Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local 720

MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 613 Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720, AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and H. B. Fowler & Company, Inc. and Chauncey Con- struction Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 582, AFL-CIO and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CD-131, 15-CD-133, and 15-CD-137 July 24, 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS This is a consolidated proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of separate charges, as follows: In Case 15-CD-131, by H. B. Fowler & Company, Inc., herein called Fowler, on July 25, 1969; in Case 15-CD-133, by Fowler on August 14, 1969; and in Case 15-CD-137, jointly by Fowler and Chauncey Construction Company, Inc., herein called Chauncey, on October 16, 1969. The charges allege jurisdictional strikes by Mill- wrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720, AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Millwrights, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Of- ficer Harry L. Hopkins on January 12, 14, and 15, 1970. International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO, herein called the Iron Workers, and In- ternational Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 582, AFL-CIO, herein called the Boiler- makers, appeared as Parties in Interest . Industrial Contractors Association of Baton Rouge & Vicini- ty, herein called BRICA, of which the Employers are members, appeared as an Intervenor, but ad- duced no evidence at the hearing. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.[ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection 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 EMPLOYERS The parties stipulated as follows: Fowler is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business at Harvey, Louisiana, and is en- gaged in industrial construction; it is presently en- gaged as a contractor on the construction of a chemical plant for Stauffer Chemical Company at St. Gabriel, Louisiana; and in the course and con- duct of its business it annually purchases and receives goods and materials directly from outside the State of Louisiana valued in excess of $50,000. Chauncey is a Delaware corporation with its prin- cipal office and place of business at Dobbs Ferry, New York, and is engaged in the business of indus- trial construction; it is presently engaged as a con- tractor on the construction of the Stauffer Chemi- cal plant at St. Gabriel, Louisiana, and in the course and conduct of its business it annually purchases and receives goods and materials directly from outside the State of Louisiana valued in excess of $50,000. Fowler and Chauncey are engaged in, commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and meet its jurisdictional standards. We find that both Employers herein are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Mill- wrights, the Boilermakers , and the Iron Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTES A. The Work in Dispute In Case 15-CD-131, at Fowler's Stauffer Chemi- cal Company construction jobsite at St. Gabriel, Louisiana, the first dispute exists between the Mill- wrights and the Iron Workers as to the rigging of jackscrews, used for leveling mercury cells, from the point of their arrival in transportainers to the point of their storage in the cell assembly building. A second dispute exists between the Millwrights and the Boilermakers as to the attachment of cell brackets to mercury cell bottoms in the cell as- , In view of our Decision herein , we deem it unnecessary to dispose of the Millwrights continuing objections to the Hearing Officer's rulings per- mitting the intervention of BRICA and the presentation of evidence as to future work disputes , which allegedly extends the scope of the hearing beyond the scope of the order contained in the notice of hearing 184 NLRB No. 65 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sembly building . In Case 15-CD-133, at Fowler's Wyandotte Chemical Company jobsite at Geismar, Louisiana, a dispute exists between the Millwrights and the Iron Workers as to the rigging of pump bases between their point of installation and service areas. In Case 15-CD-137, at Chauncey's Stauffer Chemical Company jobsite at St. Gabriel, a dispute exists between the Millwrights and Chauncey as to the operation of a tilting level and rod for the pur- pose of leveling mercury cells. B. Background and Facts of the Disputes 1. Case 15-CD-131 Shortly prior to June 27, 1969, a dozen transpor- tainers were delivered to the Stauffer jobsite by rail after shipment from Germany and were deposited on open ground, 80 to 100 feet from the chlorine cell assembly building . The transportainers, described as metal shipping containers , measuring 8 by 8 by 25 feet, enclosed smaller wooden boxes of parts for mercury cell construction. On June 27, Chauncey, a wholly owned subsidia- ry of Stauffer and the primary contractor at the Stauffer jobsite, commenced unloading the trans- portainers, one of which contained , inter alia, a wooden box , 1-1/2 by 2 by 4 feet, containing 250 to 400 5 -inch jackscrews, and weighing several hun- dred pounds . According to Ted Anthos , Stauffer's resident engineer, there was an understanding that the Iron Workers would rig the box and move it from the transportainer to the cell assembly build- ing, at which point the Millwrights would unpack, clean, and store the jackscrews . However, as the Iron Workers rigged the box from the transpor- tainer , Millwrights employees moved up a dolly and ordered the Iron Workers employees to place the box on the dolly for removal to the cell assembly building . A dispute ensued , whereupon the Iron Workers agreed to place the box on the ground, pending settlement thereof. Later that day, Anthos met with Loy McCrory, the Millwrights business agent, and worked out an agreement whereby the Iron Workers would rig the box and move it into the cell assembly building and the Millwrights would handle the box and its contents from that point on. McCrory, however, laid claim to all future rigging and moving work regarding the approxi- mately 100 transportainers yet to be handled. Anthos telephoned BRICA to arrange a meeting for June 27 to discuss the transportainer dispute. McCrory did not show up at the BRICA meeting, and on June 30, Millwrights employees who had been assigned to work on an agitator sat down in front of the cell assembly building and refused to perform the work assigned to them . Anthos, at BRICA headquarters, telephoned McCrory, who in- formed him that he wanted Anthos to allow the Millwrights to begin cleaning the jackscrews in the cell assembly building . Anthos replied that he would assign them that work as soon as the clean- ing materials arrived, and he urged McCrory to send the men back to their regular work assign- ments in the meantime . McCrory refused and told Anthos that the latter 's only recourse was to fire them. Anthos replied that he did not want to do so, but agreed that he had no other choice . On July 1 and 2, the Millwrights picketed the Stauffer jobsite, and employees of all contractors at the jobsite refused to cross the picket line. On July 2, Stauffer decided to discontinue further millwright work by Chauncey and to reas- sign the work to Fowler, which already had con- tracts for other millwright work at the jobsite. Anthos telephoned D. O. Spears, the Millwrights International representative , who voiced no objec- tions. On July 3, Anthos met with' McCrory and Spears, who stated that they wanted Stauffer to cancel Fowler's contract, so that Anthos , the Mill- wrights, and the Iron Workers could sit down and work out their rigging problems . McCrory repeated this request on July 7 . Stauffer refused to cancel the Fowler contract and so advised the Millwrights. Between July 2 and 10, King Woolf, Fowler's vice president , made repeated appeals to McCrory for at least 9 or 10 millwrights , but received only 2 men, notwithstanding that for the previous 12 years Fowler had used the Millwrights as its exclusive source of millwright work and had apparently en- joyed amicable relations with the Millwrights dur- ing that period. McCrory replied that he had a problem with the Iron Workers and Chauncey on that job and would not refer men to Fowler until that matter was straightened out. On July 14, the Millwrights referred 10 men to the job , but when Woolf, in reply to McCrory 's question as to whether Fowler would use Iron Workers in con- junction with Millwrights , stated that the job was new and that he, Woolf, did not know what his responsibilities were, McCrory again replied that he had a problem with the Iron Workers. At noon that same day, the millwrights walked off the job. Despite further appeals for Millwrights, none returned until July 18. On July 17, at Spears ' request, BRICA held a meeting of its membership, comprising local indus- trial contractors, at which he announced that he had unilaterally abrogated all previous local area working agreements among BRICA members, the Millwrights , and the Iron Workers , covering rigging MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 work.2 The Iron Workers took the position that those agreements were still in effect, and that, even if they had been unilaterally abrogated, the working rules they enunciated continued to constitute area practice, and that the Iron Workers would expect the BRICA contractors to continue to follow these rules. Between July 18 and 21, several millwrights re- ported to work. On July 21, Fowler instructed three or four millwrights to clean the jackscrews and threads in the cell assembly building and prepare them for installation on the mercury cell brackets. The entire millwright crew, against orders, went into the cell building and not only began cleaning the screws and bracket threads, but also began to install the brackets on the cell bottoms, against su- pervisory orders. Fowler thereupon discharged the Millwrights steward and foreman for failure to comply with instructions. When apprised of this McCrory stated "that's our work. I got 600 mem- bers in my local. I got to buy 600 ax handles to get my work, I will do it." Woolf who had checked the prejob conference list of assignments, told McCrory that the brackets work was Boilermakers work. Mc- Crory told Woolf he would pull his men off the job and did so. The Boilermakers steward indicated that if the Millwrights continued to perform this work he would be forced to stop the job. At a BRICA meeting on July 22, the Millwrights continued to claim the bracket work. That same day, the BRICA members issued a joint letter agreement stating their intention to continue the area practice evidenced by the area agreements until the Millwrights and the Iron Workers worked out their rigging differences. McCrory, upon read- ing the letter told Woolf that the Millwrights would not refer men to any of the contractors who had signed the joint letter. On August 5, Woolf per- sonally delivered to McCrory a letter containing a detailed list of all of Fowler's jurisdictional assign- ments on the Stauffer job and a continuing request that the Millwrights refer men to the Stauffer job. The millwrights crew stayed out until September 17, following the issuance of a temporary injunc- tion secured by the Regional Director for Region 15 in the United States District Court for the East- ern District of Louisiana. 2. Case 15-CD-133 In addition to its work at the Stauffer jobsite, Fowler was also performing work at the Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation plant at Geismar, Louisiana, 5 miles distant, where it employed members of 615 Millwrights, Iron Workers, and several other crafts. The work in dispute at Wyandotte concerned the removal of a pump base from its foundation to a shop for modifications and its return to the base. The pump base was basically a piece of sheet steel held on top of the concrete foundation by anchor bolts. Before the modification, to permit conversion of the pump from electric to stem operation, the pump base weighed 150 pounds; following modifi- cation, it weighed 250 pounds. On July 30, apparently without Fowler's knowledge, the Millwrights removed the pump base to the shop where it was modified. On July 31, several employees lifted the base by hand and placed it on the back of a truck for return to the base. Nelson Owens, Fowler's superintendent, gave the Iron Workers permission to power rig the pump base back on the foundation. A Mr. Almond, the Millwrights steward, objected. Thereupon, Owens had a Teamsters member back up the truck to the foundation in such a manner as to cause the pump base to slide onto the foundation. Woolf advised Owens that in accord with past area practice, as prescribed in the BRICA letter of July 22, the disputed work belonged to the Iron Workers. When Almond informed Woolf that he had a letter prov- ing that it was Millwrights work, Owens had the men do other work, pending receipt of the letter the following day. Almond, however, failed to produce the letter the following day, whereupon Owens informed him that he would make the as- signment to the Iron Workers. The millwright em- ployees thereupon walked off the job. Later that day, Owens first learned that the millwrights had removed the base plate to the shop for modification without his permission. He informed McCrory that he still considered the pump base rigging to be Iron Workers work, whereupon McCrory replied that "if King Woolf and I were going to continue to be hard headed about this thing, and wanted trouble, that he was going to give us trouble." No millwrights appeared for work on August 4 or 5. When Owens called McCrory for Millwrights help and advised him that the pump base rigging was Iron Workers work, McCrory replied: "Well, as long as you maintain that attitude, we are not going to build anything or tear anything down in this area." He then advised Owens, through the use of an obscenity, as to how the BRICA contractors could dispose of their joint letter agreement of July 22. On August 6, McCrory told Ray Burgins, Fowler's vice president, that he was not going to send his men out on the Fowler job until the July r These agreements include the Smith -Laing Agreement, of 1963, discussed infra, and its predecessor, the Poole-Laing Agreement , of 1958, covering the Baton Rouge area 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 22 letter was repudiated . Burgins called Bill West, business agent of the Iron Workers , about the dispute, and West advised that he continued to claim the rigging work . Burgins called McCrory about West's position , and McCrory replied that Burgins might just as well turn the contract back to Wyandotte, that he was not going to man the job, and that "until the letter was repudiated there was just nothing going to be going around here." The millwrights never returned , and Wyandotte can- celed Fowler's contract for this particular work. 3. Case 15-CD-137 The tilting level work here in dispute is per- formed in connection with the construction, at Chauncey 's Stauffer jobsite at St. Gabriel , of mer- cury chlorine cells, which are basically shallow vats about 7 feet wide , 45 feet long, and 10 inches deep. The bottom of the cell is a machined metal plate 2 inches thick and weighing about 8 tons . For the cell to work properly, the cell bottom must be "leveled " by setting it at a slight and very precise slope to a tolerance in the neighborhood of 4/1000 of an inch . Each of the 52 cells rests on 18 jackscrews, the turning of which adjusts the slope of the cell bottom. Two currently unrepresented field engineers employed by Chauncey, one of whom operates an optical instrument known as a tilting level, more fully described below, and the other, a sighting rod, and working in rotation, determine the precise slope of the cell bottom and convey leveling instructions by hand signals to mill- wrights, who adjust the slope of the cell bottom by turning the jackscrews with hand wrenches. The work of leveling the cell bottoms began Sep- tember 22, 1969, and continued daily without inter- ruption until October 4, 1969 . During this period the Millwrights laid no claim to the tilting level work. In July 1969, at a BRICA meeting, McCrory told Anthos he claimed the tilting level work. Anthos, who had been in the Baton Rouge area only 6 months, made no decision in that regard, but replied that if this was Millwrights work in the area, then he would have to have an engineer assigned to stand by and check all of the Millwrights work because of the critical nature of the leveling work. On October 9, McCrory and James Olah, the Millwrights steward on the Stauffer job, went to Anthos' office and asked that Stauffer drop a civil lawsuit filed against the Millwrights. McCrory told Anthos that the job was not finished yet, and that pursuant to court order he "had to send people to the job," and that "nobody could guarantee" that the people would stay on the job. He further said that he had 200 people on the bench and that if his men left the job he would have to refer additional men under the court order . He further told Anthos that "nobody could force people to stay on the job and they will leave your job," that Anthos would "be a very unhappy man," and that there would be further trouble . Shortly thereafter, Olah told Anthos that the Millwrights was claiming the tilting level work . Anthos replied that he would have to contact BRICA to check the area practice in that regard. On October 10, Robert Field , Chauncey's labor relations manager, told Olah that Chauncey was going to continue its assignment of the tilting level to the field engineers , and that this was in accord with area practice . On October 13, McCrory com- plained to Anthos that he, Anthos , was not giving McCrory the tilting level work and he told Anthos to "remember I have a very good memory" and that Anthos was forcing him to "change my people into rats." He asked Anthos to check on area prac- tice regarding tilting level work. Shortly before October 14, McCrory called together all Millwrights on the Chauncey job to the union hall, told them he was claiming the tilting level work because he had been instructed by his general office that this was Millwrights work, and remarked that "any local union should fight for their jurisdiction ." He further said, that, in view of the Federal court order , the matter was out of his hands, that if the Union walked off as a union it would be in contempt of court , and that if the men quit the job, the Union would, in accord with the restraining order, have to replace them . He added, however, that whether or not they wished to work was their own individual decision , that he could not force them to stay on the job , that if they left the job, he would have to replace them, and that "they did not have to work on anyone's job , yes, sir." On October 14, 8 of the 23 millwrights on the job quit. Five of them , who worked outside the cell as- sembly building, quit first thing in the morning.- Olah advised Owens of this fact about 8 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Olah told Owens that three addi- tional men had quit . Owens reported the situation to Woolf and then interviewed Louis Duffy, the Millwrights general foreman in charge of the cell assembly building, who told him that each time one of the men was assigned to work with the engineers operating the tilting level he would quit. Duffy forthwith stopped assigning Millwrights to work with the engineers in order not to run out of Mill- wrights. That same day, Fowler applied for more Millwrights to operate the jackscrews, but two more Millwrights quit the next day, and no addi- tional Millwrights appeared. On October 16, eight Millwrights reported for work at the cell assembly building , including the six employees who had quit on October 14. Fowler as- MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 signed the two new men to work with the engineer on the jackscrews, but they quit. Later that day, McCrory agreed with Owens to send two additional men. On November 25, following Fowler's filing of the Charge in Case 15-CD-137 and the Regional Director's filing of a 10(1) petition which resulted in a show cause court order setting a hearing for December 2, Anthos and McCrory worked out a temporary resolution of the tilting level dispute, pending resolution thereof in the instant proceed- ing. The agreement provided that the engineering department would continue to operate the tilting level, that the Millwrights would work on the jackscrews, and that one of the engineers would secure a temporary permit from the Millwrights. On November 26, a dispute arose over the han- dling of the tilting level rod, which McCrory claimed. A similar temporary arrangement in that regard was made, so that the tilting level work could proceed. C. Contentions of the Parties The Millwrights moves to dismiss the instant proceeding on the ground that there are no jurisdic- tional disputes cognizable under Section 10(k) of the Act, and that in any event there was available a voluntary private method of settling the disputes, if they existed, through reactivation of the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.3 Should the Board find the existence of disputes herein, the Millwrights contends that it should be awarded all of the disputed work here in issue. The Iron Workers, the Boilermakers, and the Em- ployers agree that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that the Millwrights, in seeking to establish its claim to the work here in dispute, engaged in con- duct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The Iron Workers contends that it should be awarded all of the rigging work here in dispute, and the Boilermakers contends that it should be awarded the mercury cell bracket attachment work. The Employers take no position as to awards of the rigging or bracket attachment work, but contend that the tilting level work should be awarded to Chauncey's unrepresented field engineers who cur- rently perform that work. BRICA generally requests Board settlement of rigging disputes between the Iron Workers and the Millwrights. D. Applicability of the Statue Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the dispute herein pursuant to Section 10(k) J In view of our findings herein below set forth , we deny the Millwrights motions to dismiss the instant proceeding, based on these contentions. 617 of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasona- ble cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Cogent evidence clearly shows, in our opinion, that in all three cases involved in this proceeding the Millwrights engaged in work stop- pages at Fowler's and Chauncey's jobsites in order to require the assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Millwrights, thus clearly establishing a prima facie case supporting the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D). Accordingly, we find that there is a reasonable cause to believe that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act have occurred in all of the cases involved in this proceeding, and that the in- stant disputes are therefore properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board makes an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant fac- tors. In International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction Co.),4 the Board set forth the following criteria to be con- sidered in the making of an affirmative award in a 10(k) proceeding: The Board will consider all relevant factors in determining who is entitled to the work in dispute, e.g., the skills and work involved, cer- tification by the Board, company and industry practice, agreements between unions and between employers and unions, awards of ar- bitrators, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the same or related cases, the assignment made by the employer, and the efficient operation of the employer's business.5 1. Work and skills involved In Cases 15-CD-131 and 15-CD-133, both the Millwrights and the Iron Workers concede that em- ployees represented by both Unions perform sub- stantial amounts of rigging work such as is called for by the work in dispute in these cases. The question of relative skills therefore appears not to be a substantial issue in this proceeding. However, each Union contends that the assignment of the disputed rigging work to the employees it represents would produce greater safety in the per- formance of the work. Thus, for example, the Mill- wrights contends that, were the rigging of unassem- bled machinery parts onto the point of installation awarded to employees represented by the Iron ' 135 NLRB 1402 1 Id at 1410-11 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Workers, employees represented by the Mill- wrights, who alone are responsible for machinery assembly, might be subject to danger attendant upon receipt of possibly confusing or erroneous rigging signals from Iron Workers employees un- familiar with the problems of machinery assembly, For its part, the Iron Workers emphasizes its long and exclusive experience in major rigging work, as evidence by area practice , as well as its ability to handle all types of rigging problems. Each Union stresses its apprenticeship program providing for lengthy training in rigging operations . As to the disputed bracket attachment work the facts of rela- tive skills or safety appear to be of minor im- portance. In Case 15-CD-137, the disputed work involves the precise leveling, on a slant , to a tolerance of 4/1000 of an inch, of mercury cell bottoms by means of a tilting level costing approximately $1,100, as compared with an ordinary level costing in the neighborhood of $150. The sighting rod is likewise a precision instrument costing about $500 and comes equipped with a vernier scale for mak- ing precise readings . The field engineers who operate the tilting level and rod have had con- siderable experience in their work . The more ex- perienced of these men was hired especially for leveling mercury cell bottoms , has done this work for other firms over a period of 3 years, has designed a special rod for use in mercury cell work, and performs=a'considerable amount of the mathe- matical calculations required for the cell leveling process . Considerable care must be taken with the tilting level to counteract temperature changes, to precisely level the instrument , and to stabilize it. The work involves geometry and trigonometry and requires a preparation which includes a course of several weeks' duration in the study of tilting level operation , together with a considerable amount of on-the-job training. 2. Efficiency of operations Insofar as the disputed rigging and bracket at- tachment work in Cases 15-CD-131 and 15-CD-133 are concerned, efficiency of operations appears to be of relatively minor importance, ex- cept insofar as it may be indirectly affected by the factor of area practice, discussed below, to which the parties attach great weight. As to the disputed tilting level work in Case 15-CD-137, McCrory conceded the use of optical instruments -is neither an historical or a traditional function of the Mill- wrights, and that tilting level work was unknown to him prior to 1967, notwithstanding that it has been in existence since World War II. In 1968, he or- ganized a school for optical instrumentation train- ing, at which no mathematics was taught. Of 350 Millwrights members actively engaged in construc- tion work, 32 enrolled in the training school, and 8 completed it. McCrory conceded that currently only three Millwrights members are qualified to operate optical equipment. Of these, only one works out of the union hall . None of them has ever performed tilting level work for leveling mercury chlorine cells or performed leveling on a slope. One has had no tilting level experience whatever, and the experience of the other two appears to have been limited to considerably less demanding work on leveling small sole plates for paper machinery. Furthermore when, as noted above, Anthos and McCrory sought to work out a temporary solution of the tilting level dispute , pending resolution of the instant proceeding , McCrory conceded that he had no employee available at the union hall who was qualified to operate a tilting level. The Millwrights contends that the tilting level operation is merely an extension of its traditional leveling and aligning functions , formerly performed with the hand level and piano wire . However, tilting level operations have been devoted entirely to leveling of machinery, principally in papermills, a less critical operation. In these circumstances , it would appear that inef- ficiencies could arise, were the tilting level work awarded to employees represented by the Mill- wrights, inasmuch as the work is neither traditional nor historical Millwrights work; Millwrights em- ployees are inexperienced in highly critical mercury cell leveling work , and, by the Millwrights own ad- mission, they lack readily available qualified per- sonnel for the work. An award to employees represented by the Millwrights could therefore result in added costs, inconvenience, and work slowdowns arising from the lack of trained person- nel for the job and the need for training them. 3. Company and industry practice Over the past several years in the Baton Rouge area, jurisdictional understandings between the Millwrights and the Iron Workers have developed into an area practice governing jurisdictional as- signments of various types of rigging work between these two Unions . In attempts to reduce jurisdic- tional disputes which continued despite such un- derstandings, BRICA, the Millwrights , and the Iron Workers have in the past sought to codify the area practice into binding agreements , as exemplified by the Smith-Poole Agreement of 1958 and its succes- sor, the Smith-Laing Agreement of 1960, the per- tinent sections of which read as follows: 1. The unloading and moving to point of in- stallation on softeners or to point adjacent MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 619 thereto, shall be the work of the Iron Workers. The point adjacent thereto shall be defined as the point selected by the employer from which he can most conveniently execute his work in the most economical manner. The unloading and moving to point of installation or to point adjacent thereto of component parts shall be the work of the Iron Workers. All handling described above shall be considered a continu- ous rigging operation regardless of method or equipment applied, or intermediate steps, for any reason necessary for the economic prosecution of the work. 2. In the event foundations are not ready when the machinery is moved to a point adjacent thereto, and the method necessary to move equipment and machinery is considered a "rigging operation " as it is known in the indus- try, it shall be performed by the Iron Workers. Lifts of a minor nature in this operation shall be performed by Millwrights regardless of the method of equipment used. 3. Handling and assembling of component parts of machinery which have been brought to the point of installation , or immediately ad- jacent thereto shall be performed by Mill- wrights, regardless of the method of equipment used. The exception to this Section shall be when job conditions require, or when com- ponent parts are in themselves of such a size or conformity to be considered by the employer as a major lift, thereby becoming a major rigging operation , in which event the work shall be performed by the Iron Workers. All leveling and aligning shall be performed by Millwrights. The Agreements have not appreciably lessened jurisdictional rigging disputes in the Baton Rouge area between the Millwrights and the Iron Workers, partially in view of the Millwrights expressed desire in the future to seek a larger share of rigging work, which it claims has heretofore been predominately within the jurisdiction of the Iron Workers, as evidence by current area practice. As matters now stand, the Employers herein and the other members of BRICA, together with the Iron Workers, take the position that Smith-Laing is currently binding on the parties herein, or if it is not, as the Millwrights contends, its principles, comprising area practice of 5 years' duration, remain in effect. The Millwrights takes the position that it unilaterally abrogated Smith-Laing in 1968, although it does continue to adhere to some, but not all, of the rules therein set forth. With reference to the jackscrews rigging dispute herein, the Millwrights concedes that under tradi- tional area practice enunciated in Smith-Laing, the Iron Workers is entitled to move machinery and components to a storage area or to a so-called point adjacent to its place of installation. It also concedes that traditionally, and currently, the Iron Workers is entitled to the rigging of machinery and com- ponents to the point of installation, even though the process be interrupted by storage. As a point of de- parture from traditional and current area practice as enunciated by Smith-Laing, the Millwrights con- tends that it should be awarded the rigging of machinery and components to or from storage, whenever it is required to do any work thereon in the storage area preparatory to installation, such as cleaning, deburring, turning, or assembly work. The other parties herein contend, apparently correctly, that this new rigging claim of the Millwrights does not accord with area practice. As to the Wyandotte pump base dispute, the Millwrights merely contends that inasmuch as the pump base removal could be accomplished by only two men by hand, it would be more efficient for Millwrights to perform, inasmuch as the Iron Work- ers primarily engages in power rigging. The Iron Workers contends that it is clearly entitled to such work, inasmuch as its pump base removal work is simply the reverse of its function of rigging the same to the point of installation in accord with area practice. With regard to the brackets attachment dispute, the work of attaching of structural extensions such as the brackets herein to structural members such as the mercury cell bottoms appears to be tradi- tional Boilermakers work . In contrast, the attaching of nonstructural items such as shipping hardware to structural members, which is not in dispute , is con- cededly Millwrights work. With respect to the tilting level dispute, there is, as noted above, an area practice of at least 3 years' duration whereby unrepresented field engineers have exclusively performed tilting level operations for leveling mercury cell bottoms in the Baton Rouge area. 4. Agreements between the Companies and the Unions There are no contracts or agreements outstand- ing between the Employers and the Unions herein which define or determine the jurisdiction over any of the work here in dispute other than the Smith- Laing Agreement discussed above. 5. National Joint Board awards There are no outstanding National Joint Board awards covering the work here in dispute, nor does it appear that any applications are pending before 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Board covering this work . Furthermore, there appears to be no contractural agreement by any of the parties hereto to submit any of the disputes herein to the National Joint Board.6 Conclusions Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all relevant factors involved , we shall make the following awards of the work here in dispute, relying as we do, on the fact that the awards are in accord with the Employer 's assign- ments, with its past practice, and with area prac- tice, and the further facts that the employees to whom the awards are made possess the requisite skills satisfactorily to perform the disputed work and that the awards will tend to preserve or promote the efficiency of the Employers ' opera- tions: In Case 15-CD-131, at Fowler's Stauffer jobsite at St. Gabriel , Louisiana, we shall award , to the em- ployees represented by Iron Workers , but not to this Union or its members, the work of unloading jackscrews from transportainers and rigging the same to the cell assembly building, and we shall award the work of attaching cell brackets to mercu- ry cell bottoms at the cell assembly building to the employees represented by Boilermakers, but not to that Union or its members. In Case 15-CD-133, we shall award to the employees represented by Iron Workers, but not to that Union or its members, at Fowler's Wyandotte Chemicals Company jobsite at Geismar, Louisiana, the work of rigging pump bases to and from service shops. In Case 15-CD-137, at Chauncey's Stauffer jobsite at St. Gabriel, Loui- siana, we shall award to Chauncey 's field engineers, currently unrepresented by any labor organization, the operation of the tilting level and rod for the purpose of leveling mercury cells. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES 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 Disputes: 1. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc., who are currently represented by International As- sociation of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per- form the work of rigging boxes of unloading jackscrews from transportainers and rigging the same to the cell assembly building at Fowler's Stauffer Chemical Company construction jobsite at St. Gabriel, Louisiana. 2. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc., who are currently represented by International As- sociation of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per- form the work of moving and rigging pump bases and associated equipment at Fowler 's Wyandotte Chemical Company jobsite at Geismar , Louisiana. 3. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc., who are currently represented by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers , Local 582, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of at- taching cell brackets to mercury cell bottoms at Fowler's Stauffer Chemical Company construction jobsite at St. Gabriel , Louisiana. 4. Employees of Chauncey Construction Com- pany, Inc., known as field engineers and currently represented by no labor organization are entitled to perform the work of operating tilting levels and as- sociated rods or staffs for the purpose of leveling mercury cells at Chauncey 's Stauffer Chemical Company construction site at St . Gabriel, Loui- siana. 5. Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720, AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require H. B. Fowler & Company, Inc., or Chauncey Construc- tion Company, Inc., to assign any of the above- described work to individuals represented by Local Union No. 720. 6. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes , Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720, AFL-CIO , a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employers herein, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D of the Act, to as- sign the work in dispute to individuals represented by Local Union No. 720, rather than to the labor organizations and employees set forth in para- graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, supra. ' in these circumstances, we find without merit the Millwrights objection to the instant hearing based on its claim that a voluntary settlement of the dispute herein should be handled by the National Joint Board.