Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 481

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 481 Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 481, AFL-CIO and Lear-Siegler, Inc. - Holly'Division and International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 766, AFL-CIO, Party to Contract. Case 36-CD-48 January 8, 1969 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on September 3, 1968, by Lear-Siegler, Inc. - Holly Division , hereinafter called Lear-Siegler or Employer, alleging that Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 481, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Plumbers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held pursuant to notice at Eugene , Oregon, on October 10, 1968, before Hearing Officer Dale B. Cubbison. The Employer and International Chemical Workers Union, Local No . 766, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Chemical Workers, 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 Employer filed a brief in support of its position . 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, as amended, the National 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 EMPLOYER The record discloses that the Employer is an Oregon corporation wholly owned by Lear-Siegler, Inc., a California corporation. It is engaged in the sale, servicing, installation, replacement and repair of heating and air-conditioning equipment. The Employer purchased, during the year preceding the hearing, in excess of $100,000 worth of goods and materials which originated outside the State of Oregon and were delivered to Lear-Siegler from points directly outside the State of Oregon, or directly from persons who in turn received said goods and materials directly from points outside the State of Oregon. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 27 The record shows, and we find, that the Plumbers and the Chemical Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work at Issue This proceeding arises out of a dispute over whether work involving the installation of heating and air-conditioning equipment, including the fitting of pipe and prefabricated ducts and vents attendant thereto, should be assigned to members of the Plumbers or retained by employees represented by the Chemical Workers. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute Lear-Siegler employs approximately 14 employees at its Portland, Astoria, and Eugene, Oregon, locations. Its employees, who are currently represented by the Chemical Workers, are designated as working foremen and senior and junior gas-burning equipment installers. Forty percent of the Employer's business is derived from the sale, service, and installation of central heating and air-conditioning equipment. The remaining business is derived from contract installation of Northwest Natural Gas Company's equipment and from miscellaneous installation, repair and rebuilding services. The work in dispute is the former type which requires the fitting of pipe and prefabricated ducts and vents attendant thereto. This work is ordinarily assigned to and performed by one employee except that an additional employee may help set the equipment in place. The single employee assigned to the job cuts and fits sheet metal duct work and vents and also cuts, threads, fits, and pressure-tests the gas pipes, in each case using the appropriate tools. The manufacture of the sheet metal vents and ducts as well as electrical work is subcontracted. The Employer contracted with general contractor Wayne L. Johnson for the installation of certain heating systems and gas piping for water heaters in a 16-unit apartment house project currently under construction. It was this job that gave rise to the instant work dispute. The record establishes that the Plumbers began picketing the apartment project the morning of August 28, 1968, when the Employer arrived on the job. The picketing stopped the entire operation. Thereafter, the Employer left the construction site, and work began again. However, on September 9, when the Employer reappeared, picketing again resumed. James Hulse, a supervisor of the Employer, testified that on August 28, when the picketing started, he asked the Plumbers' agent, Carmichael, what the problem was. Carmichael 174 NLRB No. 4 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD replied that the picket sign told the story. The message on the sign was to the effect that the working conditions of the Employer were not as good as those enjoyed by members of the Plumbers. According to Hulse, Carmichael further stated that the type of work performed by the Employer should be done by plumbers and that the Employer's people were not getting enough money. Hulse testified that he called to the attention of Carmichael the Board's ruling in a similar jurisdictional dispute' involving the Plumbers and the Employer and the identical work herein and that Carmichael replied that "there was a new ruling in effect." Wayne L. Johnson, the general contractor on the apartment project, stated that in a phone conversation with Carmichael on or about August 28, Carmichael said that Lear-Siegler had no business in Eugene, Oregon, and that the work being performed by the Employer should be performed by union contractors having contracts with the Plumbers. At a meeting held on September 3 between the Employer and the Plumbers, Carmichael stated that the Chemical Workers was "trying to horn in on Plumbers work" in Eugene and that the Chemical Workers had no right to the work. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends in its brief that its employees should retain the work because of economy and efficiency derived from flexibility in scheduling the work. It further claims that its employees possess superior skills and can perform the work in a safer manner. In addition, the Employer relies on its past practice, industry practice, and the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Chemical Workers. The Plumbers did not appear at the hearing although duly served with notice and did not file a brief. The Chemical Workers was represented by counsel at the hearing but did not file a brief. D. Applicability of the statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. The fact that the Plumbers' signs indicate a "working standards" protest is not conclusive as to the lawfulness of its objective. It is apparent from the Plumbers' entire course of conduct that its real objective was to force a reassignment of the disputed work. Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. 'Siegler Service Company, 169 NLRB No 118 E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various relevant factors. As the Board has stated, its determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common sense and experience in the weighing of these factors. The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us. 1. Collective-bargaining agreement: Lear-Siegler, Inc. - Holly Division has had a bargaining agreement with the Chemical Workers for approximately 2 years. The Plumbers has had no contract with the Employer. Pursuant to its agreement with the Chemical Workers, the Employer has assigned employees represented by the Chemical Workers to perform all installation work. 2. Efficiency, economy and flexibility of operations: As discussed above, except for the assistance in its placement, the installation of a unit requires the attention of only one employee. If plumbers were assigned the work, the job would involve a number of different craftsmen, each performing a minor specialized operation and returning at different times to the same job. The result would be a fragmented operation with increased costs, more complicated scheduling of workers, and more time required to complete the job. 3. Skill of the employees: The employees of Lear-Siegler regularly attend a school of instruction conducted by Northwest Natural Gas Company and receive specialized on-the-job training. In addition, all of the employees in the Eugene office of the Employer, with the exception of a man hired 2 weeks before the hearing, possess gas fitters' licenses from the City of Eugene, which they obtained after successful completion of a written examination. Furthermore, the Employer is apparently satisfied with the skills and safety performance of its employees. 4. Company and industry practice: The Employer has in the past assigned all installation work in the States of Washington and Oregon to employees represented by the Chemical Workers. There is no clearly defined area practice. Locals of the Chemical Workers have contracts with six gas heating equipment installation companies and two gas distribution companies in the Pacific Northwest. In the Eugene area, the Chemical Workers has a contract with Lear-Siegler. However, most of the companies in the area have not been organized by any union. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors involved, we believe that the employees of Lear-Siegler who are PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 481 currently represented by the Chemical Workers, rather than plumbers represented by Respondent Plumbers, are entitled to the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying upon the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its own employees, the fact that the assignment is consistent with the Employer's past practice and the current bargaining contract, the fact that the employees represented by the Chemical Workers possess the requisite skills to perform the work, and that such an assignment will result in efficiency and economy of operations. We shall determine the dispute before us by awarding all installation of heating and air-conditioning equipment, including the fitting of pipe and prefabricated ducts and vents attendant thereto, to those employees represented by the Chemical Workers, but not to that Union or its members. In consequence, we shall also determine that the Plumbers was not, and is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to its members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this 29 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following determination of the dispute: 1. Employees of Lear-Siegler, Inc. - Holly Division, who are currently represented by International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 766, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of installing heating and air-conditioning equipment, including the fitting of pipe and prefabricated ducts and vents attendant thereto, on the apartment project currently being performed at 1240 W. 7th St., in Eugene, Oregon. 2. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 481, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Lear-Siegler, Inc. - Holly Division to assign such installation work to plumbers represented by Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 481, AFL-CIO. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 481, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to plumbers represented by the Plumbers, rather than to employees represented by the Chemical Workers.