Local 445, Teamsters

LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 149 Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca and Blount Brothers Corporation and Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO and Road Local 669, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca and Blount Brothers Corporation and Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO and Local 201, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Local 1000, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Blount Brothers Corporation and International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 203,AFL-CIO and Local38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO and Local 201, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Cases 3-CD-30l-I,-2,-3,-4; 3-CD-303 and 3-CD-343-1,- 2 September 16, 1971 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , following charges filed by Blount Brothers Corporation , herein called Blount, alleging that Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men and Helpers of America , hereinafter called Teamsters, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held pursuant to notice at Kingston, New York , on October 22, November 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, and 20, and December 14, 1970, and January 20, 21, and 22 and February 10, 1971, before Hearing Officer Bertram T. Kupsinel. Blount , Teamsters, Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called Sheet Metal Workers; Road Local 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Plumbers Local 699 ; Local 201 , United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Plumb- ers Local 201 ; and Local 1000, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers, 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 . Blount, Teamsters, Sheet Metal Work- ers, Plumbers Local 669 and Local 201 have filed briefs, and Laborers filed a letter in lieu of a brief. 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 these cases to a three- member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE EMPLOYER Blount, a Delaware Corporation with its principal offices located in Montgomery, Alabama, is engaged in the construction industry as a general contractor. Blount, pursuant to contracts valued in excess of $18 million with International Business Machines Corpo- ration, herein called IBM, is engaged in construction of a building in East Fishkill, New York, herein called Building 330-C, and a building in Poughkeepsie, New York, herein called Building 707.1 We find that in the performance of these contracts Blount received, or caused to be received, materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York. The parties agree, and we find, that Blount is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters, Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers Local 669, Plumbers Local 201, Laborers, and International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 203, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I Both jobsites are located in Dutchess County, New York 193 NLRB No. 25 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute Blount and IBM entered into a contract dated August 7, 1969, whereby Blount was to be the general contractor for the construction of Building 707. Under this contract, Blount was to furnish all of the labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services required to perform all of the construction work on the building. In performance of its contractual obligations to IBM, Blount entered into 28 subcontracts with other employers who were to perform work on certain portions of the project. Some, but not all, of these subcontracts specifically involved the disputed work, infra. Thus, The Sheris Company, whose subcontract is representative, was to perform work on the installation of kitchen equipment for Building 707. The contract price for this subcontract included, inter alia: All labor, material and equipment required to receive, unload and install all kitchen equipment. [Emphasis supplied.] All of these subcontracts, however, provided that the subcontractor is to supply the "labor, material, equipment . . . necessary to complete the work." On February 3, 1969, Blount entered into a contract with IBM concerning Building 330-C. Included in Blount's obligations under this contract is what is commonly known as fit-up work as well as the actual construction work on the building. Fit-up means receiving and installing into completed parts of the structure equipment furnished by IBM so that the various portions of the building can be occupied by IBM employees. In addition, certain parts of the structure were to be "accepted" by IBM even before the entire building was completed. IBM assigned to Blount several separate contracts it (IBM) had earlier entered into with suppliers for equipment to be installed in the building. Thus, Blount assumed responsibility for the off loading, storage, safeguarding, installation, check-out, and start up of the Equipment and for the faithful performance of the Suppliers' obligations for the Equipment and services furnished under such Separate Contracts. [Emphasis supplied.] Blount entered into 17 subcontracts with other employers who were to perform work on the Building 330-C project. Some of these subcontracts covered work to be performed in the construction of the building. Others covered work to be performed under the fit-up portion of Blount's contract with IBM. As was the case with subcontracts for Building 707, not all subcontracts for Bu-ldmg 330-C specifically involved the disputed work. Of those subcontracts mentioning this work, representative are the two subcontracts of the Frank A. McBride Company. These subcontracts stated that McBride was to: Schedule delivery, coordinate, receive, unload . . . the prepurchased mechanical equipment in ac- cordance with the requirements of the specifica- tions. [Emphasis supplied.] All of these subcontracts provided that the subcon- tractor was to supply the labor, material, equipment, etc., necessary to complete the work. Blount is a party to a collective-bargaining agree- ment with Teamsters. This agreement states in pertinent part: General Conditions . . . 30. The Employer agrees to respect the jurisdic- tional rules of the Union and shall not direct or require their [sic] employees or persons other than the employees in the bargaining unit here in- volved, to perform work which is recognized as work of the employees in the Teamsters jurisdic- tion. All work heretofore recognized as being within the jurisdiction of the Union shall continue to be the jurisdiction of the Union notwithstand- ing any inconsistent provisions contained in other Agreements executed by the Employer or Employ- er Association(s). Neither this collective-bargaining agreement nor any other document introduced at the hearing specifies what work the Teamsters claim to be within its jurisdiction. In addition to Leo Clark, Teamsters coordinator for Building 707, and Michael Tierney, Teamsters coordi- nator for Building 303-C, Blount employed other nonsupervisory employees on the IBM projects. Thus, Blount is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Carpenters (the Local) and to a national agreement with the United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, herein called Plumbers. The collective-bargaining agreement between Blount and Carpenters states in pertinent part: Article XV The Trade Autonomy of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America consists of the handling, fashioning .. . also the handling of materials delivered to the job and the loading and unloading of finished materials. [Emphasis supplied.] The national collective-bargaining agreement be- tween Blount and Plumbers states in pertinent part: Article II Trade or Work Jurisdiction This agreement covers the rates of pay, hours and working conditions of all journeymen and appren- tices engaged in the installation of all plumbing LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 151 .. . including . . . unloading, distributing, reload- ing, tying-on, and hoisting of all piping materials. ... [Emphasis supplied. ] Many of Blount's subcontractors were also parties to collective-bargaining agreements with the various labor organizations involved herein. Thus, the agree- ments between Plumbers Local 669 and Mid-Hudson Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., and Automatic Sprink- ler Corporation of America provided: Article X Materials and Equipment and Fabrication The Union shall accept all materials and equip- ment as delivered by or for the Employer and the unloading, handling and installing of such material and equipment shall be performed by employees covered by this collective-bargaining agreement. Article XV Jurisdiction of Work The work of the sprinkler fitter and/or apprentice shall consist of the installation of all fire protection and fire control systems including the unloading, handling by hand.. . . [Emphasis supplied.] The agreements between Plumbers Local 201, Sheet Metal Workers, and Blount's subcontractors did not specifically cover the work found herein to be in dispute. There are four ways in which construction and other materials arrived at the IBM jobsites: (1) By trucks owned by individual subcontractors and driven by their employees; (2) by trucks owned by general commodity trucking companies, referred to herein as common carriers; (3) by moving vans owned by moving companies delivering IBM-owned material to Building 330-C to be installed in portions of the building still under Blount's supervision under the fit- up portion of its contract with IBM; and (4) by moving vans owned by moving companies delivering IBM-owned material to Building 330-C to be in- stalled in portions of the building "accepted," or occupied, by IBM and thus under IBM's, and not Blount's, supervision. The first delivery of material to Building 330-C by moving van under the fit-up portion of Blount's contract with IBM for that building was made by Neptune World Wide Moving Company on March 11, 1970. Included in the material delivered was IBM- owned temporary cafeteria equipment. Blount had previously arranged with Frank A. McBride Compa- ny, the subcontractor who had the responsibility of installing this equipment, to have its employees move such equipment from the loading dock of the building to the place of installation. Employees of Neptune, who are members of Teamsters, were to move into the building the remaining equipment that did not require any installation work. A dispute arose between plumbers and sheet metal workers employed by McBride and teamsters em- ployed by Neptune when the teamsters attempted to move all the cafeteria equipment into the building. The details of this dispute are not clear from the record. As a result of the dispute, however, this cafeteria equipment was left on the loading dock until some agreement could be reached resolving the dispute. A few days following this incident, Fred Neu, project manager for Blount, met with representatives of IBM for the purpose of discussing which employees were to move from the Building 330-C loading dock into unaccepted areas of the building the IBM-owned equipment delivered in moving vans. As a result of this meeting, IBM sent to Blount a letter dated March 17, 1970, which stated the following: 1. All equipment will be moved to the IBM 330-C loading dock and off-loaded by IBM employed union movers.2 2. Equipment which requires electrical or me- chanical installation will be claimed at the dock by those trades who will be involved in the installa- tion and will be moved from the dock to the approximate location within the building. 5. Furniture and other equipment which does not involve electrical or mechanical hook-up, will be moved into the proper location by the IBM employed union movers. 6. There will be some equipment requiring electrical and mechanical installation which is delicate in nature and should therefore be moved into position and set by the professional movers. 7. All IBM data processing equipment will be moved into position by the IBM employed union movers and will be hooked up by IBM Customer Engineers. The above procedure was successful and fol- lowed during the occupancy of the 320 Buildings and is in accordance with a precedence which has been established on this site. On March 31, 1970, Frank J. O'Neil, labor relations manager for Blount, held a meeting attended by representatives of the various labor organizations involved in these cases. During this meeting, O'Neil explained the procedure (outlined in the IBM letter of March 17 above) that would be followed regarding the delivery of material to Building 330-C by moving vans. Representatives of Teamsters protested by 2 This refers to Teamsters members employed by Neptune and other moving companies 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stating that different procedures had been followed in the earlier construction and fit-up on IBM Building 320 and that teamsters employed by moving compa- nies had moved in all material that they delivered to that building. O'Neil promised to investigate the facts surrounding the Teamsters statement. On April 1, 1970, Blount sent to Teamsters and to all of the other labor organizations involved herein a letter which stated as follows: After the meeting of March 31, 1970 at our Field Office, at the IBM Facility, Fishkill, New York we, as promised, made an investigation and examined the records dealing with the moving of equipment into Building # 320 at the same site . Regular IBM Movers (Roe, Kennedy, Arnoff, etc.) moved furniture and equipment, from existing location to truck, hauled to Building #320 and off loaded on the dock. The following techniques were used from that point: 1. Furniture: Desks, chairs, book cases, files and anything that could be plugged in (lamps, electric typewriters, etc.) were moved from the dock to location by the regular IBM movers. 2. Hoods, sinks, consoles, Manufacturing Equip- ment, etc., as follows: If the Equipment had Integral Hoods: Sheet Metal workers did the moving from the dock to the point of Installation. If the Equipment required Electrical: Electri- cal workers did the moving from the dock to point of Installation. If the Equipment involved Plumbing: Plumbers/Pipe Fitters did the moving from the dock to point of Installation. If the equipment involved any combination of the above: The Sheet Metal Workers, Electricians, Plumbers/Pipe Fitters as a composite crew did the moving from the dock to point of Installation. 3. Computers and computer type test equip- ment: Regular IBM Movers moved from the dock to point of Installation. 4. Sophisticated electronic equipment, delicate furnaces, device manufacturing equipment (I.E.) Epitaxy Equipment, Manufacturing Research Equipment, etc.: Were moved by the regular IBM Movers. Based on these precedents the items of equip- ment, furniture, computers, etc., that are to be installed in Building #330-C will be delivered to the Building # 330-C Shipping and Receiving Room. The items requiring Sheet Metal Workers, Electricians or Plumber/Pipe Fitters will be designated on the Bills of Lading to be shipped to Building #330-C Shipping and Receiving Room. The furniture, computers and equipment in items 1, 3, and 4 will be designated on the Bills of Lading to be moved to point of installation. We have advised our Subcontractors of the way the equipment was handled in Building # 320 and the way the equipment will be shipped to Building # 330-C. After Blount sent the above letter, O'Neil contacted Capone, a representative of the Eastern Conference of Teamsters who suggested a meeting with O'Neil on April 12. During this meeting, which was attended by inter alios O'Neil, Capone, and Theodore Daley, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 445, Daley said that the work of taking equipment from moving vans and delivering it into a building was traditionally the work of teamsters and if teamsters did not receive this work, he (Daley) would shut the job down. The next day, April 13, a truck owned by Roe Moving, Inc., carrying IBM-owned hoods and sinks, which plumbers were to install, arrived at Building 330-C. Chet Davis, vice president of Teamsters, asked O'Neil if teamsters were to unload the truck. O'Neil replied in the negative. During the day Daley called O'Neil on three occasions and stated that if anyone other than Teamsters members unload the Roe truck, the job would be shut down. This truck finally left the jobsite without being unloaded. Again on April 13, a truck belonging to Spiromatic Corp., a common carrier, arrived at Building 330-C with a load of building material consigned to A. Ricci & Bros., Inc., a subcontractor of Blount , who employs sheet metal workers . While these employees were unloading this truck, Teamsters official Daley arrived and stated that sheet metal workers could not go on to the bed of the truck and directed the driver of the truck to leave the dock. The truck returned sometime later and was unloaded by teamsters. On April 14, O'Neil had another conversation with Daley in which Daley stated that Blount had to build a warehouse and unload everything delivered to the IBM jobsites using teamsters. On April 15, a truck belonging to Old Colonial Trucking Co., a common carrier , arrived at Building 330-C with a load of pipe consigned to Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America, a subcontractor of Blount. Michael Tierney, Blount's Teamsters coordi- nator, refused to let the driver of this truck back up to the loading dock while Automatic Sprinkler's fore- man was present. When Automatic's foreman left the dock to arrange for members of Plumbers Local 669 to unload the truck, teamsters unloaded the truck by throwing the pipe on the dock . This resulted in bundles of pipe being broken and their threads being bent and damaged. On April 17, a common carrier delivered to Building 707 a shipment of forms consigned to J. P. Primiano & LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 153 Sons, Inc., a subcontractor on the job . Leo Clark, Blount's Teamsters coordinator for Building 707, refused to allow laborers employed by Primiano to unload the truck . At or around the same time, Clark told Charles Vann , Blount's project manager for Building 707, that unloading of all material was teamster work and that Blount would have to employ additional teamsters to do the unloading of all material delivered to the job. When the president of Primiano protested this action to Clark, Clark stated that teamsters were going to do the unloading on the job or nobody was and that, if any other employees attempted unloading, he would shut the job down. On April 18 , Jerry Ahik, Blount's mechanical and electrical coordinator for Building 330-C, met with Davis and Daley to discuss the current difficulties in unloading trucks. Daley again said that in the unloading and handling of equipment delivered to the jobsite he would require Blount to build a separate warehouse to receive its equipment and that, if teamsters were not given the work of unloading, the job would be halted. On April 20, Davis spoke to Vann , Blount's Building 707 project manager, and stated that teamsters were to unload all material that arrived on the job no matter to whom the material was consigned . Vann stated that members of the other labor organizations involved herein had been unload- ing construction material consigned to their employ- ers in the past and that this is the way unloading would be handled in the future. On April 20, Mechanical Construction Corp., one of Blount's subcontractors , delivered material to Build- ing 707 in one of its own pickup trucks. While Mechanical Construction's employees were unload- ing this truck, Teamsters Coordinator Clark told Mechanical's foreman that teamsters were claiming the work of unloading the construction material delivered in subcontractors' trucks as well as that delivered by common carriers. There were four shipments to Building 707 by common carrier on April 21 which upon arrival forthwith left the jobsite unloaded due to the actions of Teamsters Coordinator Clark. One of these shipments was a hot water heater consigned to Mechanical Construction Corp. Clark refused to allow members of Plumbers Local 201 to get on the bed of the truck and told the truckdriver not to let anyone other than teamsters help in the unloading. Another shipment involved pipe consigned to Me- chanical. Clark stepped up to the driver of this truck, spoke to the driver a short while , and the truck then left the dock unloaded . Similarly, sheet metal workers were not allowed to unload a shipment of fans. The final shipment involved scaffolding consigned to Modern Scaffolding Company. Clark told Vann that he (Clark) would not allow these scaffolds to be unloaded unless the work was performed by team- sters. On May 1, a Petition for Injunction against Teamsters under Section 10(1) of the Act was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. An Order Granting Temporary Injunction issued on May 20. On June 30, Jerry Ahik , Mechanical and Electrical coordinator for Blount on Building 330-C, held a meeting attended by representatives of Carpenters, Plumbers Local 201, and Sheet Metal Workers to discuss the subject of which labor organization's members were to move from the loading dock to the point of installation certain IBM -owned material being delivered to the jobsite by moving van. Ahik stated that IBM had designated certain items of equipment as being delicate in nature and that these items were to be moved from the dock to the point of installation by members of Teamsters employed by various moving companies, in spite of the fact that members of some of the other labor organizations involved in this matter would ultimately perform some work on this equipment. Regarding other equipment which Ahik listed as being nondelicate, this equipment was to be picked up from the loading dock by members of those labor organizations who would perform connecting and other work on the equipment before it was ready for use. In implementing the above-described work assign- ments, William Purcell, Blount's project manager for Building 330-C, was physically present at the loading dock when moving companies delivered IBM-owned equipment to be installed in the building under the fit- up portion of Blount's contract with IBM. Purcell, having general knowledge of which equipment was considered delicate by IBM, and which equipment was not considered delicate and required connecting and other work by members of labor organizations other than Teamsters , directed members of Teamsters employed by moving companies to leave this nondeli- cate equipment on the dock so that it could later be moved inside the building by members of the other labor organizations. On November 12, during a move of IBM-owned equipment by Neptune into Building 330-C, Purcell, who was on the loading dock, directed Neptune's employees to leave a sink on the dock so that plumbers could move it into the building. Ed Nee, foreman for Neptune, said that his orders were to move all equipment into the building and leave nothing on the dock. When questioned by Purcell as to why Neptune was changing the way in which these moves had been handled, Nee said that the decision had been made by higher authorities of Neptune. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Later during November 12, Purcell spoke to Jack Trotta, Nee's superior. Trotta said that all of Neptune's employees are members of Teamsters Local 445 and that he had his orders from Teamsters Local 445 not to leave any of the equipment on the dock. Tierney, Teamsters coordinator, was present during this conversation and said nothing to dispute Trotta's remarks. On November 27, during a move of IBM-owned equipment by Roe, Purcell told Steve Trocan, driver for Roe, to leave certain equipment on the dock so that members of other labor organizations could move it into the building. Trocan told Purcell that he would not leave the equipment on the dock, that teamsters would either move it all into the building or the material would be returned unloaded. Members of Teamsters moved a portion of the shipment into Building 330-C but that equipment which Purcell insisted be left on the dock was placed in the moving van and returned to its origin. On December 7, a truck belonging to Virginia Metal Products Company, a subcontractor of Blount, made a delivery to Building 707. When this truck arrived at the loading dock, Teamsters Coordinator Clark told Virginia Metal Products' superintendent that the truck was not going to be unloaded unless teamsters did the work. At the same time, there was a truck belonging to a common carrier parked at the dock. When Virginia Metal Products' superintendent got on this common carrier truck, Clark told him to get off and said that he (Clark) could not stop members of Carpenters from unloading Virginia Metal Products' truck but that he was going to stop them from unloading common carriers. A short time after this incident, Virginia Metal Products' superintendent spoke to Teamsters Official Davis and said that the unloading of these common carrier trucks was carpenters' work. Davis replied that carpenters would unload these trucks over his (Davis') dead body. On December 8, a shipment of kitchen equipment was delivered to Building 707 by common carrier. A member of Sheet Metal Workers employed by The Sheris Company, a subcontractor of Blount, informed Vann, Blount's project manager, that the driver of the truck was having trouble unloading. Vann asked Teamsters Coordinator Clark if the reason he would not allow the truck to back up to the dock was because the driver was not current in his obligations to Teamsters. Clark replied that this was none of Vann's business. Vann said that members of Sheet Metal Workers and Plumbers Local 201 were going to unload the truck. Thereupon Clark said that nobody but teamsters were going to perform this work. 3 During the hearing, Laborers and Teamsters agreed to a method of resolving their differences regarding the disputed work herein Blount The next day, December 9, another load of material consigned to The Sheris Company arrived at Building 707 by common carrier. Clark refused to allow the driver of this truck to back up to the loading dock. Vann showed Clark a copy of the temporary injunc- tion that had previously issued in this matter. Clark said that that injunction didn't mean a thing. Vann stated that Clark was subject to imprisonment and a fine if he didn't follow the injunction. Clark replied that if Vann touched the truck or laid a hand on it, he (Vann) would not get back to Alabama alive. The truck left the jobsite fully loaded. On January 18, 1971, a load of metal partitions consigned to Blount was delivered to Building 707 in a truck belonging to Virginia Metal Products. Clark asked Vann if he was going to use members of Teamsters to unload this equipment. Vann replied that members of Carpenters would unload the truck as they had done in the past. Clark said that Blount was not going to get the material unloaded if it did not use teamsters. Later during the day, this truck left the jobsite without being unloaded. B. The Work in Dispute This proceeding pertains to the assignment of the following work: 3 (1) At both IBM Buildings 330-C and 707 jobsites, the unloading from the truck to the ground or the dock of all materials and equipment delivered to the jobsites by trucks owned by common carriers or by individual subcontractors. (2) At the IBM Building 330-Cjobsite, the handling and distribution to the point of installation inside the unaccepted portions of the building of all nondelicate equipment, delivered to the jobsite by moving vans, which ultimately required installation by members of labor organizations other than Teamsters. C. The Contentions of the Parties Teamsters contends that it should be awarded the work of unloading and distributing to the point of installation inside Building 330-C of all equipment and material delivered to the jobsite by moving vans regardless of whether or not members of other labor organizations will ultimately perform installation work on the equipment. Teamsters also contends that it should be awarded the work of unloading and handling from the tailgate of the truck to the dock or to the ground of all equipment and materials delivered to both Buildings 707 and 330-C in trucks belonging both to common carriers and to individual subcontractors. agreed to be bound by this arrangement Consequently , we shall make no assignment in this matter relating to Laborers. LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 155 In support of the above contentions, Teamsters argues that: 1. The collective-bargaining agreements between it and both Neptune and Roe require that the disputed work in (2) above be assigned to teamsters. 2. IBM granted to Neptune and Roe the right to assign to their employees the disputed work in (2) above and such assignments were in fact made. 3. Teamsters possess the necessary skills and training to perform the disputed work in both paragraphs (1) and (2) above. 4. Neptune and Roe are satisfied with the work of teamsters in performing the disputed work in (2) above. 5. Industry and area practice, as well as the practice on the two projects involved herein, has been to assign to teamsters the disputed work in both (1) and(2)above. 6. Assignment of the disputed work in (1) and (2) above to teamsters rather than to employees repre- sented by the other labor organizations involved herein is necessary for efficiency and economy of operations. 7. Assignment of the disputed work in (2) above to employees represented by labor organizations other than Teamsters would result in members of Teamsters losing employment. 8. None of the other labor organizations involved herein have been certified by the Board as the bargaining representative for employees performing the disputed work in (2) above, nor has the Board issued an order directing Neptune, Roe, or IBM to bargain with these labor organizations. 9. The supporting Board decision in Local 895, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, AFL-CIO (George A. Fuller Company, Inc., et al.) 4 is indistinguishable from the instant proceeding. Blount contends that it is the employer for the purposes of assigning the disputed work herein. Blount argues that this contention is supported by the contracts concerning Buildings 707 and 330-C to which it is a party with IBM, as well as by IBM's letter to Blount of March 17, supra. Accordingly, Blount states that it assigned some phases of the disputed work to its own employees who are members of labor organizations other than Teamsters and that, similar- ly, Blount's subcontractors, who were delegated such authority through their subcontracts, assigned other phases of the disputed work to their nonteamster employees. Blount contends that the above assignment made by it was in accordance with collective-bargaining agreements between it and labor organizations other than Teamsters and that the assignments made by Blount's subcontractors were likewise in accordance with agreements between them and representatives of their nonteamster employees. Blount argues that these assignments are in accord- ance with the past practice on IBM projects as well as with the past practice in the area. In addition, Blount contends that considerations of efficiency and eco- nomy of operations require assignment of the disput- ed work to employees represented by labor organiza- tions other than Teamsters, and that such employees possess the necessary skills and are given training which makes them particularly suited to perform this work. Blount states that it is satisfied with the work assignments it and its subcontractors have made and that the George A. Fuller case, supra, is factually distinguishable from the instant matters. Both Plumbers Local 201 and Local 669 contend that Blount was the employer for the purpose of assigning the disputed work, that Blount was made the employer for making such assignments by its contracts with IBM and by IBM's letter to Blount of March 17, and that Blount, in turn, delegated authority to its subcontractors to assign the disputed work to their employees. They contend that as a result of these assignments, employees they represent have been performing the disputed work on both IBM projects and that the performance of this work by them is consistent with past practice in the area generally and on IBM projects specifically. Both Plumbers locals argue that this assignment was in accordance with collective-bargaining agreements with the employers on the IBM jobs, including Blount and its subcontractors. They point out that Blount is satisfied with their members' performance of the disputed work, that they possess the necessary skill and training to do the work, and that assignment of this work to them is in the interests of efficiency and economy. Plumbers Local 699 contends that the fact that it is certified by the Board as collective-bargaining repre- sentative for all sprinkler fitters and apprentices employed by members of the National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Association favors it in the assignment of the disputed work. Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America and Mid-Hudson Automatic Sprinkler Company, both of whom are subcontractors of Blount, are members of this association. Like Blount, both Plumbers locals argue that the Fuller case is inapposite to the instant situation. Unlike Blount, however, Plumbers Local 201 con- tends that employees it represents also are capable of moving delicate equipment into Building 330-C that has been delivered by moving companies. Thus, it 4 186 NLRB No. 29 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD argues that employees it represents should be assigned the work of moving this delicate equipment upon which they will perform connecting work. However, Plumbers Local 201 engaged in no proscribed actions in support of this claim. Sheet Metal Workers also contends that Blount is the employer for the purpose of assigning the disputed work and that in making such assignments to sheet metal workers, Blount was following past practice in the area. Moreover, Sheet Metal Workers contends that employees it represents possess the necessary skills and training to perform the work and that assignment to them will promote efficiency and economy of operations. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determination of a 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) has been violated. As indicated above, on April 12, 13, and 18 Teamsters Secretary-Treasurer Daley threatened a work stoppage if teamsters were not assigned the work in dispute. Davis, Teamsters vice president, threat- ened physical violence on December 7. Teamsters Coordinator Clark threatened work stoppages on April 17, 1970, and January 18, 1971, and threatened physical violence on December 9 if teamsters did not perform the disputed work. In addition, Teamsters, through Clark, Teamsters Coordinator Tierney, Davis, Daley, and others, prevented the delivery of equipment to the IBM jobsites on April 13, 15, 17, 21, November 27, December 7, 8, 9, 1970, and January 18, 1971, because the performance of the disputed work had been assigned to employees represented by labor organiza- tions other than Teamsters. We find, therefore, that there is reasonable cause to believe that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have occurred and that the disputes are properly before us for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. In International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410- 11, the Board set forth the following criteria to be considered 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, certifications by the Board, company and industry practice, agree- ments between unions and between employers and unions, awards of arbitrators , 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. We shall set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the disputes herein. 1. The Employer for purposes of assigning the disputed work Teamsters contentions , including its contention that the Fuller case is controlling in these matters, are grounded upon its argument that moving companies are the employers for the purpose of assigning the disputed work in (2) above . We find that argument to be without foundation. An examination of Blount's contracts with IBM, and the IBM letter of March 17, has convinced us that Blount was the employer for the purpose of assigning the disputed work in both ( 1) and (2) above. In addition, Blount's subcontracts with the various subcontractors on these two projects have persuaded us that Blount delegated part of its authority to assign this work to said subcontractors. Thus, while Fuller is distinguishable on several grounds, the fact that in the instant cases, unlike the situation in Fuller, employers other than moving companies had authority to assign the disputed work is sufficient for us to conclude that Fuller does not control here. 2. Company and industry practice Testimony presented at the hearing differed sharply regarding not only past practice in the area but also the practice on the two IBM projects involved herein. Regarding the latter, we are persuaded that the practice on these IBM projects was as indicated in the above portion of this Decision entitled "Background and Facts of the Dispute." That is, when deliveries of construction material were made to the twojobsites in trucks owned by subcontractors, their employees physically got onto the bed of the truck, unloaded the material, and delivered it to the appropriate places on the projects. When deliveries of construction material were made to the two jobsites in trucks owned by common carriers, employees represented by labor organiza- tions other than Teamsters got onto the bed of the truck and handled it in a similar manner . The only exception in this case was that "tailgate" delivery was accepted of certain equipment that was small and light enough for the teamster driver to handle. When IBM-owned material was delivered to Build- ing 330-C by moving van, members of labor organiza- tions other than Teamsters moved into the building LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 157 that nondelicate equipment upon which they were to perform installation work. We make the above findings based on the over- whelming weight of the oral evidence as well as upon certain documentary evidence , including contractors' daily time records which show that Blount was billed by subcontractors for the services performed by their employees in moving equipment delivered by moving vans. Regarding the area past practice, IBM's March 17 letter to Blount , Blount's April 1 letter to all the labor organizations involved herein, contractors' daily time records from previous jobs, and the weight of the evidence, all convince us that the above discussed assignments were made in accordance with the past practice in the area. 3. Collective-bargaining agreements The specificity of the collective-bargaining agree- ments between Blount, Blount's subcontractors, and Carpenters, Plumbers, and Plumbers Local 669 favors the claims of these labor organizations over that of Teamsters whose agreement with Blount does not cover the disputed work . However, as Plumbers Local 201 and Sheet Metal Workers agreements do not appear to cover the work with any more specificity than Teamsters agreements, this factor is not helpful in awarding the work among these three labor organizations. 4. Skill of the employees With respect to the disputed work in (2) above, it appears that employees represented by labor organi- zations other than Teamsters are at least as skilled as teamsters in moving into Building 330-C the nondeli- cate equipment delivered in moving vans. Thus, while employees represented by all the labor organizations involved herein appear to be equally capable of performing this work , Plumbers Local 201 has not proven to our satisfaction that its members possess the necessary training, skill, or equipment to move in delicate equipment such as computers. As mentioned, this work has always been assigned to teamsters at these IBM projects, and the moving in of this delicate equipment is not disputed work nor a part of the assignment herein. With respect to the disputed work in (1), above, the skill and training possessed by employees represented by labor organizations other than Teamsters favor assignment to them over teamsters . Such employees receive extensive classroom and on-the-job training in rigging and off-loading equipment . Moreover, the fact that these employees have experience in working with this equipment enables them to discover shipping damages to equipment such as fans and sprinkler fittings that would not be apparent to the untrained eye. If such internal damage were to go undetected, it might necessitate costly modifications and repairs at a later date. 5. Efficiency and economy of operations With respect to the disputed work in (2) above, considerations of efficiency and economy favor none of the rival groups of employees involved herein. With respect to the disputed work in (1) above, efficiency and economy of operations favor assign- ment to employees represented by labor organizations other than Teamsters. This is true because when deliveries are made to the jobsites either by trucks owned by subcontractors or by common carriers, the drivers of these trucks are not accompanied by helpers. As many of these shipments are too large and heavy for the driver alone to unload, assignment to teamsters would necessitate either the hiring of additional teamsters on a permanent basis, whose sole function would be to wait for deliveries to be made, or the hiring of temporary teamster help. If it proved necessary to follow the latter course, unloading of shipments would be delayed while unemployed teamsters were being located, and it would probably also be necessary to pay these teamsters for their travel time to the jobsite and back again. Conclusions Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors involved, we believe that employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers Local 669, Plumbers Local 201, and Carpenters rather than those represented by Teamsters are entitled to the work in dispute. We rely upon the facts that an assignment to such employees is consistent with the prevailing practice both on these IBM jobs and on similar jobs in the area, that employees represented by these labor organizations possess the requisite skills to perform the work, that such an assignment will result in efficiency and economy of operations, and that the collective-bar- gaining agreements covering employees represented by Carpenters, Plumbers, and Plumbers Local 669 are more specific as respects the disputed work than is the Teamsters agreement. Accordingly, we shall deter- mine the dispute before us by awarding the work in dispute (the unloading from the truck to the ground or the dock of all materials and equipment delivered to Buildings 707 and 330-C by trucks owned by common carriers or by individual subcontractors, and the handling and distribution to the point of installa- tion inside the unaccepted portions of Building 330-C of all nondelicate equipment which ultimately re- 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quires installation by employees represented by labor organizations other than Teamsters) to those employ- ees represented by Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers Local 669, Plumbers Local 201, and Carpenters. In consequence , we also find that Teamsters has not been , and is not now, entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Blount or any of its subcontractors to assign the disputed work to employees it represents. SCOPE OF DETERMINATION Blount, in its brief, points to Teamsters conduct, which allegedly constituted violations of the May 20 temporary injunction , and requests that the Board's award be extended to all future projects throughout Dutchess County, New York. While we agree with Blount that violations of court-ordered injunctions, if proven, are indeed serious and although the Board need not restrict its award to specific jobs if there is evidence that similar disputes on a more widespread scale will occur in the future ,5 we conclude that the evidence here does not warrant a finding extending to all future projects in Dutchess County. Therefore we will limit our award to the IBM projects presently under consideration. 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 the disputes: 1. Employees employed by Blount Brothers Cor- poration and its subcontractors , and represented by Local 38 , Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ- ation, AFL-CIO; Road Local 669, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 201, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local Union No. 203, AFL-C! O, are entitled to perform the disputed work of (1) unloading from the truck to the ground or the dock all materials and equipment delivered to IBM Buildings 707 and 330-C by trucks owned by common carriers or by individual subcon- tractors, and (2) handling and distributing to the point of installation inside the unaccepted portions of Building 330-C all nondelicate equipment which ultimately requires installation by employees repre- sented by labor organizations other than Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. 2. Local 445, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Blount Brothers Corporation , or its subcontractors, to assign the disputed work to employees who are represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes , Local 445, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America , shall notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring Blount Brothers Corporation, or its subcontractors , by means pros- cribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO; Road Local 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 201, United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; or International Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America , Local Union No. 203, AFL-CIO. 5 Building and Construction Trades Council of Las Vegas (Charles Dorfman), 173 NLRB 1339