Carpenters, Local 1229

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Display Workers Local Union No. 1229 and Shepard Decorating Company and Internation- al Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, Local No. 41. Case 10-CD-235 December 20, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 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 a charge by Shepard Decorating Company, herein called the Company, alleging that United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Display Workers Local Union No. 1229, herein called Carpenters, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to assign certain work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, Local No. 41, herein called IATSE. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thaddeus R. Sobieski on August 27 and 31, All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs which have been duly considered. The Carpenters filed a Motion To Quash and a Motion To Stay and Consolidate with Cases 10-CA-8970 and 10-CB-1999. These motions are discussed below. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Company is engaged as a convention and trade show service contractor in Atlanta, Georgia. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Company purchased from firms outside the State of Georgia goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to the Company in Atlanta. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurlsdlc- tion herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IATSE and Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Company is engaged as a contractor in the installation of prefabricated displays and exhibit booths in convention and exhibit halls in Atlanta, Georgia. The instant dispute arose at the Southeast- ern Fair Grounds in Atlanta where the Company was engaged in the installation of displays and exhibit booths for the "Pine Forest Products" show. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Company maintains a warehouse and a shop where its employees receive a variety of products and materials for use in making displays and exhibits. There is no controversy concerning such work. The work in dispute is that which takes place at the exhibit sites away from the shop. The Company has had the practice of assigning the work of handling the displays and exhibits, and the setting up of stages, frames, and display materials for trade shows to stagehands, who are members of IATSE. The installation of prefabri- cated displays includes hanging drapes, laying rugs and carpets, installing and maintaining various fixtures, lights, mechanical and electrical devices, and disassembling exhibits, and repacking and transport- ing them to other locations. The stagehands use screwdrivers, pliers, staple guns, hammers, and mat knives; in connection with their work, they refer to blueprints and layout sketches. In setting up exhibits, stagehands are often called upon to work odd hours, because after one show closes the Company is often required to service another show scheduled to open at another location a few hours later. Since 1965 the Company has serviced about 300 shows and conventions using only stagehands who are members of IATSE. At the time of the hearing, IATSE and the Company had a collective-bargaining agreement requiring the use of members of IATSE to perform the disputed work. In early April 1971, prior to the opening of the "Pine Forest Products" show, the president of the Carpen- ters, Hoyt B. Love, sent to the Company a proposed collective-bargaining contract covering wages, hours, and working conditions for carpenters even though the Company did not employ carpenters to perform 194 NLRB No. 108 CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1229 641 the disputed work. The Company's representative, Charles J. Lynch, contacted Love and was informed by the latter that the Carpenters had been awarded jurisdiction over the disputed work, and that he expected the Company to sign the contract and to use members of the Carpenters in the future. Lynch informed Love that the Company had a collective- bargaining agreement with IATSE and that the Company intended to use members of that union. During a later meeting, Love, according to Lynch, threatened to picket the "Pine Forest Products" trade show if the Company did not use members of the Carpenters. Love denied the threat, although he admitted saying that there was always a possibility that pickets would show up on any job. On April 18, 1971, the Company filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Carpenters alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D). On April 20, 1971, the Carpenters in turn filed unfair labor practice charges against the Company and IATSE, alleging that they had unlawfully entered into a collective-bargaining contract. On April 26 and 27, 1971, the Carpenters picketed the site of the "Pine Forest Products" show, where the Company was performing work. The pickets carried signs stating that the Company and IATSE had entered into a "sweetheart" contract and that the Company discriminated against members of the Carpenters. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the unpacking, assembling, maintaining, and repacking of prefabricated exhibits and/or displays at the "Pine Forest Products" trade shows at the Southeastern Fair Grounds, Atlanta, Georgia. C. Contentions of the Parties The Company and IATSE contend that the disput- ed work belongs to members of IATSE who have historically performed the work, that such employees possess the craft skills and training to do the job, and that the assignment is consistent with area practice. In addition, IATSE contends that the Board's determi- nation should apply to all shows and exhibits within the geographic jurisdiction of the Carpenters. The Carpenters contends that the work in dispute should be awarded to its members because it is work that is usually assigned to carpenters, and they have done this type of work in the past on the local and national level. The Carpenters also contends that this I Local 46, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al (Precrete, Inc.), 140 NLRB 1, 7. 2 Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric Company, Incorporated), 141 NLRB 888, 893 3 N.L.R.B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, proceeding should be quashed because the picketing was in protest of the unfair labor practices allegedly committed by the Company and IATSE and not in furtherance of any jurisdictional claims. The Carpen- ters further contends that this proceeding should be stayed and consolidated with unfair labor practice proceedings in Cases l0-CA--8970 and 10-CB-1999. 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) has been violated. We find no merit in the Carpenters motions to quash this proceeding or to stay and consolidate it with the other unfair labor practice cases. Although the evidence is conflicting as to whether the Carpen- ters threatened to picket the site of the trade show, the record does show that the Carpenters picketed the site for 2 days. We find, under all the circumstances, including the attempt by the Carpenters to obtain the disputed work for its members, that at least one object of the picketing was to force assignment of the work in dispute to carpenters.' Moreover, in a jurisdictional dispute context, the Board is not charged with finding that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has in fact occurred, but only that there is reasonable cause to believe that there was a violation. Without conclusive- ly ruling on the credibility of the testimony as to the threats preceding the picketing, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination.2 We find no merit in the Carpenters motion to stay the present proceeding pending the outcome of Cases 10-CA-8970 and 10-CB-1999, now before a Trial Examiner. The unfair labor practices alleged in these two cases involve the legality of the present collective- bargaining agreement between the Company and IATSE. We find it unnecessary to, and do not, rely on this agreement in making our assignment of the disputed work. Accordingly, there is no necessity for staying the present proceeding. E. Merits, of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to various relevant factors .3 Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases, such as Board certifications, arbitra- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System ], 364 U.S. 573; International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, and jurisdictional awards, have not been developed in the record before us and therefore are not available for our use as an aid in determining the instant dispute. 1. Company and area practice The record shows that since 1965 the Company has serviced more than 300 conventions or trade shows in the Atlanta area. At all of these shows it has hired only stagehand employees who are members of IATSE to perform the work in dispute. The record further shows that about 80 percent of the business of installing displays and exhibits in the Atlanta area was handled by the Company, that 75 percent of the remaining shows were serviced by two other companies, and that all three companies hired employee-members of IATSE to perform the type of work in dispute. Thus, approximately 95 percent of all the disputed work in the Atlanta area has been performed by employees who are members of IATSE. This factor strongly favors the Company's assignment. 2. Economy and efficiency Members of IATSE have performed all of the work in dispute to the Company's satisfaction for many years. They have the skills and experience to perform all aspects of the required work, including painting, electrical work, hanging drapery materials, laying carpet, etc., thus avoiding the need to hire a variety of craftsmen. IATSE also offers a ready source of skilled employees who oftentimes are required to work odd hours to erect displays and exhibit booths. In addition, the Company presented evidence to show that the contract terms offered by the Carpenters, not including wage scales, which are comparable, would of necessity increase its hourly costs in that it would require full 8 hours of pay per employee (even though the job may last 4 hours or less), increased fees for transportation of employees, and extra pay for job stewards. We find that these factors of efficiency and economy also favor the Company's assignment. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute Having considered all pertinent factors present herein, we conclude that employees represented by IATSE are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This award is consistent with the Company's assign- ment, area and industry practice, and promotes efficiency and economy of operation. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional contro- versy by awarding the work of installing, maintaining, and repacking prefabricated exhibits and/or displays to employees represented by IATSE, rather than to employees represented by Carpenters. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees represented by IATSE, but not to that labor organization or its members. F. Scope of the Assignment IATSE requests that the Board determination apply to all future operations of the Company in the Atlanta, Georgia, geographical area, contending that this problem is likely to recur in the future. The evidence before us supports such contention. Accord- ingly, our determination will cover assignment of the disputed work in the Atlanta area where the Company operates and wherever the geographical jurisdiction of the Carpenters and IATSE coincide.4 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 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Dispute: 1. Employees of Shepard Decorating Company who are represented by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, Local No. 41, are entitled to perform the work of installing, maintaining, and repacking fabricated exhibits and/or displays in the Atlanta, Georgia, geographical area. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Display Workers Local Union No. 1229, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Shepard Decorating Company to assign the above work to carpenters represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Display Workers Local Union No. 1229, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring Shepard Decorating Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Carpenters rather than to employees represented by IATSE. 4 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric Company, Incorporated), supra, In 2