, con- verged upon the carpenters, seized the frames, car- ried them to the installation point and attempted to install them until they found that they could not be 184 NLRB No. 30 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD installed because of improper fabrication. The fol- lowing day, six ironworkers sat on the control room floor and on the pressed metal frames. On September 25, virtually all of the ironworkers walked off the job, and on September 26 the iron- workers struck and picketed. The picket line was honored by the Employer's 1,200 employees. The ironworkers returned to work on Monday, Sep- tember 29. Work began again in October with carpenters performing the disputed work, whereupon the iron- workers again massed at the worksite and told the carpenters not to touch the work. An injunction was obtained against Local 75, and the carpenters completed the disputed work. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of the erection and installation of pressed metal horizontal and vertical frames. When installed, these frames receive sheets of glass or other material which comprise, together with the frames, the entire wall. The installation of the glass or any other material is not in issue. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer maintains a position of neutrality between the competing craft groups. The Carpen- ters contends that the parties are bound by the procedures of the National Joint Board and that, in any event, the Employer's assignment was correct. Local 75 contends that the original assignment in favor of carpenters was invalid as it was made by an individual not authorized to make such an assign- ment; that the only valid assignment was the one made on August 13 to ironworkers; and that the various criteria relied on by the Board for resolving jurisdictional disputes all warrant an award in favor of ironworkers. D. Applicability of the Statute There are in evidence in this case contracts both at a national and at a local level binding all parties herein to the procedures of the National Joint Board. Indeed the Employer and the Ironworkers2 stipulated at the hearing that they were so bound, and the Carpenters admitted this in its brief to this Board. Accordingly, we find that all parties have agreed upon a method for resolving this dispute. Section 10(k) of the Act, directs the Board to hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8(b)(4)(D) charges have arisen. However, if all the parties to a dispute have agreed upon a method for the adjustment of the dispute, the Board is barred from making such a determination. As we have found such to be the case here, we shall quash the notice of hearing issued herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is- sued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed. 2 Ironworkers argues, however , that nevertheless we must make a deter- mination herein