Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 420

230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, AFL-CIO and A. J. Cindrich, Inc. and Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CD-428 July 17, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a utility contractor largely but not exclusively engaged in the laying of gas distribution 1 pipelines in western Pennsylvania. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Company pur- chased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from firms outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use within the Commonwealth. 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 jurisdic- tion herein. BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge by A. J. Cindrich, Inc., herein called the Company, alleging , that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Cana- da, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, AFL-CIO, herein called the Steamfitters, had 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 Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers District Council of West- ern Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Daniel Silverman on April 17, 1972. 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, the Laborers and the Steamfitters filed briefs which have been duly considered. 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: ' The work involved here is on gas "distribution" pipelines as distinguished from gas "transmission " pipelines The latter are pipelines running across country from gas wells to gas metering stations for particular locales The former are pipelines running from metering stations to local users. 2 During times of peak demand, Laborers has been unable to supply many western Pennsylvania contractors with an adequate number of gas line welders, since relatively few laborers, approximately 30 out of 6,000, II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Steamfitters and Laborers 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 has been engaged for about 15 years in laying gas distribution pipelines in western Pennsylvania pursuant to contracts with various utilities. During virtually the entire period it has had a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1058 of the Laborers under which laborers have performed virtually all2 the tasks associated with installation of gas distribution pipelines other than the operation of machines to dig ditches, hoist the pipe into place, and so forth, these tasks being performed by members of an equipment operators union. Laborers have per- formed similar work for many other utility contrac- tors in western Pennsylvania. The Company normally lays gas distribution pipelines according to the following procedure. The sections of pipe are trucked to the job by teamsters and then unloaded by a crane operated by an operating engineer; the crane's cables are attached to the pipe by laborers, who then assist in guiding the pipe to the place where it will be laid. The pipe may either be placed at a central distribution point or on skids placed by laborers along the line on which the trench for the pipe will be dug. Laborers using a chalk line establish the line on which the trench is to be dug, and an operating engineer using an excavat- ing machine then digs the trench. If the pipe needs to be bent in order to conform to the line of the trench, it is bent in a bending machine operated by an have the skills needed for that work When Laborers cannot meet the demand for welders, it permits welders from Local 798 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada to do welding, but the work of welder's helpers continues to be performed by laborers Three of the Company's four regular welders were members of both Laborers and Local 798, which is a sister local of Steamfitters, the fourth was a member of Laborers alone 198 NLRB No. 38 PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 420 equipment operator, but is guided through the machine by laborers. The operating engineer deter- mines the precise line of the bend with a transit; he is assisted by two laborers who actually measure and mark the place at which the pipe is to be bent. At this point the laborers begin the preparation of the pipe for welding. All foreign matter is removed from the pipe ends by filing, brushing, or sanding. A "line-up" clamp is then placed around the end of the pipe to which an additional joint is to be welded; this clamp holds the new joint in the proper alignment while the weld is being made. The operating engineer then lifts the new joint of pipe, and a laborer guides it into place in the line-up clamp, being certain to maintain a certain amount of space between the old and new sections of pipe. The insertion of the pipe into the clamp is referred to in the trade as "stabbing." Once the pipe is properly aligned, a welder strikes his arc and makes the weld. The pipe is allowed to cool, the new joint is inspected and perhaps smoothed off by buffing, grinding, or brushing, and then the pipe is painted and wrapped. Once the welding of a sufficient number of lengths of pipe is completed, the trench is backfilled by equipment operated by an operating engineer; laborers also assist in the nonmechanical tasks associated with filling the trench. As part of an effort by the Steamfitters to organize the gas distribution contractors in western Pennsyl- vania, John Fleming, a Steamfitters business repre- sentative, met several times in late 1971 and the first 3 months of 1972 with Ronald Cindrich, the Company's general manager. According to Cindrich, Fleming informed him that "his Union, District 420 was awarded the distribution pipe line work here in Pennsylvania, and that they would be policing the area," and then requested that Cindrich sign the National Distribution Pipeline Agreement, hereafter called the Agreement. - During the conversations between the two Fleming made it plain that Steamfitters was seeking for its members work that the laborers had been perform- ing. When asked "what was the work that you demanded of Mr. Cindrich, as best you can recall?" he answered that it was "exactly what it says on Page 6 [of the Agreement]," which reads, Journeymen and/or apprentice-helpers covered by this Agreement shall perform all work in connection with cutting, bending, fitting, thread- ing, tapping, aligning and making of all joints by any mode or method and, insofar as practicable, the employees covered by this Agreement shall be assigned all other work falling within their jurisdiction. . . . When piping is installed by the use of mechanical joints or a similar type of joint where lengths are progressively installed, the 231 handling of the pipe from the point of distribution to installation and making of joint shall be done by journeymen and/or apprentice-helpers. He went on to explain that the work journeymen and apprentice-helpers would perform would begin once the laborers had placed the pipe on skids next to the trench in which it was to be laid. Steamfitters members "would, once the pipe has been placed on the skids over the ditch, . . . move it into position. They would put the clamp on it, they would strike the [welder's] arc, square the lineup, and do the weld. And in the process of the weld, the apprentice-helper would feed the rods to the welder, he would clean the slag off the weld, until the weld is completed." In the face of Cindrich's continued refusal to sign the Agreement, steamfitters threatened to pull the Local 798 welders off the job, and then began picketing the Company's jobsites. Picketing first occurred in January 1971 at a job located in Washington, Pennsylvania, and resulted in a work stoppage. After that job was completed, picketing was instituted in March 1971 at ajob located in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pickets at both sites carried signs reciting the Company's failure to sign a contract with Steamfitters. During the picketing at the East Pittsburgh job, Fleming and Cindrich had another conversation about the work Steamfitters was claiming, in the course of which, according to Cindnch's uncontradicted testimony, Fleming assert- ed that the work involved in putting the pipe together "on that specific job" was steamfitters' work. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute relates to the lining up, spacing, stabbing, bending, preparing for the weld, and welding of gas distribution pipelines for the Company's various jobsites in western Pennsylvania. C. Contentions of the Parties Although the Company did not file a brief, its testimony at the hearing establishes that it strongly favors assignment of the work in dispute to members of the Laborers, essentially because laborers can do broader categories of work than can steamfitters and thus make it possible for a job to be performed with fewer personnel than would be required if steamfit- ters and laborers had to be used. The Laborers contends that the history of work assignments in the area, the Company's past practice, and the ability of its members to perform the disputed work more efficiently and cheaply than steamfitters require that the work in dispute be awarded to its members. The Steamfitters contends that no jurisdictional dispute within the Act's Section 8(b)(4)(D) exists 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because the threat of work stoppage and the picketing had an exclusively recognitional objective, and because it did not seek assignment of any specific work to it. Alternatively, it argues that the disputed work should be assigned to its members because it has more members possessing the skills necessary to perform the work, area practice sup- ports the assignment to it, and it, unlike the Laborers, has training programs that ensure a continuing supply of persons with the necessary skills. D. Applicability of the Statute Inasmuch as Respondent both threatened the Company with removal of its welders and picketed its jobsites, the parties do not dispute that Respon- dent engaged in conduct within the terms of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The crucial issue in this case is whether, besides its evident objective of obtaining recognition by the Company, an object of Respondent in engaging in such conduct was to force or require the Company to assign particular work to Respondent's members rather than to members of the Laborers. We find reasonable cause to believe that it had such an object. During 1971 Cmdrich and Fleming discussed the specific tasks the Steamfitters members would perform, and Fleming both outlined the work jurisdiction claimed by Steamfitters and made it plain that laborers' work would be limited to tasks not involved with preparing the pipe for welding, such as laying skids, and doping and wrapping the pipe after the weld. There is no question that the work Steamfitters claimed was being done entirely by laborers. Moreover, prior to the picketing of the East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, site, Fleming claimed for steamfitters specific tasks laborers were doing on that job.3 From all the above facts, it is evident that an underlying object of the Steamfitters in having its members picket the Company's Washington and East Pittsburgh jobsites and in threatening to withdraw welders from those sites was to obtain 3 The Steamfitters, in contending that its obj ective was purely recogm- tional , and not proscribed by Sec 8(b)(4)(D), points to the Employer's use of welders who were members of a sister Steamfitters Local as well as of Laborers, and argues that execution of a contract would not have required displacement of these employees Assuming this to be so, we find no merit in this contention, for, as heretofore found, the Steamfitters demand was not limited to the work of welders but included other phases of the disputed work such as cutting, bending, and grinding, all of which are performed by laborers under the Employer's assignment Moreover, it appears that not all welders were members of Local 798 Although, as indicated, three of the Employer's welders were members of a sister local of Respondent and worked as Steamfitters when performing transmission work, they were simply treated by the Employer as laborers when engaged in the distribution work here in dispute 4 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 8 transfer of the work in dispute from members of the Laborers to its own members.4 Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors.5 In this case, there are only three factors favoring assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Steamfitters. The first is that the parent Internationals of the Steamfitters and Labor- ers agreed to an award of the National Pipeline Industry Joint Policy Committee granting the work of "buffing, grinding, filing or brushing" the ends of distribution pipe in preparation for welding or in connection with completing the weld to the Steamfit- ters, and awarded the same tasks when not done in preparation for welding to the Laborers.6 The parties recognize that this is only persuasive authority, since the Company has not agreed to be bound by the award. Its significance here is additionally weakened by the fact that it covers only a small portion of the disputed work. The second and third factors supporting award of the disputed work to employees represented by Steamfitters is that it has approximately 800 mem- bers capable of doing distribution line welding, some 730 more than Laborers has, and it has a training program for welders and welders' helpers. Again, these factors have little significance here, since Laborers has surmounted the problem created by the paucity of welders in its ranks by arranging with Local 798 of the Steamfitters7 to furnish welders to contractors when Laborers cannot do so. This arrangement between Local 798 and Laborers has apparently been highly satisfactory, since a number of contractors in western Pennsylvania have awarded welding and related tasks to members of Laborers. The contractors would have been unlikely to do this (General Ore, Inc), 124 NLRB 626, International Association of Machinists and its Local Lodge No 63 (American Ship Dismantlers, Inc), 157 NLRB 1123, Local 388, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Associated Underground Contractors, Inc), 175 N LRB 540 5 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411 6 Steamfitters also claims that an agreement between its and the Laborers' parent internationals dated May 29, 1949, relating to the jurisdiction of the respective unions over transmission line work favors award of the disputed work to it This is evidently not the case, since an award concerning transmission line work does not illuminate a dispute over distribution line work, with which we are concerned here. 7 See in 2, supra PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 420 had the award of the work to members of Laborers proved unsatisfactory. Steamfitters also contends that area practice supports award of the disputed work to it. The evidence in support of this contention is ambiguous at best. At the hearing Fleming, the Steamfitters business agent, testified that Steamfitters had agree- ments with four or five contractors engaged in laying gas distribution pipelines in western Pennsylvania. Carl Schiulli, a field representative of Laborers, testified that laborers were doing welding for at least one and possibly two of the contractors which Fleming asserted had contracts with Steamfitters. Another Laborers representative, Huston Olden, testified that Laborers did welding for approximately 10 or 15 gas distribution line contractors in western Pennsylvania. Although the exact number of distrib- ution line contractors in western Pennsylvania was not established, this testimony indicates that area practice favors award of the disputed work to Laborers, since at least two and possibly three times as many area contractors award that work to laborers as award it to steamfitters. We do not find the factors favoring award of the disputed work to employees represented by Steamfit- ters sufficiently weighty to justify upsetting the longstanding company8 and area practice of award- ing the disputed work to employees represented by Laborers, especially in view of the facts that Laborers can supply a sufficient number of skilled personnel to do the work and that using members of Laborers is more efficient and economical. Regard- ing the latter point, the evidence in the record clearly established that if the Company signed the Steamfit- ters Agreement, both the steamfitters and the laborers it would subsequently hire would be less useful to it. The Agreement provides that . . . on the installation of services over one and one-half inches (1-1/2") in diameter the Employer shall employ one (1) journeymen and one apprentice-helper . . . . On installations of mains over eight inches (8") in diameter the Employer shall employ one (1) journeyman in addition to each welder, to a maximum of two (2) journey- men. John Fleming, the Steamfitters business agent, testified that apprentices and journeymen-helpers would only be allowed to perform work within Steamfitters jurisdiction. This would mean that under the Agreement steamfitters, while supplanting laborers insofar as their pipe welding functions are concerned, would not entirely eliminate the Compa- ny's need for laborers. They would still be needed to s We agree with the Steamfitters contention that there is no provision in the contract between the Company and the Laborers supporting the 233 assist in placing the pipe on skids, painting and wrapping the pipe, and so forth. Thus, the new effect of signing the Agreement would be that the Compa- ny's laborers would frequently be idle when there would be only welding to be done, while steamfitters would be idle when there would be only nonwelding tasks to be done. The inefficiencies are obvious. In view of the foregoing, we shall determine the dispute by assigning the work in question to employees represented by Laborers. In making this determination, we are not assigning the work to the Laborers or 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 of fact and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Dispute: 1. Employees of A. J. Cindrich, Inc., employed as welders and welders' helpers who are represented by locals of the Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers District Council of Western Pennsylvania , AFL-CIO, rather than employees represented by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Steamfit- ters Local Union No. 420, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of lining up , spacing, stabbing, bending, preparing for the weld, and welding of gas distribution pipelines on the Company's jobs in western Pennsylvania. 2. United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require A. J. Cindrich, Inc., to assign the above work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Cana- da, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring A. J. Cindrich, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by the Laborers. Company's assignment of the work to the Laborers, neither party contends that there is any Board certification relevant to the work in dispute here